Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

You Guys Are Too Much

November 17 2010 at 12:57 PM
Tom Brite  (no login)
from IP address 69.91.18.234

Well, I think it is time for me to move on from reading this site. I think I have finally been overcome with the reality of the total failure of this site in any ability to do any good for the cause of Christ.

Let me set forth the reasons:

First, you have Dr. Crump who takes the time to correct every error of typing or grammar posted by a "liberal" and then he turns around and uses "gotta" in a sentence. Further, his denial of using a curse word at Faithsite is just an out and out lie. (Some may remember that it was finally SE (Mike Dugger) who convinced him to remove his word which no one else had used on the site. It is exactly this type of arrogance and narcissism that has led many congregations (and more are on the way) such as Oak Hills to disassociate themselves, NOT FROM CHRIST, but from many within Churches of Christ. To claim that a congregation that drops "of Christ" from their name means that they have dropped Christ represents uncontrolled ignorance on the part of the one making the claim. I was at Oak Hills when that decision was made and it was a painful decision to some, but one that was made, after countless hours of study and prayer, to overcome prejudices represented by many who have encountered this type arrogance and allowed that to cloud the view they hold of anything associated with the name "Church of Christ."

Next, you have Donnie who chooses to eliminate any "rumor" [... about ...] one of the staunch writers on this site. Then, Donnie turns around and says that Max loves to be called Reverend (a fact which is not true, although I hope that Donnie has spoken to Max about this (like I have) and is not posting "rumors" simply because it is about a "liberal." Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?

I have nothing but respect from Ken and have learned a great deal from his writings. I will continue to read his writings on his site and correspond with him via email when appropriate.



    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 170.141.177.53 on Nov 17, 2010 5:53 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Donnie
(no login)
170.141.177.53

Re: You Guys Are Too Much

November 17 2010, 6:02 PM 

Tom,

We appreciate you stopping by to deliver your message. Just know that it is happy.gifhappy.gif not sinful happy.gifhappy.gif to occasionally "pass in review" and express your views in Christ-like spirit as you normally did/do. [We just might consider this as a special thread open for discussion. We'll see.]

Just a few brief comments here:

Not in defense of anyone, I believe that an educated person would know when an expletive is used as in a quotation or as an illustration. That a child, or even an adult, should have his mouth washed out with soap every time he says "goddamnit!" illustrates the point. Also, while correcting every grammatical error [which CM moderators do not do] may be construed/misconstrued as a type of arrogance among online posters, I do not believe that it "has led many congregations ... to disassociate themselves ... from many within Churches of Christ," as you claim.

With regard to dropping the name "of Christ" as in the case of Oak Hills Church [formerly "of Christ"], I do not think for one moment that any professed Christian believes that that church has dropped Christ or does not preach Christ anymore. Yes, everything you said concerning the decision to change the name is accurate and well-documented -- the stigma, the desire to accept and fellowship openly with members of various religious persuasions, accommodating "the needs" of instrumental music lovers in worship, his diluted perspective on baptism [still clinging somewhat to the Baptist's baptism], etc. But regardless of whatever else is the reason, at the end of the day, the message delivered is that the distinctiveness of the church that Christ established does not [and to the change agent: "should not"] exist; but rather that His church is just "another denomination" and, therefore, "one church or denomination is as good as another.

That Max Lucado has been addressed as "Reverend" or "Pastor" is a fact (a "true" fact). As a guest speaker in some large gathering, the introduction would be as follows: "..., ..., Reverend Max Lucado, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen."

Or, during a "Benediction by Reverend Max Lucado."

A humble, conservative evangelist of the church would humbly and respectfully acknowledge with a "thanks, but no thanks" and explain what he believes the truth says about that.


[... more later]


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 170.141.177.53 on Nov 17, 2010 6:20 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
72.154.251.34

The End of the Subject

November 17 2010, 6:54 PM 

Donnie has already warned us that further, uncivil posts and responses will not be tolerated here from ALL posters. Therefore, I'm not going to get into an "argument" with Tom Brite about "cursing" on this site or any other site. I've already stated my position and all parties know that the quotes I posted at FaithSite were for illustrative purposes only. Those who still insist that such quotes constituted "cursing" on my part evidently turn a blind eye to the FACT that "cursing" is taking the name of God/Jesus in vain, which I did not do. Those quotes were VULGAR and originated with others, not with me. They were posted to shock readers into seeing just how low some "Christians" will behave when they disagree with others. Now if perhaps people who feign being "overly sensitive" conveniently take the FaithSite post as an opportunity to smear me, they do so only because they disagree with my theological views and resort to low tactics to make themselves appear "righteous." Now as far as I am concerned, that's the END of this subject.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.146.141.12

Spelling and Grammar

November 18 2010, 12:17 AM 

Since correcting spelling and grammar was mentioned, I do not see why people often behave like rabid dogs when anyone corrects their spelling and grammar on message boards. Those people go ballistic. Is it because they are EMBARRASSED to be corrected and they react with anger, or, if it's on a board like CM, is it because their theological views are usually at odds with the one who corrects them, and they they seek retaliation through smear tactics?

Although I don't read every post on this site, I will continue to correct spelling and grammatical errors IF I see them, and I will continue to encourage posters in error to use their dictionaries (printed or online). Although it's Donnie's call about what is posted here, shall we teach the Gospel and warn about the change agents, yet not teach good English and allow people's abysmal communication skills to "thrive"? I hardly think that people will run in terror from the Church of Christ as such because someone corrects their poor English, unless they are really shallow and have no desire whatsoever to learn the Truth.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(no login)
170.141.177.53

Re: Spelling and Grammar

November 18 2010, 11:59 AM 

I think we all agree that communications skills, spelling and grammar should be an ongoing learning process in life. Needless to say that it's human nature, generally speaking, to be embarrassed, be defensive and react negatively to the person who brings up the correction.

Yes, I agree that the mouse clicking can very quickly direct anyone (esp. one with the old-timer's sad.gif disease -- [and I'm too lazy to check the correct spelling sad.gif of the disease]) to an online dictionary, Google and other online resources for correct spelling and grammar without being embarrassed and insulted. I personally use online resources frequently.

Would you initiate a thread on spelling and grammar that we can use as a quick reference tool here at CM? We can keep this as an ongoing learning tool. We can direct ALL of our observations, without mentioning names, to this specific thread so as not to deter the "flow" of responses.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
72.154.222.67

Re: Spelling and Grammar

November 18 2010, 12:48 PM 

Donnie, thanks for the invitation to start a special thread devoted to spelling and grammar--and punctuation as well. I will work on that right away.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
67.142.130.13

request

November 18 2010, 1:19 PM 

You still haven''t solved my problem with was and were.

If I were you I would....

Of is it

If I was you I would...

still unclear to me. Thanks.

 
 Respond to this message   
Roncar
(no login)
98.81.51.154

typographical errors

November 18 2010, 1:40 PM 

Dr. Crump,

Will your program check for typo's as well? There is no excuse for typo's these days. A typo is a misspelled word and should be flagged by the spell checker. Right Bill?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.149.157.176

Re: typographical errors

November 18 2010, 3:09 PM 

It's not a software "program," it's simply a thread where people can post English errors and appropriate corrections and references. The thread is titled "Spelling, Grammar, and Punctuation." Most PC word-processing programs have a spell check, so posters are advised to use that and then proofread their messages before posting them at CM.

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

Re: typographical errors

November 18 2010, 3:52 PM 

I have two questions.../qerwufbds 1. Does this mean that now the super-hyper-ultra-conservatives in the Church of Christ are LITERALLY emphasizing crossing every t and dotting every i? afdudmfxz and 2. Does this mean that if a person mipel some words every time that every time they will be corrected?

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(no login)
170.141.177.53

Re: typographical errors

November 18 2010, 4:25 PM 

Grate [oops!] questions!!!

1. No, but we still maintain that: "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent when the Bible is silent." No, it's not for one whose grammar is flawless.

2. I think that if one mipels a word more than 70 times 7, we leave him alone.

happy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

Re: typographical errors

November 19 2010, 11:31 AM 

I could not resist poking a little fun over this. Nice response D.C. I'm glad you saw the humor and responded with the same.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
70.157.38.108

Re: typographical errors

November 18 2010, 6:17 PM 

Fred wrote out two bunches of letters: "qerwufbds" and "afdudmfxz." Now I have a question:

Was that Fred's way of "speaking in tongues"? happy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gifhappy.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Fred Whaley
(no login)
173.162.22.85

have A good one

November 19 2010, 11:36 AM 

Mr. Crump, akd rtqirutriutwreit u vmzcnv .,mcfnvruoi rt jr k

and

To all, fadfkads ffgas eriuqeoriuwqt cv.jnv fcmnfit rithr h trej thr ngfitrtn r grihriguytj

I thought about leaving it at that but it would not be scriptural - edifying so here is the interpretation.

Mr. Crump,
"I liked your joke about the tongue-speaking as I wuz just doing the same and having a little fun with you gents over the vigilance over gwammatical correctness. Humor is definitely NOT toxic and can even be healthy for a chuch."

and

To all,
"Hope you gents have a good one this weekend and don't disfellowship me from this site but this Church of Christ boy is going with his family to Chattanooga this weekend to the Gaither concert."

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."

 
 Respond to this message   
Sonny Elliot
(no login)
99.186.93.107

Brother Brite

November 18 2010, 6:27 PM 

Brother Brite,

You make a strong statement when you say this site has not accomplished anything for Christ. I know my defense of this site would be that "if" both "rumors" were true, that it is a far more serious sin to allow someone to call you reverend than to commit the other act because with the reverend title we are now dealing with matters of sacredness, pride, idolatry and setting oneself on a pedastal next to God himself. This site has not and will not tolerate a person being called pastor or reverend. However, on possible sins of infidelity those are not as grievous to God or as consequential to man, neither to families or churches. Therefore, I defend this site for its consistent and conservative stance on the issues.

-Sonny Elliot

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
170.141.177.53

Defending the "conservative stance"

November 18 2010, 7:49 PM 

Brother Elliot,

I think this is a very interesting observation on my part: whatever works, go for it. I believe that your latest strategy is what's generally referred to as "reverse psychology." Get real, bro.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
69.59.112.185

Which Side are You On?

November 19 2010, 2:24 AM 

Sonny,
In no small retort.....this site is evil. This site promotes traditions that it prefers and slanders the traditions that go against their preferred traditions.....even though neither the contemporary or traditional are unScriptural. They are different ways ONLY in worshiping our Lord.
They abuse the already Perfect written Word of God.


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
99.177.249.211

Re: Which Side are You On?

November 19 2010, 2:40 AM 

Dave,

Let's let Sonny speak for himself.

But if you read carefully some of his latest posts, you can know that he is still a liberal/progressive like you. As I mentioned earlier, he is resorting to "reverse psychology" for a reason. You'll have to figure that out for yourself. Re-read his message to brother Brite. He was being facetious. No, he is not a conservative. Oh, I can't help it -- he is "a liberal in a conservative's clothing." happy.gif

But I'll give him a lot of credit for his communication skills.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(no login)
170.141.177.53

You Guys Are Too Much: Being Distracted By a Solo

November 18 2010, 7:39 PM 

Tom Brite's reaction to my being "distracted by a solo":
Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?


RESPONSE: It's common knowledge in the religious world that the church of Christ does not operate or rely on mechanical music in its public assemblies; that it is devoid of choirs and solos that are common among denominational churches. I personally believe that solos are rendered in concerts and other secular programs, in religious concerts -- in which cases I would probably applaud after every performance. I also happen to believe that cheerleading, which includes handclapping and/or body gyrations and other movements, belongs in sports events and other secular activities -- but not in moments where the saints gather for worship to God in awe and reverence. I am not advocating that the solo itself or that "rhythmic clapping for the Lord" [a.k.a. "rehearsed, programmed joy"] while singing is wrong or sinful. However, there are those who are concerned about how performances may affect other saints gathered for worship.

With regard to the "distraction" that you referenced, [you did not mention that] it occurred during the observance of the Lord's Supper. Maybe, your faith is stronger than mine, but I couldn't help being overwhelmed at the time by a very beautiful soprano singing voice -- that's where I just lost it: rather than focusing on the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of the Lord Jesus. [To me it would be a question of: "the end result justifying the personal objective of the soloist 'to serve the Lord' in that capacity."]

Is the solo necessary? No, it is not. Is the solo itself a sin? I don't think so. Can a solo be a performance? Yes, it can be. Is solo performance sinful? Maybe; maybe not -- depending on its effects on those in the assembly. Is singing a solo controversial in the church of Christ. Generally, yes. Why? Because it's not the normal practice in the church [uh-oh, see, I told you so, that it is a man-made tradition in the hypocritical church of Christ], while it is common practice in other religious faiths.

[We can generate more questions besides those.] But since solo is not necessary but is more likely controversial in the church, why change or transform the church from a no-solo to a solo activity?

Remember that just because the time slot at 10:30 has been designated by the elders as the "contemporary worship hour-and-a-half service," it should not lead you to believe that there is only a handful of "traditional" folks in the assembly. Perhaps, the "boiling the frog" [the gradual transformation] story or principle has been working very well at Madison, as in the gradual acceptance of the solo performances not hurting anyone, right? And, by the way, there had not been any male or female soloist from the "Praise Team" assigned to perform for a long time during the "frog-boiling" period until such a period was over. Then started the concept of having a female soprano soloist (a.k.a. a female co-worship leader) doing her thing.

Does anyone ever wonder whether or not it is a performance issue when a [male or] female soloist does her thing while the congregation shuts up to listen to a beautiful and distinctively female voice?

Let us not forget that the advent of Keith Lancaster and his "Praise Team" worship program was a major factor that caused division not only among the elders but also among the regular members.

As far as membership goes, I am convinced that this is of great importance -- that my name is "in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:15).

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning "that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site." Now, I'll agree with you if Jimmy and others have indicated to you their feelings with regard to this matter.

Anyway, Tom, we appreciate you passing thru. We'll welcome you every time you decide to visit.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
72.154.222.11

Re: You Guys Are Too Much: Being Distracted By a Solo

November 18 2010, 8:19 PM 

Donnie quoted Tom, who said, "Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site."

Who are some other conservatives who no longer post here? Although Mike Dugger posted at FaithSite, I don't recall if he ever posted here.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter