Sometimes, it’s just time to say hasta manana, dude.

Stop co-opting Christ into defending your behavior. Your last comment has been marked as Spam, will not appear here, and any future comments of yours that do not come into my Spam filter will be deleted.

Why? Because you continue to be confrontational and defend this behavior even after the urging of me and others here to stop it; additionally, you camped out on the Polity page to pick theological fights (not debates) in an unproductive way; you backhanded Ellie with a smart-aleck and sarcastic comment; you essentially ignored Irv’s patient exhortation; you disrespected me and PD as the blog’s moderators; your persisted in going from Dan to Beersheba in defending your behavior, and all of this cheapens the meaning and purpose of this blog. Please, set up your own blog and debate to your heart’s content.

…and that’s well into strike three, and you’re done.

–pk

You have a way of provoking your brothers and sisters in Christ that is not healthy. The onus is on you not only to apologize, but to stop taking parting shots when you do. This ends up being no apology at all. As long as you continue to do this publicly, I, as the moderator of this blog, will deal with you publicly. While Christ’s formula in forgiveness is 7×70, in no way does forgiveness give you license to be unaccountable for your ongoing reactionary, provocative treatment of anyone here.

You need to re-read Irv’s post again and take it to heart.

You’re at strike 2.

–pk

______ this does not seem the right place for doctrinal debates. It is a place for the hurting, the wounded, and the disillusioned with respects to their experience with PDI/SGM to share their story, receive input and encouragement and healing through the ministry of saints.

Debating doctrine for the sake of debating is not only out of place here but would not provide any edification to the part of the body looking for answers, healing and restoration.

Personally, I do appreciate your desire to discuss doctrine. However, I am pretty sure that you are pretty well settled on what you believe and want to extend those beliefs to others rather than debate. A debate would imply looking for answers rather than just given your answers to others. Really not much sense in debating when your mind is already made up and you are looking to convince others that you are ‘right’. It might be more appropriate for you to open your own web page and invite those who would like to debate you rather than use another man’s ministry to build your own.

But that’s just me.

I made myself very clear here: August 23, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Out of the last twelve posts on this Polity page, ten are yours, and the last one is especially provocative, like you want a fight.  I can respect a theological debate.  What I don’t respect is camping out on a page and baiting people into arguments, which is what you have done in the past here and it’s what you’re doing now.

You’re under new management on this blog, and you are at strike 1.

–pk

I’d like for the dust to settle in the transition here–not sure for how long, I have no timetable yet–before the posting of pages specifically dedicated to the purpose of major theological debates.

I appreciate your desire to discuss these things, and while many have particular positions, I want to avoid individuals claiming to have the final word on theological matters.

The presentation of viewpoints is fine, but I often find folks getting dogmatic over peripheral theology, or that type of theology that is not soul-binding, i.e. necessary to believe for salvation.

But don’t worry, theology is coming.  And for everyone who has an allergy to that word, please remember that the nanosecond you begin to discuss Who Christ is, you just dove head first into the world of theology.

The abuse experienced in theological discussions is not a reason to end theological discussions.  I’ll adopt Jim’s rules (be nice, and men, be nice particulalrly to the ladies, your sisters in Christ) and I’m sure I’ll have to develop a few of my own, but I think a general decorum of mutual respect and love for each other as Christians is in order.

I hope this is understandable to everybody.

Thanks,

–pk

You used the term “Gentile Church.” There is no need for the adjective “Gentile” when referring to The Church. The Church is neither Gentile nor Jewish, but rather, made up of both Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Jesus the Messiah. “There is neither Jew nor Greek…” Jews who believe in Jesus the Messiah remain Jewish, as Gentiles remain Gentile, however they both now enter into the presence of God through the same Gate: the blood of the Lamb. The early Church was made up of many Jewish believers (as it is today). [And there remains a spiritual reason for this true Remnant of believing Jews, of which I am one.]

Your point, I believe, was to distinguish between the practices and customs of the Jewish religious leaders and population of the time and New Covenant practices which the Lord ordained for the Church.

A few other things to keep in mind while mulling over this topic of leadership:

1. God never wanted the Hebrew/Jewish nation to have an established King/Leader. He wanted that role. But He allowed Israel to have an earthly king because of the hardness and stubbornness of their sin. In many cases, the king ended up being a curse to the Nation, leading the people into sin, sin for which they all paid a high price.

2. Jeremiah 31:31ff says that the New Covenant will be unlike the Old . While God set up a system of priests and high priests, separation and sacrifices, Feasts and commandments in the Old Covenant (The Law of Moses), the New Covenant would be something quite different. The New Covenant would be a completely new way of relating to God. There is no provision in the New Covenant for a man-ordained leader or hierarchy, for God holds that role in the believer’s heart and each one of us in a priest, with Jesus as our High Priest.

Jeremiah 31 defines the New Covenant:
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Thank you for allowing me my scab-picking. Great discussion!

He helped the cadets with their equipment.  He showed them how to do things when they had trouble understanding.  By the end of the day, his serving and knowledge gave the cadets confidence to elect him.  He wasn’t “appointed” a leader.  He WAS a leader.  All the students understood this before they even knew his name because he served and led by example.  They had confidence in him just by observing his unspoken but clearly evident leadership qualities. My daughter remarked that she thought he was one of the instructors when she first met him.

I love when Peter told the church to choose men “filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit” who could serve the saints to free the disciples to teach more.  HE didn’t do the choosing.  Obviously, he had confidence in the people to know who was all ready serving by example, walking with God in obvious closeness.  Just a thought…

A leader is not developed in the walls of academia (academia means ”of no earthly good’) or because you grow up in the right family, or because someone thinks they are.  A leader is developed by the Holy Spirit through the circumstances of life as he is called by God to serve. Credentials are to affirm not create or appoint a leader.

Paul sent a letter with Timothy to give him ‘creditials’ as a proven servant/leader to the church. For me it is about function not title — in many streams of Christianity it is about title and position; and leadership is about authority not servanthood. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature with God and with men. Jesus came to serve not to be served.

SGM and others have used this passage to control and manipulate people not for its intended purpose.

I like the tour guide example – a tour guide does have some authority as to where the tour group goes — LOL — I don’t think there is a disagreement with each other.

Stunned – Very good observation —

The word account is actually the word “logos” which has three applications: speech (word, statement,discourse, doctrine, narrative,discussion), mind (reason, account), or the essentional word of God- Jesus Christ.

In this particular passage, I believe it is used in the context of  to give an account; a reckoning or keeping score. It doesn’t state specifically to whom they will give an account. I believe you can make the case there will be an accounting to the Lord which has eternal consequences. I also believe the case could be made that there is an accounting or accountability to those whom they are serving. I will also throw in a third case which as to do with personal accounting or responsibility, because Paul appeals the people pray for ‘us’ the leaders – that they have a clear conscience and they conduct themselves honorably in all things.

I had not even thought about this passage any other way until today – Thanks for the question!!

If this is political leaders (social police and the like), then I would imagine that those leaders would give account to their leaders for any public chaos (riots and the like).   Sort of like governors give account to the king, etc.?

To give an account to the Lord is not about how people obeyed the shepherds or how the shepherds enforce the law but how the shepherds love and care for God’s people in a similar way in which the Great Shepherd cares for us.  

I will not give an account to the Lord as to how my children obey(ed) me or the those who I shepherd obey(ed) me but I will give an account of how I have interacted with them, how I care for them, how I love them with kindness, how forgiving I am, how gracious I am, etc. etc.

Paul also says in the same breath — “pray for us: that we (leaders) keep a good conscience, and in all things willing to live honestly (or conduct ourselves honorably in all things). After Paul talks about the relationship between the flock and the leaders; he charges himself in a way that I don’t hear the SGM leaders speaking about themselves. What I do see is they deflect their problems, sins and weaknesses to the flock.  

My understanding of this passage - Paul is talking about a keeping good and healthy relationships between leaders and the church. This is a relational application not a contractual or legal position of assigned authority to rule over our lives and us obey and submitting to leaders.

Paul then puts it all in perspective in verse 20 — that Jesus is the ultimate Shepherd and in all things it is about bring Him glory or being the representation of His glory in the earth. He is the authority in our lives.

For what it is worth —

http://www.searchgodsword.org/.....umber=2233

(matt 10:16)

If you are reading this, re-read the Polity article.  I am begging you for change.  There are many who need solid hope for both drastic and lasting change within SGM, if we are to thrive and grow together.

We need change, and we need it now.

In Christ because of Christ,

–John