Posted by PS on December 03, 2003 at 12:37:13:
In Reply to: it has nothing to do with me not being sure.... posted by giveawayboy on December 02, 2003 at 09:42:25:
: Bill: Thanks Steve. I believe you. I believe that you would cover my sins and paint me in the best light. I also hope that you read my post about your integrity. I hate it when people misrepresent you. Many times when people said bad things about you I would step up to bat in your absense. Don't you know that? I'm sorry my silence on Raul alarmed you. I never sought to lend credibility to his arguments since I never thought they were anywhwere near true. I just wasn't interested in giving them any more attention than had already been given. Here, let me lay it out so that you understand. I feel that it is important for you to have me make some kind of public statement. So I will. If Raul says that any of my brothers or sisters in Christ is not a child of God, including you, or anyone at PU, I would say he is wrong. If Raul would say that the Spirit of God is not present in PU, I would say he is definitely wrong, since God is everywhere present to any who seek him. How would God deny any hungry or thirsty people? Does not compute. Likewise, if Raul claims to be a prophet, I would say that I don't believe that he is. I hope that this helps clear up any confusion. I never realized how misunderstood I was going to be.
* * * * *
It's cool, Bill. Thanks. It's don't think the problem is that you were misunderstood (by me anyway), but it is easy to be misunderstood in a situation like this. There is a real benefit to being precisely clear on things in confusing situations, especially those where denial, smoke screens, and the rewriting of history run rampant.
Raul has been representing the situation as my personal problem, feeling threatened by him and being afraid to face him, which is a smoke screen (not to mention silly). The issue is about what he says ostensibly as God's spokesman. He can talk all day about me being a jerk if he chooses and I really couldn't care less. He can start "The Church of Those Who Think Steve is a Meanie" if he likes. I would be honored...
And so you would be correct that the issue is really not about a character slam, though they can be painful. It is for practical reasons that the prophetic pronouncements of God's rejection have to stop. First, Raul really needs to get past this, and we would all like to see him restored to a spirit of love. Second, the health of the body is my concern. This thing is deeply hurtful (not to mention confusing) for all who are touched by it, and there are quite a few. Third, it is biblical to bring things out to the body when admonition by the one and the three have been rejected. That happened long ago, of course, but it seemed like maybe things had worked out for a while. Now that this same cancer has resurfaced uglier than ever, I did not feel the need to begin the whole process again, but went straight to the body, including his present pastors at CLF. Which brings me to my point––with all the smoke screens and denial floating around, one just really needs to make one's statements clearly and precisely.
On a personal note, it is nice to know your friends are at least sure you love God and are not devoid of the Spirit. It raises an uncomfortable tension if, in a crunch, they seem to beat about the bush and neglect to say so. This is not a simple misunderstanding, this is human nature. If you were attacked unjustly or falsely accused, and I responded by saying, "I wish to see each of them restored to fellowship on some level but I'll leave that kind and patient work to God. I don't wish to be the judge of this case. I trust that this conflict can become a great conduit of grace," you might be disturbed. If you were married, your wife (your main defender) would be more disturbed. Anyway, this is all I want you to realize. No problem!
BTW, I was never accused of stealing from the church; it was never any part of Raul's accusation. (#12598) I believe the accusation about "not feeding the sheep" referred to "spiritual" things. Thanks for defending me on this, though. It is hard for those who see my wealth and affluence to believe I do not steal. ;-)
I also do not want anyone to think that I "own" the bulletin board (#12625), though I appreciate your observation that use of the bbs is not in The Bill of Rights. ;-) I think you all know that the bbs is not here for my purposes. It is for our church and anyone else who can bless or benefit from it. When the blessing becomes cursing and the benefit becomes detriment, I am concerned. And no, the Supreme Court will not hear the case if someone is kicked off the bbs. ;-)
I love you, Bill.