Reaping The Whirl Wind, IRS Criminal Investigation of 3ABN Options

[YogusBearus]

Exclusively? If so, the spiritual gifts given to each of us to edifiy the body of Christ will need to evolve and adapt to be useful to this new, online version of the Christian church. How do we replace the smiles, handshakes and hugs?

BTW, one may already watch excellent live and archived church services on churchpond and praizevision. Our church, Santa Rosa SDA, also archives the sermons. These are broadcast twice weekly on local cable access channels and are aired in to our local county jail. Our pastor's face has become well known by many in the criminal justice system. When he walks into the jail to visit, it is common to hear "I know you!"

Still, as wonderful as it is to have the option to watch online, it's like good music - wonderful to have it on CD to listen to and enjoy, but doesn't compare to being at a live performance.

Sorry, I just can't buy the fascination with technology as the ultimate tool in reaching the lost. While the reach of the Internet and Television is huge, they are by and large means of communicating in one direction not unlike books and newspapers. I have a theory that the vast majority of our evangelism since the 50's has been targeted at the "left brained" segment of our population that tends to think and learn in a sequential and logical way, "head" knowledge if you will. This works quite nicely when your message is fact driven and can be reduced to charts, symbolism, and a neat list of what you need to do. I fear that this approach ends up giving us more than our share of extremists like Koresh and others.

There is more to the Gospel than head knowledge. The "heart" or relationship knowledge we all need is best taught by authentic Christian modeling. One huge generational difference I've noticed with the young adults of today is that they are much more relational socially than the boomers ever were. They tend to travel in herds. I'm convinced that we all crave and need the fellowship of a group of trusted believers to help us develop that most necessary relationship with the Lord. Whether it's in a cathedral or home setting is unimportant.

Tools are fine, but let's not get carried away with tool worship anymore than we want to be guilty of worshipping the Sabbath rather than the Lord.

-bear

This post has been edited by YogusBearus: Dec 6 2007, 11:40 AM

[LaurenceD]

Can you text on those new iPods? And here I thought I was up on tech issues ....

oops, that would be Iphone, not Ipod. But, it won't be long. Everything is going at warp speed in tecnology. Today, we throw away our full screens for wide versions, but tomorrow there'll be a knob that varies the width and length...so we'll wish we'd saved the old ones.

... though one thing the early church didn't have to contend with was the Internet. Stats tell us that like 80% of people will get their spiritual sustenance online by 2025.

And like the old full screens, doctrines vary from age to age and some still hold out for the old versions...like each man shall be rewarded according to his deeds, rather than how "spiritual" he can get (spiritual being defined as faith, prayers, dreams, and inner communion, talking in tongues, etc.). The old ways, the historic Adventist, not all this progressive stuff. Tomorrow (today?) there'll be a knob that allows for us to get divorced for reasons other than adultery and still maintain a clear conscience...ie...unless that conscience is actually malfunctioning unawares to our progressive state of unnatural wellbeing.

[PeacefulBe]

Sorry, I just can't buy the fascination with technology as the ultimate tool in reaching the lost. While the reach of the Internet and Television is huge, they are by and large means of communicating in one direction not unlike books and newspapers. I have a theory that the vast majority of our evangelism since the 50's has been targeted at the "left brained" segment of our population that tends to think and learn in a sequential and logical way, "head" knowledge if you will. This works quite nicely when your message is fact driven and can be reduced to charts, symbolism, and a neat list of what you need to do. I fear that this approach ends up giving us more than our share of extremists like Koresh and others.

There is more to the Gospel than head knowledge. The "heart" or relationship knowledge we all need is best taught by authentic Christian modeling. One huge generational difference I've noticed with the young adults of today is that they are much more relational socially than the boomers ever were. They tend to travel in herds. I'm convinced that we all crave and need the fellowship of a group of trusted believers to help us develop that most necessary relationship with the Lord. Whether it's in a cathedral or home setting is unimportant.

Tools are fine, but let's not get carried away with tool worship anymore than we want to be guilty of worshipping the Sabbath rather than the Lord.

-bear

I so agree with this. This past year has demonstrated to me, personally, that the fellowship we crave as gregarious beings can be partially satisfied in online groups of trusted believers such as here on BSDA.

Online sermons can be wonderful as additional material for personal edification and discussion, but we humans were created with five senses. We thrive when all are engaged.

PB

[jakann]

jakann, the thought struck me as I read your list again of things you think it does NOT mean (your caps) that you might be thinking of women. That women are not called or authorized. Is that what you meant? I am still just trying to read between the lines, since your definition was so unusual, it made me wonder who the "they" was that you were speaking of. You have obviously given these topics some thought and have a different perspective and I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
shepherdswife

No no. Women and men are both called and both authorized to do certain duties within the church. Some of these duties overlap, some don't, some can't, some shouldn't. It would be very, very difficult for me to be the "queen" in our house and rule over our children in this capacity as I am a man. And I think I've read somewhere that women have a greater effect upon the people in this world than men do. It also would be very hard for my wife to be the worship director for music in our church, even if she wanted to be, as she can't carry a tune in a bucket.

Men and women are both called by God. In that calling itself is the authorization to do said job.

BTW, I'm proud to say that I am for women's ordination--and men's ordination! See the following:
"All to whom the heavenly inspiration has come are put in trust with the gospel. All who receive the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow men. For this work the church was established, and all who take upon themselves its sacred vows are thereby pledged to be co-workers with Christ." Desire of Ages p.822

But, to stretch the concept of "priesthood of all believers" to mean that it gives every person license to fill any role in the church they want, is taking things a bit far.

[Pickle]

Okay, in a feeble effort to tie some of these subjects together, if too many churches engage in private inurement and such, the IRS might investigate them, their church building could get confiscated, and they'd have to resort to meeting in homes.

The result? Many more people would have to get off the pews, since there wouldn't be any anymore, and get to work doing what the Lord has called them to do. For one thing, the size of congregations would be much smaller, except in the case where one has a house many, many times the size of the average.

How's that?

[Ian]

Okay, in a feeble effort to tie some of these subjects together, if too many churches engage in private inurement and such, the IRS might investigate them, their church building could get confiscated, and they'd have to resort to meeting in homes.

The result? Many more people would have to get off the pews, since there wouldn't be any anymore, and get to work doing what the Lord has called them to do. For one thing, the size of congregations would be much smaller, except in the case where one has a house many, many times the size of the average.

How's that?

Nice try Mr Pickle, but no cigar.

There are always going to be bad apples, or tares or wolves in sheeps clothing, whatever you want to call them but those individuals don't own a Church. Adeventist Churches and ministries belong to all, or to a non- profit organization etc..
Which brings back the question of what is the true Church the People, the leadership/ Hierarchy or the building??

Individuals may be at fault and charged by the state, but the day the government starts confiscating the buildings a group of believers meet in or opperate a ministry from??

Well I fear that'll be the day warned about where the division of Church and State is made null and void and our constitution completely trampled, and we'll be right back in a situation like the dark ages.

And since we're all hopelessly offtopic... and the only threads I can find where this is ontopic are closed.

Can you explain to me why Gailon Joy per his bankruptcy case and his related adversarial proceeding case stated to the court on Nov 30, 2007, the following:

1. On or about April 7, 2007, Danny Lee Shelton and Three Angels
Broadcasting Network, Inc., filed suit against Gailon Arthur Joy and
Robert (Bob) Pickle, alleging violation of trademark and disparagement in
the Central District Court of Massachusetts ("District Court Case").
2. The Debtor, faced with a lack of income, filed for bankruptcy protection on
August 14, 2007.

If you can prove all that you and he, as "Private investigator and reporters" have claimed, why would he perceive the lawsuit as a threat to his income and file bankruptcy, for protection???

Further, WHY, if as you have claimed the automatic stay was a strategy on 3ABN's part to stop Joy's involvement in the civil case; Why did 3ABN counsel make a motion for the stay to be lifted? And why did He file a document requesting that the Judge not grant 3ABN's motion to lift the stay, and why did you file a brief to support his argument and request?


If you don't know what I am talking about or referring to, just let me know and I'll supply the documents and arguments and quotes from both you and Joy.


For what it's worth and despite the false claims and erronious speculation about the IRS and what's going on in this thread, from what I have seen and read it appears to me that it is you and Joy, and your cohorts and supporters, and even sources, who are, and will be reaping the whirlwind.

Cause and effect, action and equal reaction, what goes around, comes around, falling by your own devices, being judged as you judge... it's all very scientific and logical... biblical too..

There's many opinions here, guess we'll all know who and what is correct and true as this all plays out..

This post has been edited by Ian: Dec 7 2007, 06:22 AM

[Shepherdswife]

No no. Women and men are both called and both authorized to do certain duties within the church. Some of these duties overlap, some don't, some can't, some shouldn't. It would be very, very difficult for me to be the "queen" in our house and rule over our children in this capacity as I am a man. And I think I've read somewhere that women have a greater effect upon the people in this world than men do. It also would be very hard for my wife to be the worship director for music in our church, even if she wanted to be, as she can't carry a tune in a bucket.

Men and women are both called by God. In that calling itself is the authorization to do said job.

BTW, I'm proud to say that I am for women's ordination--and men's ordination! See the following:
"All to whom the heavenly inspiration has come are put in trust with the gospel. All who receive the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow men. For this work the church was established, and all who take upon themselves its sacred vows are thereby pledged to be co-workers with Christ." Desire of Ages p.822

But, to stretch the concept of "priesthood of all believers" to mean that it gives every person license to fill any role in the church they want, is taking things a bit far.

Sensible and practical...

Thanks

[watchbird]

No no. Women and men are both called and both authorized to do certain duties within the church. Some of these duties overlap, some don't, some can't, some shouldn't. It would be very, very difficult for me to be the "queen" in our house and rule over our children in this capacity as I am a man. And I think I've read somewhere that women have a greater effect upon the people in this world than men do. It also would be very hard for my wife to be the worship director for music in our church, even if she wanted to be, as she can't carry a tune in a bucket.

Men and women are both called by God. In that calling itself is the authorization to do said job.

BTW, I'm proud to say that I am for women's ordination--and men's ordination! See the following:
"All to whom the heavenly inspiration has come are put in trust with the gospel. All who receive the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow men. For this work the church was established, and all who take upon themselves its sacred vows are thereby pledged to be co-workers with Christ." Desire of Ages p.822

But, to stretch the concept of "priesthood of all believers" to mean that it gives every person license to fill any role in the church they want, is taking things a bit far.

Sensible and practical...

Thanks

Not really SW.... read it again... it's called "bait and switch". The "ordination" that Ellen White is talking about here has nothing to do with either the service of ordination to gospel ministry OR to the credentials of ordination that are the legal papers which show that the church has recognized the person thus ordained as being Ministers of the gospel in their particular church.

The arguments/explanations that jakann has used are typical of those who oppose this kind of formal ordination of women to gospel ministry... claiming that there are certain roles acceptable for women and certain ones that are only acceptable for men. IF he is actually basing his criteria for ordination on skill or ability, as his illustrations above would indicate, that would be as you say... "sensible and practical"... but the heavy implications are that there is something other than this hidden behind his words. If I am wrong I apologize in advance.... but the fact will remain that this is precisely the language that is used by those who oppose women's ordination to gospel ministry the most vigerously. So if he does NOT mean to be classed with them, then he should speak a whole lot diferently than what he has done here.

He is even muddying the waters when he speaks of "priesthood of all believers" as a basis... or non-basis... for roles in the church. The basis for ordaining women with the same ordination as men as gospel ministers is that there is that gender is not a determining factor in whether or not God calls someone to minister... and once called by God they should be tested and accepted without regard to gender.... and equipped by the same legal documents without regard to gender.

But this is surely enough off topic so that posts on this topic will be moved to a more appropriate section.... (thank you Clay for sorting carefully.... .....)

[awesumtenor]

Not really SW.... read it again... it's called "bait and switch". The "ordination" that Ellen White is talking about here has nothing to do with either the service of ordination to gospel ministry OR to the credentials of ordination that are the legal papers which show that the church has recognized the person thus ordained as being Ministers of the gospel in their particular church.

The arguments/explanations that jakann has used are typical of those who oppose this kind of formal ordination of women to gospel ministry... claiming that there are certain roles acceptable for women and certain ones that are only acceptable for men. IF he is actually basing his criteria for ordination on skill or ability, as his illustrations above would indicate, that would be as you say... "sensible and practical"... but the heavy implications are that there is something other than this hidden behind his words. If I am wrong I apologize in advance.... but the fact will remain that this is precisely the language that is used by those who oppose women's ordination to gospel ministry the most vigerously. So if he does NOT mean to be classed with them, then he should speak a whole lot diferently than what he has done here.

He is even muddying the waters when he speaks of "priesthood of all believers" as a basis... or non-basis... for roles in the church. The basis for ordaining women with the same ordination as men as gospel ministers is that there is that gender is not a determining factor in whether or not God calls someone to minister... and once called by God they should be tested and accepted without regard to gender.... and equipped by the same legal documents without regard to gender.

But this is surely enough off topic so that posts on this topic will be moved to a more appropriate section.... (thank you Clay for sorting carefully.... .....)

Indeed WB... not to mention the definition of "priesthood of all believers" is not consistent with what scripture declares but instead has been applied to a very skewed view .

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

Okay, in a feeble effort to tie some of these subjects together, if too many churches engage in private inurement and such, the IRS might investigate them, their church building could get confiscated, and they'd have to resort to meeting in homes.

The result? Many more people would have to get off the pews, since there wouldn't be any anymore, and get to work doing what the Lord has called them to do. For one thing, the size of congregations would be much smaller, except in the case where one has a house many, many times the size of the average.

How's that?

So...... it would be a good thing if churches were to engage in private inurement because the end result would be getting the membership off of the pews and about the Lord's work? Now that is an interesting spin on the "ends justify the means" philosophy.

Carrying that philosophy to it's logical conclusion, or at least part of the way there, why be concerned about the possible 3abn private inurement practices? Won't it simply lead to the stockholders in the pews getting busy about the Lord's work?

[PeacefulBe]

And since we're all hopelessly offtopic... and the only threads I can find where this is ontopic are closed.

Ian, there's a button on nearly every page here on BSDA that says "New Topic". You, as a member, can push it and begin a discussion on points you wish to bring forward. It's one of the great percs of being a registered member here!

Cause and effect, action and equal reaction, what goes around, comes around, falling by your own devices, being judged as you judge... it's all very scientific and logical... biblical too..

There's many opinions here, guess we'll all know who and what is correct and true as this all plays out..

Ah, yes. Karma...

NOUN:

1. Hinduism & Buddhism The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny.
2. Fate; destiny.
3. Informal A distinctive aura, atmosphere, or feeling: There's bad karma around the house today.

[lurker]

There is an article on sdadefend about the lawsuit if anyone cares to read it. http://www.sdadefend.com/updates.htm

There is also an article about The Visions of William Ellis Foy.

This post has been edited by lurker: Dec 7 2007, 05:40 PM

[GRAT]

There is an article on sdadefend about the lawsuit if anyone cares to read it. http://www.sdadefend.com/updates.htm

There is also an article about The Visions of William Ellis Foy.

Interesting article! Thank you. I tried to find the web site listed "dannyshelton.com" but only come up with some advertisements for Shelton, WA which is near where I live. No relation I would guess.

[Johann]

And since we're all hopelessly offtopic... and the only threads I can find where this is ontopic are closed.

It is getting a lot more difficult to express one's thoughts. Before you know it the subject has been closed. Not honest?

[Brenda]

There is an article on sdadefend about the lawsuit if anyone cares to read it. http://www.sdadefend.com/updates.htm

There is also an article about The Visions of William Ellis Foy.

Interesting to see the other articles/topics contained there.

Also interesting the assertion that the writer will remain neutral but repeatedly concludes that the lawsuit would not have commenced unless the plaintiffs had proof (bascially that Danny had the right to remarry) in hand.