Answer this Greg Volz question

Preacherman777 · Post by **Preacherman777** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:00 pm

What about all of the mindless morons that followed Rich Mullins into the teachings of that alcoholic, new-age, Charasmatic, Catholic priest's garbage? They had no discernment and the ragamuffin books flew off of the shelves.

But isn't this just another good example of why these people should be held up to some accountability?

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:37 pm

The public has to be discerning before anyone can be accountable. The public tends to think these folks can do no wrong. And as long as they're selling CDs, the industry isn't going to hold them accountable.

Brent's daughter sounds like a smart girl.

Preacherman777 · Post by **Preacherman777** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:02 pm

Again, this just kind of makes the point. So long as people are selling well, we seem to give them a pass on anything they do and the attitude that I seem to be seeing around here is that that's ok.

brent · Post by **brent** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:15 pm

I don't think that should be true. We are expecting someone else to do the work, and that is where I see a huge door opened for morons to walk in, like the Wilkersons, etc. AC/DC stands for homosexuals. Whatever! AC is not the opposite of DC. They got their name from a sister's sowing machine. They thought that it represented power.
Highway to Hell is not literal. It is talking about dealing with the record company. PLEASE! IDIOTS MAKE ME ANGRY!!! Especially "Christian" ones.

There is so much bad info about bands. The complete right wing, legalistic nut jobs would have you dismiss ANY music with guitars, drums, etc, played outside of the church. I grew up in that. Then the preacher would hop in the Linoln and have Merle Haggard cranked to 110 decibels.

Then you have preachers getting on soap boxes about Godless CCM, quoting untruths about artists that they received and skewed from secong or thrid hand sources.

We have the artists themselves. But as many have proved (Andre Crouch and his 3 pound back of crushed aspirin...which turned out to be coccain, Michael English, etc, etc, etc) that they will lie to God Almighty to get out of trouble.

So we must hold up their lyrics and speeches in concerts to the scripture, to see if it matches up. We can share that kind of stuff, but prepare to be met with huge opposition and a deaf ear.

I started confronting people on this very messageboard about Rich Mullins. I heard one of the last radio interviews, if not THE last, given on KXOJ in Tulsa. The man spoke some major heresy. Those morons at the station were just in shock of all of this knowledge. They didn't know enough about church history and the bible to think or yank him from the air. You can have a heart for finding Christ. You can write good songs. But that does not make a guy a teacher or pastor that I would follow.

BTW. I got flamed for dissing the man. So, I wouldn't look for open arms. He was royalty!

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:36 pm

I don't think anyone here has said that they think it's okay for them to do what they want so long as their CDs are selling, Preacherman. I don't have a problem with the idea they should be accountable for their actions. I just don't think a message board is the place to have a discussion about someone's marriage, and that's no matter who it is. I don't think I've really seen anyone suggest that we pray for them, and that's probably the best thing anyone could do for them. And I haven't really seen anyone offer any solution to the accountability problem unlost brought up, other than Brent suggesting we should be discerning, and that maybe we should stop thinking these guys walk on water. Those are good suggestions.

Hey, Winterlens, where are you? We need one of your well thought out posts.

unlost · Post by **unlost** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:30 pm

Shell wrote:Okay, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to point out something that's obviously a problem, and not burying our heads in the sand is an idea I agree with. So now you've raised your concerns; what do you suggest should happen now?

What do we do? I am going to say, let's make it a ministry to hold people accountable to their vows and empower them (promise keeper techniques maybe) to fulfill their calling of marriage. Also for the victims of divorce there should be professionally staffed counselors to bring them to restoration.

Any other inputs from the group?

calicowriter · Post by **calicowriter** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:46 pm

I find it interesting that what really seems to worry Unlost is divorce. Divorce in and of itself is not a sin. Remarrying can be, but it is pretty complicated when you get into believers being yoked with unbelievers, etc per Paul in I Corinthians. A minister or Christian artist may stay married, but treat his business associates like dirt. Or he may lie, cheat or covet. He may swear, not keep the Lord's day, hold grudges. In a church situation, you have a better chance of knowing about these things, but in the case of large churches, music ministries (or entertainment), authors, etc, you have no way of knowing these people personally. Some sins are just more public than others. If these folks make you uncomfortable, don't support them. But, God uses dirty tools all the time -- He has to, because we are all dirty to some degree.

unlost · Post by **unlost** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:04 pm

how would you say divorce glorifies God?
otherwise it has to be a sin. Malachi says God hates it, so whaddayamean?

brent · Post by **brent** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:18 pm

God hates it, this is what the book says. But, the point should be made that it is the hardness of the heart that God hates, which is tied with the spirit of pride, which is the basis for the fall of Lucifer, which lead to the fall of man. It was the hardness of heart of the stiff necked people that forced Moses to allow it.

Divorce is not the perfect will of God. Divorce is man's fix for man's mistakes. Anything outside of the perfect will of God puts us on bad terms. Therefore we enter into God's permissive will. He permits things, and will use those things that happen outside of his perfect will, with the ultimate goal of bringing all man to him.

BeReady · Post by **BeReady** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:34 pm

Divorce in and of itself is not a sin.

What?!?:shock: Sorry, but I must disagree with you here.

"'I hate divorce,' says the Lord, the God of Israel." Malachi 2:16

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. "
Matt 19:6

It is true that the Bible gives two reasons for divorce--adultery and abandonment. But this is not to say that divorce isn't a sin. Rather it defines who the guilty party is. The one who commited adultery or abandoned the other is the one guilty of the sin of divorce.

But, God uses dirty tools all the time

It is true that we all sin. But if you are walking with the Lord, you should be under conviction for those sins, you should be confessing those sins, and repenting those sins. You should be trying to overcome those sins in your life. But when you try to rationalize your sin(ie. "It's okay, God understands," or "God wants me to be happy," et.al.) or refuse to admit to God that you are sinning, you have disrupted your relationship with God, and you cannot be as effective for the kingdom.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:1-2

Hey that last verse sounds like a Petra song?

calicowriter · Post by **calicowriter** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:59 pm

Oh for pete's sake! I wasn't rationalizing sin, I was just wondering why Unlost is so obsessed with divorce when there are a multitude of other sins out there that are just as heinous and could serve as a warning sign that someone's ministry might not be in order.

And yes, I know God hates sin. So did the apostle Paul mis-speak when he said in 1 Corinthians 7:15 - "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." I am well aware of the fact that it was man, not God, that allowed divorce under certain circumstances. But does that mean that unless someone was quoting God directly, what they said is not true? If you use that criteria, it makes a tough sell for all the scriptues being God-inspired. (Which, BTW, I believe they are.)

brent · Post by **brent** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:35 pm

Ok, if someone IS walking with the Lord, and they ARE under conviction for sins, then with that logic, nobody would ever sin after their first offense prior to acceptance of salvation.

The fact is that we ALL do not adhear to, or heed to the will of God. So, we sin, and as a result, we plant a seed that shows it's head one day as fruit of that decision. You don't get to live life as a jack to your spouse, or do something to sin against them, and get a free get out of jail card. There are going to be some consequences, even with their forgiveness and Gods.

Do you think that divorce is the first option for most people? It isn't. Statistically, people will generally stay in a bad relationship before having no relationship at all. There are benefits to dealing with situations sometimes. People don't just wake up and get divorces all of a sudden. It is the natural progression, or evolution of a situation gone bad.

So, while divorce is bad, not God's original plan, it does happen. Just as lung cancer should not be considered the evil sin, it should be considered the reaping of smoking, inhaling dangerous materials etc. Fat bodies are not the evil, they are the result of eating 100 twinkies in a month. You get the idea.

BeReady · Post by **BeReady** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:20 pm

Calicowriter and Brent, please allow me to clarify my previous posting.

First, Calicowriter, I did not mean to imply that YOU were rationalizing sin. If that is what you thought I was saying, then I apologize.

What I was trying to say is that when anybody tries to rationalize their sin, instead of confessing and repenting, then that interferes with their relationship with God.

Second, I would never mean to imply that we ever stop sinning. I sin every day of my life. When I do sin, it is my responsibility to confess that sin and repent before God. Not try to rationalize it away.

Third, the definition of "sin" is "to miss the mark." To miss God's standard. Therefore ANYTHING that falls short of God's perfect will is sin. Does it mean that you necessarily commited that sin--no. A drunk driver kills an innocent person in a car wreck, did the innocent person sin-no. But the fact that he was killed is a sin. A pastor's wife wakes up one morning and decides she doesn't want to be a pastor's wife anymore and she divorces her husband (this happened to a friend of mine). Was the divorce a sin? Yes. Did the Pastor sin. No. Does this divorce disqualify the pastor from being a pastor (No. Not in my opinion)

greenchili · Post by **greenchili** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:37 pm

calicowriter wrote:Oh for pete's sake! I wasn't rationalizing sin, I was just wondering why Unlost is so obsessed with divorce when there are a multitude of other sins out there that are just as heinous and could serve as a warning sign that someone's ministry might not be in order.

It sounded to me like he was just concerned about the high number of divorces by artists involved in the CCM industry. A can count at least ten off the top of my hdead. People who are in "the public eye" so to speak. And how this affects the public perception of CCM as a whole. Why he picked Greg is on a petra board is beyond me.

Using Amy Grant's name he mighta gotten the response he wanted. j/k

Anywyas. I understand. I just don't necessarily agree with the way he is going about it.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:50 pm

That is a good one, Matthew.

The Petra Zone

Answer this Greg Volz question

the answer to the question

what in the worlds

Who is online