Comments for BLOG: Not welcome here at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.pres-outlook.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:09:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4473 I am appalled at the treatment you received. I would have appreciated your take on the meeting. What a loss! - chuck miller Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:59:54 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4471 Somewhere I read... "let what is done in secret be done in the light," or something like that. Hmmm wonder where that might have been? These kinds of actions by people who feed on a steady diet of the Layman and it's constantly negative, divisive, legalistic tripe continue to keep controversy and division alive and well. Who benefits from division? Who benefits from exclusion? Who benefits from controversy? It sure as heck isn't the VAST MAJORITY of faithful Christians trying to find their way as part of the congregations in the PC (USA). If I had to guess, the people that benefit from constantly creating divisive and exclusive moments are folks like Williamson, the sad, angry people at the Layman and now apparently this group who is advocating for renewal. Get a life. The average person in the pew doesn't give two figs about this silly stuff that we spend valuable resources, time and energy fighting over when we could be out in the world joining God in God's work. Something tells me that in the great big velvet painting of everything, God doesn't give two figs about our self-imposed doctrinal squabbles either. What might that be? Oh yeah, Scripture: Walk humbly, do justice, act with mercy, make disciples, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul mind and strength and don't make the rules and regulations so heavy that no one can bear them and then not lift a finger to help. Jesus said that last part, I can't claim it. - Rev. Leon Bloder Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:54:02 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4468 Welcome to church. Then again, maybe you're not. Oh that's right, you aren't. Sorry. Well, not really. - Dr. John W. Mann Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:36:48 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4467 Looking at the ACR Website, I don't see the open invitation language Jack referred to. At what point did they modify the invitation to the meeting? Could it have been in response to Jack's desire to attend? I don't believe the ACR's public actions in this case sends a very good message concerning their behind-the-scenes activities. - Art Woodling Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:47:37 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4464 Sadly, I have to side with the ACR on this one. There are many conservative/evangelical pastors who face heart-rending struggles to remain in our denomination. They deserve a closed forum in which to discuss their pain and not have their comments plastered all over your website. - Nathan Lamb Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:15:40 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4462 If I am not mistaken, the rationale given for closed meetings of PUP was so that people could share openly and honestly, without having whatever they said picked apart mercilessly because it was reported by the press (a press typically focused on soundbites and reductionistic summaries and not on one's statements in context). Not to mention that some people probably said things in those meetings that potentially opened them up to various forms of retaliation or even prosecution in church courts; this was a grace extended for the benefit of the discussions taking place there. The right of freedom of association for an entity not receiving our money extends to deciding when their meetings are closed to the press, and when they are not. Freedom of association has as its inherent, implicit, negative right the right to not associate with someone or some entity. Might there be issues which the members of ACR need to discuss that would be harmed by the press reporting on the conversation? Can you not think of any? If someone wanted to talk about the rationale for staying or leaving the denomination, and wanted to have a rationale discussion of the pros and cons and the strategies for a way forward, can you not see how such a conversation could be hampered by the press reporting on it before official decisions have been reached by the group? Should ACR have to telegraph its every future move to its ideological and theological adversaries, or open up its members to potential retaliatory targeting by denominational officials or groups on the opposing side of the spectrum? I even tend to defend some ACSWP's process on the closed door/open door issue: Let's argue about position papers once they are written; we don't need to know every detail of every conversation that went into writing that paper. In fact, it's harmful to the church to have this information prematurely. I could care less about what went into the soup, but I want to know what the soup is, and I reserve the right to say whether I think it is a good soup or a bad one, and whether it needs more salt. - Rev. Wayne Barrett Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:56:12 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4460 Mr. Haberer, Whatever work for renewal that you have done in the past has been negated by your participation in and support of the PUP Report which has caused much pain and havoc within our denomination. With your "secret" PUP meetings, you approved of and supported a report that is contrary to God's Word and which goes against over 2,000 years of church doctrine which clearly deems homosexuality as an unacceptable human expression of sexuality. Indeed, your article is indeed a case of the "pot calling the kettle black." Your work of renewal ended when you, along with Mark Achtemeier and Mike Loudon, caved in to the radical left of our denomination. Shame on you! - virginia parrish Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:53:33 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4459 It seems to me that Jack Haberer's criticisms of the closed sessions of the ACR are a "day late and a dollar short," given Mr. Haberer's own participation in the PUP Task Force, and their closed meetings. Closed meetings, right or wrong, effectively have become part of the culture of the mainline, and especially the PC(USA) (I think, right off hand, not only of the PUPTF, but also the National Network of Presbyterian College Women, among others). Mr. Haberer has contributed to this culture of secrecy. Is this not a case of the pot calling to kettle black? In addition, there are, however, a couple of issues that Mr. Haberer does not face. 1) Were any of his offering dollars going to the organization who barred him from coming? I think not. The ACR does not get its funding from the PC(USA), nor from the offering plates of Presbyterian congregations. 2) Was Mr. Haberer desiring to attend the meeting as a committed Renewalist? It would not appear so, but rather as a member of the press, and the editor of a journal that many of us believe has a liberal bias, even if it does from time to time open its pages to others. - Walter L Taylor Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:44:08 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4458 Jack: I agree with Bill Lancaster that this was a missed opportunity for the ACR to get out some information about their work. I believe you would have written a fair article. I also agree that the reasons given for closing the meeting to the press sound like the justifications given by denominational entities for closing their meetings to the press. Perhaps the ACR did not intend for the meeting to be open. I can understand that. But in that case, I would not have put a notice of the meeting on my organization's website. - John Erthein Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:41:10 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.com/insights-opinions/blog/BLOG-Not-welcome-here.html#comment-4457 Jack, I agree that the Association for Church Renewal meeting should not have been closed to the press. Closing it merely raises suspicion about what they intend to do behind closed doors. Also clear is that they do know you or The Outlook. They are either missing an opportunity to spread the good news of their work, or they are doing something they don't want others to know about. - Bill Lancaster Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:08:23 +0100