WhitemoonG
July 29th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Stinkerbell:
I find your post PARTICULARLY obnoxious and uncalled for.
The question theroc posed is a very germane one, and any responses aren't served up out of a vacuum.
If the article posted is a mixture of truth and lies, I would like to know what the lies are considered to be, and what general factual objectivity is available that either confirms what really may be lies, or may NOT be lies, or simply opinions on how to interpret available facts.
However, if 1/10 of the things referred to in the article about Hayford specifically, and less so Foursquare in general, are correct, then just that would be grounds enough to be very wary, and it would be ENTIRELY FAIR to consider it that there could be some real problems here.
And, if the article is almost completely factually bereft, and a TOTAL hit piece, then I would appreciate some explanation as to WHY it is a total hit piece, as opposed to just SAYING it is, and conveniently ignoring the whole contents simply because it might sound a bit "mean." And, I'm not so sure I would just write it off as being "mean," but raising concerns that paints a very DISTURBING picture.
Now, much of the disturbing questions may lie with Hayford himself specifically, and yes, we must be cautious to not prematurely judge an entire denomination, or specific group, based on ONE apple. However, I'm not so sure this is a one bad apple situation only.
Even though Premature judgement is not Biblical or Christlike, in my opinion,
that is NO EXCUSE to avoid or shy away from a careful scrutiny of a high profile minister, let alone possibly his entire denomination, with SCRIPTURE as the metric.
If the others who posted haven't seen or heard anything unusual in their individual foursqare congregation, that is good, but still keep your eyes open, particularly in light of the one comment about many of them jumping headlong into emergent theology and heresy.
This needs careful followup. And, if available information raises major doubts on the basis of apparent or real facts in the light or scripture and truth, as opposed to simiply being some obvious petty tirade, then it needs to be further analyzed, and prayerfully dissected and vetted.
Nasty ripostes against someone seeking to respond to a fair question or concern with some published concerns, is UNCALLED for.
I find your post PARTICULARLY obnoxious and uncalled for.
The question theroc posed is a very germane one, and any responses aren't served up out of a vacuum.
If the article posted is a mixture of truth and lies, I would like to know what the lies are considered to be, and what general factual objectivity is available that either confirms what really may be lies, or may NOT be lies, or simply opinions on how to interpret available facts.
However, if 1/10 of the things referred to in the article about Hayford specifically, and less so Foursquare in general, are correct, then just that would be grounds enough to be very wary, and it would be ENTIRELY FAIR to consider it that there could be some real problems here.
And, if the article is almost completely factually bereft, and a TOTAL hit piece, then I would appreciate some explanation as to WHY it is a total hit piece, as opposed to just SAYING it is, and conveniently ignoring the whole contents simply because it might sound a bit "mean." And, I'm not so sure I would just write it off as being "mean," but raising concerns that paints a very DISTURBING picture.
Now, much of the disturbing questions may lie with Hayford himself specifically, and yes, we must be cautious to not prematurely judge an entire denomination, or specific group, based on ONE apple. However, I'm not so sure this is a one bad apple situation only.
Even though Premature judgement is not Biblical or Christlike, in my opinion,
that is NO EXCUSE to avoid or shy away from a careful scrutiny of a high profile minister, let alone possibly his entire denomination, with SCRIPTURE as the metric.
If the others who posted haven't seen or heard anything unusual in their individual foursqare congregation, that is good, but still keep your eyes open, particularly in light of the one comment about many of them jumping headlong into emergent theology and heresy.
This needs careful followup. And, if available information raises major doubts on the basis of apparent or real facts in the light or scripture and truth, as opposed to simiply being some obvious petty tirade, then it needs to be further analyzed, and prayerfully dissected and vetted.
Nasty ripostes against someone seeking to respond to a fair question or concern with some published concerns, is UNCALLED for.