If invited to speak at a church...

I am familiar with Middletown church because I use their website frequently. They are not KJV only, but ask that their members use it while at church so that everyone is learning from the same version. But they have no problem with other versions.

I can understand the questions they ask because too many times a visiting preacher will teach things contrary to the doctrines of the church and it's too late to do anything about once they have the pulpit.

 

The questionnaire seems to have a lot of loaded questions where I don't really understand what they really mean by their questions. For instance, what is "the neo-evangelical position or philosophy?"

If I were invited to stand in the pulpit of this congregation and then received this questionnaire, I would contact a representative of the church and carefully go through each of the questions with them to give fuller answers than just a "YES" or "NO."

They deserve to have their questions answered, fully and honestly, and I deserve to get a fair hearing beyond a simple YES/NO quiz full of theological shibboleths that may have little to do with one's actual faith and practice. A former close friend of mine would probably pass this quiz with flying colors but is, in my opinion, an abusive and manipulative spiritual bully who seems to have no trouble making the worst assumptions of others that don't share his opinions (whatever they happen to be that day) and then pass on these assumptions as verified fact to others.

Of course, I don't think they would want me since I probably don't pass muster on the movie/theater question, among many others. It reminds me of the condemnation I and other members of the public received from a local "Baptist" church when we were buying tickets to see "Finding Nemo" at one of the downtown theaters. We were assured (at high volume) that we were all going to "burn in hell" for our actions.

 

How funny. You compare me with the Pharisee in Luke 18, then turn around and judge these people and you get it all wrong. Apparently, according to someone who actually knows what is going on with that particular congregation, they aren't KJV only. But don't let that stop anyone (myself included) from jumping to conclusions while lacking information.

My point was not that I was better than anyone - I'm not. My point was that it is hypocritical to call these people Pharisees when they haven't broken any scriptural rules and you have no scripture from which to correct them. Furthermore, most people in this thread, myself included, have little knowledge of them. The Pharisees were legalists - they enforced rules with no scriptural backing. These people aren't telling you what you can't and can't do. Rather, it is posters in this thread who have judged them wrongfully and harshly based on this form they have. That's hypocrisy.

People love to throw around the Pharisee label when they see something they don't like. It is used wrongly too many times and usually when someone uses it the person is being hypocritical.

 

Did I call them Pharisees while you were naming people on this thread hypocrites? So in what you say, using the word Pharisee is the same as being named hypocritical. I see, so you called persons on here both.

If they demand you only use the KJV, then they are KJVO, perhaps not to the extreme side. No matter what else they say, they demand you use it. That equals KJVO.

I've never judged anyone. Their church is not pure in the sense that me being a sinner and going there would make it not so. In other words, the church is not pure. Maybe distinct, but definitely not pure. You missed my point entirely. Your naming others hypocrites while comparing yourself is certainly Luke 18ish and definitely 1 Cor. 10:12 or folly in practice.

 

The Elders of any church have a responsibility to know what will be preached by those who stand in the pulpit. I have no problem with a form like this; in fact, I think that it is a great idea if you are going to allow speakers who you do not personally know. While we might not agree with the content of this particular form, I doubt we fail to see the usefulness of something like this. It strikes me that this form may be made for those who stop by the church asking for speaking opportunities.

 

I came out of that nonsense. You are absolutely correct. If they want to have those distinctives, fine, but that in no way makes them pure. That is the reasoning behind my initial post.

As far as I am concerned, as soon as I go in there, the church is no longer pure. Maybe some will get my point instead of judging.

BTW, if I obeyed everything on that list, would it make me a Christian?

 

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. You are still comparing me to Luke 18 when I have said that I have done the same thing in the past and am tempted to today. I am not one bit better than anyone else here. Still, if I see something wrong going on I am going to point it out. If that hurts your feelings, too bad, but don't throw out the Luke 18 label when it isn't warranted. I never compared myself to anyone and made myself look favorable. That's what the Pharisee in Luke 18 did.

Now, I called posters hypocrits based on this fact (I'll spell it out again even though I already have): some posters in this thread called this congregation a bunch of Pharisees when the congregation broke no scriptural rules and the posters had no scripture from which to correct them. In other words, they called the congregation Pharisees while acting like Pharisees. A Pharisee enforced rules not found anywhere in the bible. For example, they complained to Christ because His disciples ate without washing their hands. The Pharisees had rules handed down by tradition that said that eating without washing your hands would defile you. They had no scripture for this, but still tried to lay this burden on people. That is being a Pharisee. These Christians aren't breaking any rules and I have no scripture to correct them, thus I cannot try to correct them, condemn their activity in that area, or call them legalists or Pharisees. If I did so, I'd be a hypocrite.

Finally, Amy G. posted the following:

They haven't demanded anything. They ask that their members use it while at church for the reason of uniformity while at church. In other words, they are trying to avoid the confusion of having many different english translations being used in the worship service. That is their right and it does not make them KJV Only. Again, I have no right to condemn this practice because I have no scripture to back me up.

We as Christians do not need to be rashly judging anyone. But I can't say that because by including myself in such an admonition I am making myself better than everyone else, right?

 

Does anyone else find it unusual that they have so many "traveling preachers" coming to their church that they need to have a form to deal with them? :laugh:

 

How are they judging you? I'd like to know.

Apparently? Do you know if that is their rule or are you just guessing? Again, I'd like to know.

It gets people upset when we find things we don't really agree with. I've known Christians to get upset because some Christians homeschool. The reason they got upset was based on their perception of the attitude of the homeschoolers. Reality, however, was that the homeschoolers had nothing against the public school system and didn't think any less of anyone sending their kids there, they simply preferred to homeschool.

 

RAdam is the only one justified to call names according to himself.

Luke18ish and 1 Cor. 10:12 folly.

Hang it up. You obviously can't see yourself for that 2 x 4.

 

My dh got a form like this while candidating for a church. They even asked his height and weight and if he or I were in anything other than "good health."

We pitched the form in the trash and crossed that church off the list.

 

What is going on lately on this board????? It seems like everybody stays in attack mode!

If a church wants to make a questionnaire for their potential speakers, so what????? They are not the devil. Why don't we fight him instead?


Good grief!

 

Sure, I'd preach there. I've preached in far worse places than that. To those who say "no way", yeah, they might look a little out there, but isn't that all the more reason to go and preach to them?

But I think the real question would be, would they have me? I think my answer on # 7-8 might disqualify me.

I don't smoke or chew (or run around with them that do....sorry, I'm dating myself), but I do go to the occasional movie, listen to that evil rock music (although, at the moment, I'm listening to Shai Linne give a blistering condemnation of sin and presentation of the Gospel using the hippity hop music the kids listen to...I wonder if these folks would find that a conundrum), and dance (if you can call it dancing).

As for Billy Graham and CCC (that's Campus Crusade, not the Catholic Catechism), I'm torn. There is a lot of good in those ministries, but also a lot of things I find troubling about them. I don't mean to sound cruel, but I think right now, Billy's getting a bit of a free ride because of his age and physical condition. I try to cut him a little slack because of all of his years of faithfully preaching the Gospel, but he's become very liberal over the years and I can't agree with many of the ecumenical things he's been involved in.

My prayer for Billy is that he have the good sense to stop before he destroys a brilliant legacy altogether.

But I digress.

 

Yeah, that's an odd question for a church to ask. My guess is that the church's lawyer wrote the questionare anticipating liability issues.

No way to run a church or choose a pastor, but that's the crazy world we live in today.

 

I don't even know what half of that stuff means.

 

I have had missionaries and preachers ask for pulpit access. This might be ths churches way of "officially" dealing with the ones they do not want to give such access to.

 

They forgot to ask whether you prefer ketchup or mayo on your burger.