Comments on: Preacher Search

By: Just Me

Just Me — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:26:35 +0000

Strange that what we consider sad in this day in age is true and sound doctrine. What we want is change, innovation, and that which tickles our ears and entertains…because of this, people who wish to adhere to Biblical teaching are seen as out dated and old fashioned.

By: Priorities and Preachers « And Another Thing…

Priorities and Preachers « And Another Thing… — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:30:33 +0000

[...] Take a look at this excerpt posted on Mike Copeâ€™s blog from an ad in the [...]

By: Josh Ross

Josh Ross — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:50:34 +0000

That baby is beautiful. I’m sure you are so proud!
- Kayci Ross

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:42:06 +0000

Donna,
It is patently dishonest to want to retain ties with a group of people with whom you hold no kinship. If you are going to be truly “liberated” from the shackles of the restoration movement, you should fully commit to removing all outward ties to that movement. Now I don’t think I mentioned denominationalism at all in my post. But it is evidently on your mind. You are right in your assumption that I don’t consider denominationalism a thing to be desired. Nor do I think that the goal of the restoration movement founders was to create another denomination. Their aim was to recreate New Testament Christianity. They sought to break free from the bonds of their Protestant roots. They dedicated themselves to the goal of speaking where the Bible speaks, and being silent where the Bible is silent. They determined to call Bible things by Bible names. Those goals in and of themselves distinguished them from other groups. And it was a worthy aim and goal. Having said all of that, I will say that I owe no allegiance to any of those men. My allegiance is to God. As a result, those who claim to be brethren and yet feel no kinship with those exceptional men should for integrity’s sake, divorce themselves from all vestiges of the movement those men gave their lives in service. I just cannot fathom someone retaining ties with people with whom I have nothing in common. I couldn’t sleep with myself at night if I continued to live a lie. Can you?

By: Donna

Donna — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:22:08 +0000

Brian, I thought it wasn’t a denomination….Why do you care who uses the name?

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:48:07 +0000

I just found this blog today. When I read a blog that A. makes light of someone who is concerned with having a minister that is devoted to the scripture as the men listed and B. the open comment that the blogger wouldn’t be hired at that congregation, makes me wonder what kind of minister the blogger would be. G. C. Brewer, for example, studied at the feet David Lipscomb. Here was a man who began his ministry during very trying times for the brotherhood. Instead of ridicule and mockery, the blogger ought to address his statement that he wouldn’t be hired at a congregation that desired someone like G.C. Brewer. For that is the most telling piece that I have seen written here. Since there is no kinship between the blogger and men like G. C. Brewer, when is the blogger going to admit there is no kinship between himself and the church of Christ. For the history of the church in America springs forth more from men like G. C. Brewer, David Lipscomb, J. W. McGarvey, Roy Lanier Sr., than it does from men like Rubel Shelley, Max Lucado and Rick Atchley. I will say this for Max Lucado, he was honest enough to remove church of Christ from the sign. I wonder when Highland will.

By: Allie

Allie — Tue, 29 May 2007 02:50:32 +0000

I’m behind on my blog reading…and late with my two cents…but it looks less like they want “Just as I am” and more like they want “Just as we think we’ve always been”

By: David

David — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:47:15 +0000

Most ads have code words that identify if a church is to the left, right, or middle. Many preachers have made the mistake of thinking a church was progressive, when they were really in the middle or even the right. In the CoC, before I took a job, I would interview the elders. A preacher should not take a CoC job, until they know for sure, with as much certainty as possible, the elders are inline with the preachers beliefs.

By: clint

clint — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:52:50 +0000

(Judges 10:14), God told them: “Go and cry to the gods which you have chosen; let them rescue you in the time of your torment.”

I guess God is not very Christ like much less His Prophets.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:29:52 +0000

Victor, I believe the term “change agent” was first popularized by progressive preachers in the church in the 80’s to describe their agenda to liberalize the brotherhood. It is a term used in sociology or educational philososphy. Alarmed at the opinions expressed by these voices, writers/preachers have drawn attention to the self-described “change agents” and the label now seems to be a litmus test of compatibility, if not fellowship.

BTW, I’m extremely conservative, personally know a blogger or two in this forum and want to encourage everyone to not despise those you disagree with (”speaking the truth in love” - Ephesians 4:15). Sarcasm is usually very unbecoming to a Christian and is very entertaining to an unbeliever who stumbles upon this forum.

This Sunday’s sermon (on Memorial Day Weekend) will be taken from 2 Tim. 2:8-14, where Paul tells Timothy to remember the gospel, the death and resurrection of Christ, and not to be involved with disputes that are unprofitable.

Now, let’s get with it and start taking the gospel to the world. We’ve got work to do–starting with our own neighbor.

By: matt elliott

matt elliott — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:58:57 +0000

You’re killin’ me, Mike. Hilarious comment.

And still much nicer than when Paul was when said that he wished the legalists would “go the whole way and emasculate themselves”! I’m sure some of his blog commenters would have been VERY unhappy with him.

By: Victor Knowles

Victor Knowles — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:00:29 +0000

Can someone tell us when (and where) the unscriptural term “change agent” began to be used and why it has found such favor with a people who profess to only speak where the Bible speaks? And are they saying they have no need of change? Isn’t authentic repentance true change?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:24:37 +0000

It is much easier to accept those more conservative than yourself, than to accept those more liberal than yourself. The “change agents” need to be more sensitive to the issues of conscience that face their more conservative brothers and sisters. That’s a big part of the message of Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. We have a lot of room to grow in that area.

By: Cathy

Cathy — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:01:07 +0000

I just keep thinking of a quote from an earlier blog with a similar tone. I cannot quote word for word, but the general idea went like this… A conservative only loves those to his right, and a liberal only loves those to his left. We really need to try not to fall into either category.

By: Kent Dickerson

Kent Dickerson — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:28:40 +0000

I for one see nothing of riducule or derision in Mike’s statement. But I do think that we should be careful about how we speak about the “other side”. I have searched the scriptures and their meaning and as a result have changed many of the positions I was taught growing up. My parents continued in those positions. But my mother was one of the most godly people I have ever known and my father suffered from Lou Garreg’s desease and never complained, only looking forward to going home. Though their system of religion I now see to have a very devisive element in it I know they never desired to but please the Lord. I know a loving God has accepted them into paradise. Let’s be careful of our judgement of another’s servant and watchful for our own pride.
Perhaps in changing the ad the church has rethought at least the way they want to appear to others and maybe more, Kent