Friday, June 4, 2010


Chantell has previously covered pants from a women's perspective (more specifically pajama bottoms). I think it's high time to present the topic of pants from a man's perspective:

First off, when I realized pants have not been discussed on this blog, I immediately went into shock. And then I did what anyone would do in regards to the topic of pants amongst apostolics:

I thought of a parody. I quickly envisioned a rip off of the song  "Men in Black" by Will Smith, except the hook is changed to "Here comes the men in Paaaaants..."...but then I remembered I was lazy and I would also have to manipulate the verses as well. And then I would also have to make a video. That requires work. So I gave up. 

So if any youth pastor is looking to make their youth group famous on Youtube that thousands of Apostolics will end up watching, make the above video I referenced. And just send me a link to the finished product. I will put it on this blog, and the winds of the internet will do the rest as it gets forwarded in inboxes and posted on facebooks walls everywhere for the next 4 months. 

But enough fraternizing. Let's get down to the brass tacks of it all...

Here is a letter I just wrote to "Pants in full:"

To the pants of this world as a collective body,

What benevolence of grace you bestow in all your manor to us male apostolics who do not forsake you. No we apostolics males are not like the rest. While others will pay homage to you  when the centigrade is on the decline, and the earth's tilt is pointing away from the sun in the season of winter, we as apostolic warriors play by no such inconsistency in our wardrobe. 

We pay homage to you oh pants in the winter. We pay homage to you in the thick of summer while the very sweat of our brow cries for us to compromise like those pagans who wear shorts as they fall to the whims of emotional desire of "comfort." But is not "comfort" what Satan desires out of us? For surely once we are content in our comfort, we shall have our path paved to hell at the exact moment. So compromise be gone to the fiery depths from whence you came! Pants to you alone I declare my allegiance to....

Sure we may rid ourselves of your extensive leg lengths for a time when we are on vacation, but we swear we won't tell anyone and the pictures we post on facebook will all be from the waist-up. So have no fear pants, forever you will remain dear to me.

Your Servant,


Dear reader, I will have you know that I was not born in the nude. But rather I came out of my mother's womb with pants around my legs! 

Okay but seriously, my nickname in middle school was "pants" because I played on the middle school basketball team in pants much to the confusion and distraction of the other team.

So know before we move on reader, know that I am not an infidel regarding pants, but rather one of your own....

The Issue
Now, pants is quite confusing topic in the apostolic ranks. I don't think anyone has made a contention that wearing pants instead of shorts is a biblical issue (although I have heard from a friend that says he once heard a minister claim that "girding up your loins" in the bible indicated the wearing of pants, but I have not heard this argument myself so I do not want make a statement about something I have only heard through the grapevine about).

Keep in mind that at least in my theology, an extrabiblical rule is in no way a bad thing. So I do not have a problem with a pastor saying "God has placed the conviction of pants on my heart and for this congregation." The pastor at such an instance is not claiming wearing shorts is a sin, but rather he, by faith is obeying what is in his heart ("for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" -Romans 14:23).

So it is with this kind of notion of pants in mind that when a church pastor goes from a pro-pants stance to a pro-choice (pants or shorts) stance, no one says a word in condemnation. I really think the beauty of pants is that it is the one issue in the apostolic ranks that once reversed draws no condemnation from neighboring pastors simply because of it's recognition as an extrabiblical issue. 

Aside: I am going to speculate that the issue is much more serious of a matter in parts of the South. I just know from my area that up here in my region in Michigan, there are only a few churches left that do not allow shorts (mine being one of them). 

The Origin

But my question is how did pants as necessity come about....and dear reader it is here I present my hypothesis (though this is entirely speculative)....

Venture with me back to the early days of oneness Pentecostalism....

As various theologies, decrees, and standards were being discussed as what will define the movement..

As the center of the debates is a ring of pastors who determine what is and what will be the defines our "Apostolic Identity" for generations to come.

This ring of pastors has a "test" church wherein one Pastor Smith installs the various "distinctions" to see their reception within the congregation....

The first Pastoral meeting after the installation of "no-make up, no cut hair, no pants for ladies, no jewelry" within Pastor Smith's congregation is where this hypothetical meeting takes place:

(All higher-ups are seated around a conference table, Pastor Smith stands up to report his findings).

Pastor Smith: Everyone was totally on board with the whole standards thing for the female. They see how holiness is a necessity that separates them from the world and in this separation is their witness to the world.

Board Member A: Excellent, let's move onto the next item on the agenda...Playing Cards: Are those kings and queens pictures of the demoniac? I personally.....(interrupted)

Pastor Smith: However, there was one problem, primarily a question from the ladies....

Board Member B: Go on...

Pastor Smith: Well, one lady pointed out that while the female gender is so blessed to have an opportunity to demonstrate holiness out in public, and thus be a witness, she couldn't help but feel so bad for the males who would seemingly not be able to demonstrate such separation because there were no distinctions for them. And thus she asked why should all the witnessing fun through separation by example be given to the females alone?

I tried assuring her that the inability to display a distinction amongst the world would be the cross that apostolic men would have to bear. And while the burden would be heavy to not have any distinctions to display, it would not be impossible. 

The lady then butted in with the urging of the women in the congregation: "we cannot let this be. We cannot let our brothers suffer here on earth by not having any distinctions. Surely there must be something....."

(the lady then looked at Pastor Smith up on down and her eyes focused on the shorts he was wearing on this hot summer July day)...

The lady then said (pointing to his shorts): "Pastor Smith, that's it. What could be a better witness of a separation from the world than you walking out into that sweltering heat in the downtown with pants on!"

(the ladies cheer)

Pastor Smith then said he would take this matter to the board.....

Pastor Smith (to the board): So team I sit here with you with a suggestion of how we as males may not be excluded from participating in holiness of dress....Why not rid ourselves of shorts? I know it's not quite the sacrifice that all those ladies go through in all those standards that we asked them to follow, but it's a start, right?

And besides, it will not be long when the feminist movement will rise in secular society, and Lord knows what they will make out this: "females follow standards, males don't have to follow any."...

So we mind as well install some kind of rule, just to say "you ladies aren't the only ones who got it bad....we have to wear pants!"

(The board members start looking at each other wondering if this will go over well)....

And one by one the board members each pitched their own view on the subject....Most of which revolved around the conclusion that it does stink that the females are hogging all the exterior holiness opportunities.

One minister then recanted that his wife said that she was strongly attracted to his calves. And thus he proposed that if men were to display their calves in wearing of shorts, men may be tempting the female.

And thus in a 9-2 Vote, the apostolic leaders elected to adopt pants as a rule for men....and forever here on earth we will be wearing something like these....

But dear reader, I have one more offer for you to make a decision with me this very day....

You see, here in the North, the ability to separate ourselves as men wearing pants instead of shorts as those in the world do, we only have 4-5 months to make this distinction. How my brethren am I to separate myself in my apparel from the world in the cold night of December and January when the whole world is partaking in the wearing of pants right along with us apostolics?

So I propose this dear readers....

Let us be yoked up with pants any time the temperature is 55 degrees or above as this will be a counter-culture sign of holiness.

And between the degrees of 40-55 degrees it's a "your call" choice of whether to wear shorts or pants. I suggest you do that which you think will be the harder thing.

But the new proposal dear reader revolves around this: Any time the temperature is below 40 degrees, we as apostolics take the wearing of shorts instead of pants. At such times, many will stop us dead in our tracks and demand to know why we are wearing such crazy clothing. 

And here once again, the apostolic within us can proudly declare that we are to be separate from the world, and thus holy unto God. And most likely that man will want to come to church with you.


  1. Joel regarding: "'girding up your loins' in the bible indicated the wearing of pants, but I have not heard this argument myself so I do not want make a statement about something I have only heard through the grapevine..."

    I have actually personally heard that statement a few times from men from the pulpit. The problem with that argument is when you put on the typical man's garment of that time, garments which varied in length, you get various lengths of shorts, not pants (I know you aren't making that argument).

    This goes twofold, 1 men didn't wear pants in the Bible. 2 when they needs to dig in, work, etc, this meant God told them to make shorts so they could be less encumbered.

  2. Most of us (meaning the emotionally balanced individuals as well as post-adolescent males) would not be found in public in our underwear. However, not much more of a man's body is covered by shorts than is covered by his typical pair of boxers or boxer-briefs. In my estimation it's a matter of modesty as well as a matter of personal and pastoral conviction. I must say however, I did enjoy this post.

  3. Excellent post. Real attention grabber. I really like the way you turned it into a play. Can you add music to this site....because I think we have a potential musical here.

    Chantell was mentioned in the beginning and I want to take a moment to applaud her. Since her initial embarrassing blunder on the spelling patrol, she has maintained absolute focus. She will not be swayed by petty arguments or discussions on this site...Good job deserve a raise.

    J R...great post...strong content, substantial diversion. This is the kind of work I like to see. Put blinders on as it were, stay away from the unimportant, hoo haa, of the moment, stay focused, you have an important commission. And attention must be maintained.

    The whole pants thing is very troubling in the Apostolic movement. I dont really wear shorts in public or to outings, but I am sure some might wonder where your conviction comes from, is it really about exposure? is it because you have stick legs? I dont think that is the issue.....HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD.

    One thing in closing, I know that you and your subordinates at times like to just throw out I Corinthians 4...without even quoting, just knowing that it is a chapter that frees one from being judged.

    However, once you continue to read the rest of the book you will find pages and pages of issues which we refer to as standards that are being written to the church. Very few apologies are made in these chapters.

    In addition the words are coming from a preacher, a teacher, an apostle. I think that is where Bro. Klinedants website makes the distinction, because ministers are held to a higher standard, we can maybe question, but it might be better to question in person rather than in writing to the churches.

    As it does today, I am sure that if there had been letters being written to oppose Paul to the churches, it would be counter-productive and little would be accomplished, in fact there may not be a church today. But alas we serve a mighty God, who is able to deliver.

    Now I know that the whole thing started with Stonekings message, but in chapter 11 power and glory are mentioned. You have every right to your interpretation of scripture. Why you would believe in a second covering which is mentioned in this chapter,yet blast Bro. Stoneking out of the water for referring to a womans covering as hair representing power and glory is beyond me. Maybe you dont think the reference is to hair, maybe you think it is to just a covering. In either case, that is your opinion. You are at the moment not yet a pastor from what I understand, you are a church member. While you can question, I believe attacking is inappropriate, and definitely not NT.

    Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.
    Even as I please all men, in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

    Much of the gospel that is used today was written by a great yet humble man.....yet even he, in his writings acknowledged that he would rather BE PRESENT with the people, and planned to be so, instead of just writing.

    While you are all perhaps incredible people,you may fall slightly short of Paul's integrity. Have you ever considered that maybe writings from you, might not be the best thing for Christ' body...of course you havent. And I wouldnt expect you to change. I am just making a few comments that some of your readers might take into consideration.

  4. TR: The few times I have commented on this site has usually been in opposition to the argument being made because I have been appalled, at times, with the lack of concern or respect. However, never have I been more disturbed than by reading your constant rantings. You have put everybody else to shame with the nasty spirit you have displayed on this web site. If I were a non-apostolic I definitely would be more put off by you than by the adminstrators of this blog.

    This is coming from a VERY conservative apostolic who is also learning that a BEAUTIFUL SPIRIT is actually more important than a strong standard. Honestly, TR, you are not helping our cause at all. Let it go.

  5. learning that a BEAUTIFUL SPIRIT is actually more important than a strong standard,,,,,how about instead they go hand in hand rather than pitting one against another darla.

    You are right to be apalled by the lack of concern and respect in this blog. However I am afraid darla, that does not come close to the sarcasm that I use......It is against people....laymembers who are putting themselves above ministerial authority.

    While I respect the fact that you have your own opinion, I am afraid it is misguided. This is a site of humor and sarcasm,,,,,is it not? They use the humor that I use, against the church and its leadership, and then at times, remove the sarcasm and rail against the church and leadership with all sincerity.

    I am sure you are a wonderful person, but to state what I am doing as more shameful and "nasty" than what they really a little light headed. And if you are more put off by me than the administrators of this site darla....I doubt that you are VERY conservative.

    If you are put off by the tone that they use most often, then you should confront them.

    But none the less have a wonderful weekend. And I know that I will study to see if I concur with you that a BEAUTIFUL SPIRIT, is actually more important than a strong standard, I guess it would depend also on what standards you are speakiing of.

  6. TR,

    I applaud you


    Lousy Biblical Interpretation Skills

  7. The Church of CorinthiansJune 5, 2010 at 8:21 AM


    You Don't know us!

  8. TR,

    I Fart in your General Direction.

  9. TR: I actually agree with you that a beautiful spirit and a strong standard should go hand in hand. However, I would much rather hang around with a "less" conservative Christian with a beautiful spirit, than a very conservative Christian with a haughty spirit.

    Now I'm out. I won't be drawn into anymore needless debate. Good day.

  10. Great post. It truly saddens my heart to know that our Apostolic brothers in colder climates do not have the opportunity to show their love for God by their holiness and separation by not even having the option as to wearing shorts.

    Maybe we can set a new standard for them! They will be separate by *ONLY* wearing shorts! This needs to be brought up at the next General Conference.

  11. logic, church of Corinthians, freedom, (all I am sure being one) wonderful contributions to the blog.

    And darla dear.....I am not sure that you make much sense, and even if you did,,,that is merely your opinion....

    Actually I would rather hang around a conservative christian with a good spirit. What do you refer to a beautiful spirit.../? the type spirit that makes entries on here??? You know like freedom, church of Corinthians, and logic? along with countless others?....those are your beautiful spirits???? Maybe you are freedom and logic too?

  12. I think this is a midwest standard?

  13. Also, where do we draw the line, if at all, when leadership says something then we nust obey, rather than not adding to the doctrine? Do we blindly follow those above us and 'drink the koolaid' because they said so?

  14. Aaron,

    I forgot answer your points, but ultimately I agree. The logical fallacies you bring up where would I would argue as well. I just didn't want to set up a straw man's argument of relaying the worst of the argument and tearing it down when there may be more to the argument.

    Anonymous above Mark, are you suggesting that "pants alone" are a midwest standard? This could definitely be true, but as a midewesterner I cannot say about that which is outside the region. As an apostolic sociologist of sorts, I am so curious to hear your observations about pants outside of the midwest. I simply don't know them. So any light you could shed would be greatly appreciated (I am not doubting your suggestion whatsoever). I am just really curious.

    And Mark, I think your question is very important. But i don't have the time to answer right now. I will get to it either tonight or tomorrow. I am really glad you got the humor (it is quite subtle).

  15. I love this post because I've definitely seen it lived out. And I can attest to the fact that it's a regional thing. I moved from Missouri (where shorts are the devil) to Arizona where shorts are normal and almost everyone (even super conservatives) wear them. As a matter of fact, a guy I know from a conservative church in Northern California (they don't allow women to wear pajama pants, according to them pants of any form are an abomination for women) has some sort of rational allowing men to wear shorts, they use some verse in the Older Testament to justify this (they tend to be very rule based), but I can't remember the reference.

    So it's funny to me to hear about the poor guys in the Midwest etc. stuck wearing "long pants" during the sweltering summer months. But hey, if it's the way you guys get to share in 'holiness,' I applaud your dedication.

  16. I was laughing out loud by the time I reached the last two paragraphs.

    Great post, guys :)

  17. There's nothing to say with this post by to get a laugh out of it. Is anyone actually defending this issue in a serious, theological way?

    "You guys can fight and argue over the trash, fishheads and scraps of life, I'll be learning how to fly." Jonathan Livingston Seagull, paraphrased

    It seriously is unbelievable that entire groups have identified themselves with pointless arguing. (Of course, there is no real argument over here. Just an Ego contest, and a Crusader on a mission. Meaning, nothing is accomplished)

  18. Hilarious post! Great job!

  19. Anonymous ~ Your statement about men wearing shorts "not much more of a man's body is covered by shorts than is covered by his typical pair of boxers or boxer-briefs" made me laugh. I don't know where you're from but I have a husband and three teenage sons whose shorts go the their knees. It is nowhere near wearing boxers or briefs! That would definitely be immodest!

    This ranting back and forth is so childish! I agree that I would rather fellowship with someone with a beautiful spirit then a haughty one. Where is the love? I have a cd of Jeff Arnold preaching about Agape Love and how "Pentecostals" lack it so much. They are so judgmental!

    I've been to Pentecostal churches all over the country and every one teaches different and has a different standard. I inquired to the pastor of a UPC church we visit every year on vacation who allows woman the cutting and coloring of hair and wearing of jewelry and this is what he told me "Concerning your inquiry of our church "standards," we as a congregation believe in righteousness of lifestyle but give liberty to the individual specifics. We trust people as born again believers and do not live by legislation or man's "standards." Praise God!! I wish I could transplant that church to my hometown.

    God is my judge, not man. Although he/she thinks they are. If you believe something is wrong/right for you to do, then live by that. But you have no right to judge others. That's what's wrong with our churches, "the people" think they have the right to dictate how others are to live. I believe in modesty and guidelines but what is right for me might not be right for you.

    Let God be the judge!

  20. Joel, I like where you're going with this. I, too, have often felt a terrible measure of shame at my inability to display sacrifice in my wardrobe. I'd like to offer an option for all apostolic men, not just those of us in the mid-west.

    During the warmer months of the year I think we eschew short and pants both. You see, the world already wears those in the summer and wearing them does nothing to separate us. And before you even start, I'm not suggesting we wear skirts, that's just silly.

    No, I propose that apostolic men wear cargo capri pants. Think about, when was the last time you saw grown men walking the streets wearing capris, at least in great numbers, anyway. People will immediately begin to wonder why so many men have willingly chosen to make themselves look ridiculous, and thus comes a golden opportunity to witness.

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

    But, let's not stop there. Notice that in the picture the model is wearing sandals. Weak. In order for us to really stand out from the occasional capri-wearing nut, this sacrifice requires wearing bright white tube socks as well. Don't be skeptical, brethren, give the capris a shot and see how many are won to the Lord.

    Just throwing this out there, maybe we could also try wearing full-length robes a la the original church? Example: Hey, that'd really set us apart and if it was good enough for Paul and Peter, it's good enough for us.

  21. Hey riley.....long time,

    Was wondering if it was the first two weeks of June or the first two weeks of July that you were going to be on campus as a requirement for your online degree at Urshan Graduate School of Theology....

    You are still a student there correct?

    Its just odd that you would choose a school, you are in such disagreement with.

    You dont like something about the church so you post it under the framework of humor and sarcasm,,,then you let your lapdogs do the dirty work....knowing that they will take it to the absolute foolish stage where they can make it look silly and ridiculous...and young people are intimidated to confront it. But you arent fooling anyone., plan and know where these blogs are going to go...and they go where you want them.....accept for the few who dare to confront.

    I dont know why UGST wouldnt throw a sneaky, slimey student like you out on their rear end..... But thats just me.

    And please readers...dont use me as an example of a perfect Apostolic....I am not that,,,,I dont have the patience for nonsense like this, and I know that I dont show a real Christ like spirit when I see it.....I will accept it as an area that I need work on.

  22. So funny... so sad... we need to make sure we have a man's "uniform" too in order to qualify as Apostolic. It seems that the society of perpetual growth has infiltrated the value system of the church.

  23. Note to Admin:

    TR doesn't like this

  24. Note to Brian,

    TR loves this website. He is just fighting his real feelings. I am sure he will "come out of the closet soon."

  25. Let's not complain about comments being posted. I've tried to interact on "conservative" blogs many times, never to see my comments posted. I've seen much liberty here thus far. And for JR to remove a post that was a direct, personal attack (again... sigh) is quite understandable.

  26. Anonmyous, Your "all I did was ask" made absolutely no sense at all to your post. It was quite irrelevant (other than to show you are familiar with UGST).

    Your insults about lapdogs, such tired rhetoric. Get over it. Let's really talk about lapdogs, shall we. Open your ears at conferences and meetings all over the country.

    Thrown out of UGST? Is this what your after Anonymous? You spineless, witch-hunting, toothless hypocrite! Your disclaimers about how tough you are, and your summary of "nonsense" are just pure signs of ignorance. It's your ilk, that try to manipulate by fear that have many embarking on journeys away from iron fists and into loving hands. Away from religiosity and men and into Christ. So while I'm frustrated with your type, I'm also thankful.

    You end by asking for mercy after throwing stones. I found that interesting.

    Finally, any school with integrity can withstand criticism, questions and are not thin-skinned to discussions of any stripe. That's University at its best.

  27. TR said: "learning that a BEAUTIFUL SPIRIT is actually more important than a strong standard,,,,,how about instead they go hand in hand rather than pitting one against another darla."

    Ah yes, your strength of standards and your glorious spirit are convincing everyone. Like the kid upset with a joke who turns red in the face and goes off irrationally to the whole group. Awkward silence ensues. He thinks he has accomplished something because of the silence, but really people are mentally eating popcorn.

    I left the church years ago, and have am away from God right now. I didn't think anyone else shared the questions and concerns that I did. When I brought them up I was ostracized, I didn't think they saw the inconsistencies, and saw how the ideas projected into a culture that didn't feel like a band of Jesus followers, but rather a religiously proud bunch of Pharisees. I didn't think anyone else felt manipulated at times into worship, guilted into offering and attending church 4 times a week for every event, and continually unsure if you were going to make it until the next Sunday. Sure, they said we should, but the guilt and projected view of God as a "Gotcha God" left me feeling depressed.

    I was labeled rebellious and written off when I just shared my questions with someone I thought was my sister. It hurt and devastated me. It shaked my faith. I ran far away as I could from people like that. Only recently am I trying to walk down the dusty road back to a Prodigal God.

  28. Anonymous, Sorry for the reference to "Prodigal God" without explanation, but it was actually stated with intent. His grace is extravagant, and would even seem wasteful. A little Tim Keller inspiration.

    I don't find this site offensive. It has sometimes angled things I didn't agree with, and sometimes commenters say things I didn't care for, but it's not offensive. Somehow, it seems, people are taking personal offense to the site. I really think they just don't get it. I can understand why. I personally find it funny, relate to most of it and enjoy the occassional conversation that it drums up.

  29. Anon, Your continual derogatory remarks about "lap dogs" and referring to JR as my leader are obnoxious. I may agree more with JR than I do with what you've shared so far, but he certainly isn't my "boss." I'm sure that didn't actually require a response, but just formerly for the record. I don't know him, I think independent of him (and of you) and am quite comfortable with disagreeing with him if I felt I needed to.

  30. Teresa, I've close to where you are. I pray for your journey back with Jesus. It's a dusty and long road, but following Him makes all the difference. Blessings!

  31. "You're wrong!"
    "No YOU'RE wrong!"
    "My dad can beat up your dad"
    "Your dad looks like a girl"
    "I'm telling!"

  32. Anonmyous above: EXACTLY.

  33. anonymous and anonymous both above to anonymous supreme....oh forget it...its not worth a dialogue.....

    Lee...are things that boring for you that you have to go to bat for riley every issue??? Isnt he a big boy....cant he take care of himself....between you and chady....who needs a mom or a big brother.

    And theresa while I can appreciate your point...I dont know if the exact defense this site would appreciate is one coming from someone who isnt in church...That is fine that you dont find this site offensive...I do.

  34. And yet you return... Ironic?

  35. In church, not in church, what do those words mean anyway. I know Jesus loves me, and He is patiently walking with me back into a relationship of trust with him.

    So whatever status you put on me, have at it. And if you think I cheapen the value of this site as a den of "backsliders" then that's okay too. Maybe you missed the whole point of what I said to begin with.

  36. Anonymous,

    Do you have a point to make?

  37. I was speaking to the anonymous who said they find the site offensive.

    Ya know what I find offensive? Porn. That's why I don't watch it.
    Ya know what else I find offensive? Drugs. So I don't go near them.
    I also find alcohol offensive, which is why I don't go into bars and proclaim to everyone in there that they are offending me.

    I have no sympathy that this site offends you when you return out of your own free will. I'm sure there are a lot of porn sites, drug sites, sites that advocate social deviance, etc that you don't go to because they offend you. But you want to come to this site and proclaim how offensive it is? Am I missing something?

  38. Know what I'd like? I'd like people to interact with the content of a blog instead of throwing verbal assaults at each other. Disagree over content, not personality.

  39. anonymous two tiers above,,,,who is offended with drugs porn etc.etc.....

    What are you missing..??...all but a couple brain cells. and the minimum required amount of logic to breathe in and exhale.

    Let me see......maybe because the porn, the drugs, the bars...arent hiding anything you know what they are. They dont lure people in announcing something that they are not.

    This site, is titled does that give you just a hint of an idea of what you are missing??? With that title.....why would you think that people wouldnt find it offensive. then add to it....the deceitful attack on hmh. and Lee Stoneking...the perpetual disrespect that is shown by bloggers, texters and mockers of the church, ministry and people who follow disciplines. ...this is not stuffaposolicslike.
    it is everything but...

    Hopefully I have shed some light on your illogical comparison.....but that doesnt mean there isnt a chance you could find something else that made any sense.....give it a try. Come on....make us proud. You can do it.

    And as far as this site offending me....I will remain a sole defense in the midst of all the destructive attacks for as long as I decide to stay.....or until riley cuts me out completely.

    But really read your comment over....and think at the same time....and you will agree with me...It makes no sense.

  40. No see I still stand by it. You came here and got offended yet choose to return. Regardless of what you thought it was when you came, you now know. You're offended, yet you return. No sympathy here bub.

  41. If I walked into a building that said "Candy Store" and found out it was an alliance of pedophiles I wouldn't go back, despite false advertising. Just sayin.......

  42. I've gotten to the point where I would be embarrassed to say that I read this blog. It's not because of the comments because I agree with the majority. I do have to say that yes, the authors and administrators have deviated I believe from the origin but I still find myself agreeing with them on the majority of the posts.

    What I have become embarrassed about is the way that all of us, the ones who leave comments on this blog, are attacking one another. Shame on us for being so critical and abusive towards one another.

    1 Corinthians Ch. 8:1 starts out saying that wisdom puffs up a man but love edifies or strengthens. If we as a church (the church being the body of Christ, not an edifice) desire to be strengthened then this is not the way to go about it. We have no love or respect for one another here. We are all claiming to know whats right and wrong but nobody on here is turning the other cheek. I would be so embarrassed to tell somebody I know that "Yes, I read that blog" because all that we have done here is shown that we, the church, the body of Christ may look one way but behind closed doors we are a monster.

    We are lashing out at those we are supposed to support. Teresa I pray you find understanding for what you are looking for in God. Does anyone realize that the very way we are acting gives Christianity a bad name? This is why people don't like religion. This is what drives people away from the assembling of the people of God. My brother left "Church" for this very reason.

    We claim to have all this knowledge but remain incapable of showing love to one another. God bless you all. I love you guys because you are the ones who are supposed to help me in my walk without being judgmental or critical of me. You are the ones who are supposed to love me regardless of my faults.

    Dear Admin's

    Please continue to post as you feel you should. I know you would disagree with the fact Mr. Riley because you feel that all should have the right to voice their opinion and challenge what they are being told but maybe what we need is a "no comment time out". If all comments were removed for a short time then maybe this problem would draw to a close.

    I respect you all.....Chuckles.

  43. Thank you Chuckles.....what so many fail to this.....that I and others come here and attack people on this blog for misinformation, ridiculous exaggerations...and generalizations. This site is also where the administrators, and riley come to mouth off and attack people and teachings they dont like. They sit in churches on weekends or large gatherings with baited breath waiting for something to laugh at.

    The senseless statement that was made that one should not make personal attacks on riley....Should I let the others know that have made entries here,,,,that if they felt they were personally attacked, it was completely a misunderstanding. In fact if I have the opportunity to pass the word on to Bro. Stoneking...should I make sure to let him know there were never any personal attacks of him...and if he or others thought there were,,,,they were sorely mistaken. You and I both know that is not true...there have been relentless attacks, on here....exactly what you condemn in others. The difference is this...some of us are protecting something we believe is worth fighting for...You are throwing out nonsense blogs making them look ridiculous....just for the fun of it....and then to add insult to maliciously attack others.

    And anonymous and anonymous.... you still dont get it. There isnt supposed to be this huge gulf between you and I.....Your comparison to a candy store and pediphiles once again makes absolutely no sense.

    We are all supposed to be christians. There shouldnt be the extreme difference of candy vs pediphile....I dont think your argument does this site any good. Maybe a break would be in order...because you are really scraping an empty barrel.

    Thersa...I truly do hope you find your way back...I mentioned once I am not perfect...and I know that..., but I will say...if you know you need a strong start to make your way back....this may not be the place for that. I have been in your shoes....and the last place that I would choose to start a journey back would be a site, whos general purpose is to cloud, confuse, mock and laugh at imperfect churches....

    And this nonsense that Apostolic Churches demand perfection is absolute deceit. I know it will not keep you from propagating this generalization,,,but it is just not accurate.

  44. I have laughed all morning at the stuff on this blog site. being a UPC PK (preacher's kid)I have seen the pretentious-ness and double standard-ness of most of the rules and regs, and having discovered that we are saved by grace and that, because of God's great love for us, not because we are able to endure the heat (double meaning) in our sanctified attire. If we spend time in the Word and in prayer seeking God's Holiness, the UPC standards become a mute point.