John O'Keefe Line by Lie
John O’Keefe Line by Lie.
I had a recent e-spat with a national Emergent leader named John O’Keefe. He writes for theooze.com and is a mover and a shaker in the Emergent Obfuscation. Mr. O is typical Emergent and calls his blog Ginkworld Inside the Mind of Punk Monkey. Yeah, and he’s actually a full grown man in his forties. One has to wonder if the drinking of bong water is somehow involved in all of this.
He recently sent an email to the administration of my school. He was REALLY UPSET with GREAT CONCERN AND PAIN. (Yikes! This must be really bad.) I was to be severely bad-boyed because I was so mean. It turns out that a fellow in Billings was running around lying and I, being the intolerant bigot that I am, asked him to stop it–oh, the HUMANITY!!!! (He had sent away for "this card that said I was a reverend.") Undoubtedly, with credentials like that the man is NEVER TO BE QUESTIONED–EVER!
Weeell... I did. Go to wordofmouthminintries.blogspot.com to see that e-spat.
Anyway, Mr. O, being the man he is, tattled on me. He told the school that I was a REALLY BIG MEANY and that I should be DRAWN AND QUARTERED as soon as was convenient, certainly by the next morning. Naturally, this caused some angst at the school until they found out the truth. Now a lot of folks at the school are getting informed as to the Emergent Heresy. So John meant it for evil but God meant it for good.
So I sent Mr. O an email asking him to clear this up a bit. Again, in true manly fashion, he declined to deal with me directly. Instead, he waited a few weeks and blog-whined about myself and a message board that evidently asked for straight forward, biblical answers, something that will cause any Emergent type to develop a permanent facial tick.
Just in case John happens to accidently push the delete when he gets a load of my answer here is how I answered him line by lie:
To Zac and John,
This is really addressed to John, but Zac may enjoy reading this as he has been smeared by John, too. My name is Phil Perkins, I am the second guy, the prof, in John’s story. I am really just a welder, but that is another story. I live in Billings, MT and I recently gave a talk on three contemporary sources of apostasy to my church. One of them was the Emergent. I was asked if any Emergent churches were in Billings. Didn’t know...so I Googled. That is how I found Carlos Shelton–"the planter" in the story.
I’ll start by simply answering some of your questions. This may seem harsh, but there is a point to be made if you’re open.
JO: at what point does a conversation breakdown?
ANSWER: Evidently, when you are faced with the truth and run.
JO: does it happen when the first insult is voiced?
ANSWER: No, I just asked you to explain yourself when you insulted me...behind my back....to the school.
JO: does it happen when one person twists what the other person says to meet a personal agenda?
ANSWER: No, I put up with that, too.
JO: does it happen when one side simply refuses to even hear what the other has to say?
ANSWER: Now John, you know we can hear each other just fine. Heck, I even heard the stuff you did not want me to hear, the fibs you told my school.
JO: does it happen when one person calls into question the honor of the other?
ANSWER: Your honor would not be called into question if you had been honest. I gave you that chance when I asked if you had read the conversations about which you complained. If you hadn’t and had just trusted someone, then you could have simply acknowledged a mistake. We all make mistakes. It would be no big deal. That would be that.
JO: at what point can we say, "this conversation is over" because we know it is going no place?
ANSWER: Oh, it was going someplace, alright. You just didn’t like getting caught and neither did Carlos.
JO: which leads us to the idea that if you leave the conversation and the other person is still talking [or insulting] does that mean the conversation is still happening?
ANSWER: Now there you go again, John. You know I have not bothered you at all since you refused to answer my email.
JO: if one person leaves a conversation, does that make the other person "the winner?"
ANSWER: Usually.
JO: does there have to be a winner in a conversation?
ANSWER: That’s the way it usually ends up if you have been busted fibbing about all sorts of stuff. You go away embarrassed. I did when I was a kid...lots of times. Not fun, huh?
JO: at what point does a conversation become a monolog?
ANSWER: When you run and start fibbing on your blog where you hope no one will answer you.
JO: i ask this, because this week i had two such experiences.
ANSWER: I suspect you ask this because in both instances you met up with real believers and they challenged you with logic and Scripture. In my case, not only did your gossiping to my school administration not work, but I will now have the chance to address the entire faculty and speak to them about the Emergent heresy. You will be case in point when it comes to the dishonesty that permeates the leadership of the whole movement. We will work hard to warn our students about you and others like you.
JO: i received an email a few weeks ago from a friend letting me know that there was a college professor attacking a church planter in his area.
ANSWER: The "attack" was simply three things. First, the "planter" claimed to be ordained. He is not. Instead, he has (in his own words, now) "this card that said I was a Reverend." Cute, huh? The card is from a mail order diploma mill called UCMI. It is a joke. Ucmi.com is their website. Check it out. He is not ordained by any church or denomination as far as I know. If I am wrong, this is your chance to correct me and I will apologize forthwith. Carlos indicated he was not ordained outside of the UCMI card. The second, thing I asked about was the apparent contradictions between his doctrinal statement and his endorsement of Emergent and Brian McLaren. His doctrinal statement was conservative (with a definite twist or two) and it left no room for the disregard of Scripture McLaren and the entire Emergent embraces. The third question was a sincere one. He did a blog that first seemed to object to sodomy, then seemed to excuse it. I was not sure of his position and asked. He got mad and it took quite a few exchanges before he made a clear statement. And his final position was orthodox. I see by your approval of David Sherwood you DO excuse sexual perversion. Nice.
JO: the only reason the professor was picking on the person [this was the only reason brought to my attention and the professor only mentioned it in five questions he had emailed me] was because the professor did not like the planter ordination, and he had concerns on how the planter "received his education."
ANSWER: I said nothing about his education. That quote is dishonest and you would know it if you read the blogs. I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty. According to Paul a man that is double tongued is unfit for service.
JO: which was interesting to me because the professor teaches at a small baptist college - baptists have historically ordain people who believe God is calling to ministry, and seldom, if ever, has an education requirement been attached to the ordination.
ANSWER: Yeah, we Baptists are a real piece of work, huh? However, in your email sent to the school administration in which you were tattling profusely on the big meany in Billings you said this:
"I am the Lead Pastor with a growing, engaged and Christ-centered Emerging Community of faith, and we are connected with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)..." Wellllll, you’re a wacko Baptist, too? Hmmm. Then you said, "...I have to be honest..." I’ll hold my breath.
JO: \this person [and it was not the planter, but a concerned member of the community who knew me and knew I would be a peaceful neutral party] asked if i would "play the middle guy"
ANSWER: Oh, so THAT’S why you gossiped to the school. You were REALLY being nice to me. Gee whiz, I just can’t believe I missed that one.
JO: and see if i could address the issue of ordination between the professor and the planter.
ANSWER: No, John. It’s not the paper. It’s the dishonesty.
JO: needless to say, my emails to the professor have fallen upon deaf ears...
ANSWER: You told the school that you weren’t able to email me. Pick a fib and stick to it, John.
I will publish your email soon on zitsemerge.blogspot.com. so everyone can read it.
JO: the professor, for what ever reason he has, has taken to want a fight with me.
ANSWER: That is not the truth and you know it. I simply sent you the email and you have not answered. And that has been weeks.
JO: i am uncomfortable with any conversation based on anger and hurtfilled speech between members of God’s kingdom.
ANSWER: Ahhh. Pot calling Kettle...come in please.
Now here is a transcript of the email I sent you:
John,
This is Phil Perkins. I will be glad to publicly dialogue with you and/or Carlos Shelton any time and any forum, perhaps at our school. All you had to do was ask the school for my email address. However, you now have this one. Please feel free any time. And give it to Mr. Shelton as well.
At any rate here are five questions:
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
Sincerely,
Phil.
Now explain to me and your readers just how you thought this was out of line, especially in light of the fibs you told about me to the school and the names and vitriol spued by Carlos when he was busted publicly. Go to zitsemerge.blogspot.com for further documentation if you think that I have fibbed about Carlos, or go to wordomouthministeries.blogspot.com if it is still there.
I have called you to account, but remember that Jesus REALLY shed REAL blood. He did so as the REAL Son of God because we are REALLY sinful, headed for a REAL hell for eternity. The Lamb was REALLY raised the third day. (The Middle Matzah was found.) I do not know if you will ever be willing, but please repent and be saved. This is the message never heard in the Emergent and denied by you, John, in your blog of late March, 2006 and in your lifestyle.
In eternal view of Christ’s blood and loving forgiveness,
Phil Perkins.
I had a recent e-spat with a national Emergent leader named John O’Keefe. He writes for theooze.com and is a mover and a shaker in the Emergent Obfuscation. Mr. O is typical Emergent and calls his blog Ginkworld Inside the Mind of Punk Monkey. Yeah, and he’s actually a full grown man in his forties. One has to wonder if the drinking of bong water is somehow involved in all of this.
He recently sent an email to the administration of my school. He was REALLY UPSET with GREAT CONCERN AND PAIN. (Yikes! This must be really bad.) I was to be severely bad-boyed because I was so mean. It turns out that a fellow in Billings was running around lying and I, being the intolerant bigot that I am, asked him to stop it–oh, the HUMANITY!!!! (He had sent away for "this card that said I was a reverend.") Undoubtedly, with credentials like that the man is NEVER TO BE QUESTIONED–EVER!
Weeell... I did. Go to wordofmouthminintries.blogspot.com to see that e-spat.
Anyway, Mr. O, being the man he is, tattled on me. He told the school that I was a REALLY BIG MEANY and that I should be DRAWN AND QUARTERED as soon as was convenient, certainly by the next morning. Naturally, this caused some angst at the school until they found out the truth. Now a lot of folks at the school are getting informed as to the Emergent Heresy. So John meant it for evil but God meant it for good.
So I sent Mr. O an email asking him to clear this up a bit. Again, in true manly fashion, he declined to deal with me directly. Instead, he waited a few weeks and blog-whined about myself and a message board that evidently asked for straight forward, biblical answers, something that will cause any Emergent type to develop a permanent facial tick.
Just in case John happens to accidently push the delete when he gets a load of my answer here is how I answered him line by lie:
To Zac and John,
This is really addressed to John, but Zac may enjoy reading this as he has been smeared by John, too. My name is Phil Perkins, I am the second guy, the prof, in John’s story. I am really just a welder, but that is another story. I live in Billings, MT and I recently gave a talk on three contemporary sources of apostasy to my church. One of them was the Emergent. I was asked if any Emergent churches were in Billings. Didn’t know...so I Googled. That is how I found Carlos Shelton–"the planter" in the story.
I’ll start by simply answering some of your questions. This may seem harsh, but there is a point to be made if you’re open.
JO: at what point does a conversation breakdown?
ANSWER: Evidently, when you are faced with the truth and run.
JO: does it happen when the first insult is voiced?
ANSWER: No, I just asked you to explain yourself when you insulted me...behind my back....to the school.
JO: does it happen when one person twists what the other person says to meet a personal agenda?
ANSWER: No, I put up with that, too.
JO: does it happen when one side simply refuses to even hear what the other has to say?
ANSWER: Now John, you know we can hear each other just fine. Heck, I even heard the stuff you did not want me to hear, the fibs you told my school.
JO: does it happen when one person calls into question the honor of the other?
ANSWER: Your honor would not be called into question if you had been honest. I gave you that chance when I asked if you had read the conversations about which you complained. If you hadn’t and had just trusted someone, then you could have simply acknowledged a mistake. We all make mistakes. It would be no big deal. That would be that.
JO: at what point can we say, "this conversation is over" because we know it is going no place?
ANSWER: Oh, it was going someplace, alright. You just didn’t like getting caught and neither did Carlos.
JO: which leads us to the idea that if you leave the conversation and the other person is still talking [or insulting] does that mean the conversation is still happening?
ANSWER: Now there you go again, John. You know I have not bothered you at all since you refused to answer my email.
JO: if one person leaves a conversation, does that make the other person "the winner?"
ANSWER: Usually.
JO: does there have to be a winner in a conversation?
ANSWER: That’s the way it usually ends up if you have been busted fibbing about all sorts of stuff. You go away embarrassed. I did when I was a kid...lots of times. Not fun, huh?
JO: at what point does a conversation become a monolog?
ANSWER: When you run and start fibbing on your blog where you hope no one will answer you.
JO: i ask this, because this week i had two such experiences.
ANSWER: I suspect you ask this because in both instances you met up with real believers and they challenged you with logic and Scripture. In my case, not only did your gossiping to my school administration not work, but I will now have the chance to address the entire faculty and speak to them about the Emergent heresy. You will be case in point when it comes to the dishonesty that permeates the leadership of the whole movement. We will work hard to warn our students about you and others like you.
JO: i received an email a few weeks ago from a friend letting me know that there was a college professor attacking a church planter in his area.
ANSWER: The "attack" was simply three things. First, the "planter" claimed to be ordained. He is not. Instead, he has (in his own words, now) "this card that said I was a Reverend." Cute, huh? The card is from a mail order diploma mill called UCMI. It is a joke. Ucmi.com is their website. Check it out. He is not ordained by any church or denomination as far as I know. If I am wrong, this is your chance to correct me and I will apologize forthwith. Carlos indicated he was not ordained outside of the UCMI card. The second, thing I asked about was the apparent contradictions between his doctrinal statement and his endorsement of Emergent and Brian McLaren. His doctrinal statement was conservative (with a definite twist or two) and it left no room for the disregard of Scripture McLaren and the entire Emergent embraces. The third question was a sincere one. He did a blog that first seemed to object to sodomy, then seemed to excuse it. I was not sure of his position and asked. He got mad and it took quite a few exchanges before he made a clear statement. And his final position was orthodox. I see by your approval of David Sherwood you DO excuse sexual perversion. Nice.
JO: the only reason the professor was picking on the person [this was the only reason brought to my attention and the professor only mentioned it in five questions he had emailed me] was because the professor did not like the planter ordination, and he had concerns on how the planter "received his education."
ANSWER: I said nothing about his education. That quote is dishonest and you would know it if you read the blogs. I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty. According to Paul a man that is double tongued is unfit for service.
JO: which was interesting to me because the professor teaches at a small baptist college - baptists have historically ordain people who believe God is calling to ministry, and seldom, if ever, has an education requirement been attached to the ordination.
ANSWER: Yeah, we Baptists are a real piece of work, huh? However, in your email sent to the school administration in which you were tattling profusely on the big meany in Billings you said this:
"I am the Lead Pastor with a growing, engaged and Christ-centered Emerging Community of faith, and we are connected with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)..." Wellllll, you’re a wacko Baptist, too? Hmmm. Then you said, "...I have to be honest..." I’ll hold my breath.
JO: \this person [and it was not the planter, but a concerned member of the community who knew me and knew I would be a peaceful neutral party] asked if i would "play the middle guy"
ANSWER: Oh, so THAT’S why you gossiped to the school. You were REALLY being nice to me. Gee whiz, I just can’t believe I missed that one.
JO: and see if i could address the issue of ordination between the professor and the planter.
ANSWER: No, John. It’s not the paper. It’s the dishonesty.
JO: needless to say, my emails to the professor have fallen upon deaf ears...
ANSWER: You told the school that you weren’t able to email me. Pick a fib and stick to it, John.
I will publish your email soon on zitsemerge.blogspot.com. so everyone can read it.
JO: the professor, for what ever reason he has, has taken to want a fight with me.
ANSWER: That is not the truth and you know it. I simply sent you the email and you have not answered. And that has been weeks.
JO: i am uncomfortable with any conversation based on anger and hurtfilled speech between members of God’s kingdom.
ANSWER: Ahhh. Pot calling Kettle...come in please.
Now here is a transcript of the email I sent you:
John,
This is Phil Perkins. I will be glad to publicly dialogue with you and/or Carlos Shelton any time and any forum, perhaps at our school. All you had to do was ask the school for my email address. However, you now have this one. Please feel free any time. And give it to Mr. Shelton as well.
At any rate here are five questions:
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
Sincerely,
Phil.
Now explain to me and your readers just how you thought this was out of line, especially in light of the fibs you told about me to the school and the names and vitriol spued by Carlos when he was busted publicly. Go to zitsemerge.blogspot.com for further documentation if you think that I have fibbed about Carlos, or go to wordomouthministeries.blogspot.com if it is still there.
I have called you to account, but remember that Jesus REALLY shed REAL blood. He did so as the REAL Son of God because we are REALLY sinful, headed for a REAL hell for eternity. The Lamb was REALLY raised the third day. (The Middle Matzah was found.) I do not know if you will ever be willing, but please repent and be saved. This is the message never heard in the Emergent and denied by you, John, in your blog of late March, 2006 and in your lifestyle.
In eternal view of Christ’s blood and loving forgiveness,
Phil Perkins.
Labels: Emergent Anger, Line by Lie, Okeefe
posted by Phil Perkins at 6:39 AM
11 Comments:
mr perkins,
please allow me to address your comment of:
John,
I am still waiting for some answers. The email quote you geve is not in the email and the email address you "confirm"ed with the school--they never had it.
Honestly,
Phil Perkins
which was left on ginkworld's blog. to begin with, the president of the university told me that that was the only email address they had for you - and the young lady who answers the phones told me that "that was the email address" - so, if they do not have it and they told me that was it - i am not sure what to add.
the first email i sent to the school dated 3/30/06 and was addressed to the president:
President Phillips,
My name is John O'Keefe and recently I received an email from a friend that caused me great concern, and great pain concerning one of the members of your faculty. It seems one of the members of your faculty, a Phil Perkins, has taken it upon himself to attack another person of Christ, Carlos Shelton [aka "Iggy"] who is planting a church in the area - and from my understandings the attacks are not kind, have no grace and are focused on a personal level. Now, before I go on let me say that Carlos was not the person who emailed me concerning this matter - It was another friend. But that does not change anything, or the focus of my disappointment.
Over the past few years, as the Emerging Church starts to grow and take root, many have taken it upon themselves to attack on a personal level, and that is what concerns me the most. To encourage conversation on a theological level is a great and wonderful thing and all can learn; attacks on a personal level shows a disunity in the spirit and cause those "outside" the church to see us as "infighters." You see, disagreements are acceptable, and when they happen conversation is encouraged. I have had differences with others and we have simply talked them out - and at times we simply ended the conversation with the "agree to disagree" reality, but we never make them personal and when it is over, it is over. Mr Perkins has taken this to an unacceptable level by making the attacks personal, and refusing to have direct conversation concerning this matter.
I am the Lead Pastor with a growing, engaged and Christ-centered Emerging Community of faith, and we are connected with the SBC - I have to be honest and say that I have been thinking as of late "why are we here if we are so unwelcomed in this slice of the Kingdom." But I pray, and rethink much; no sooner does that happen, Mr Perkins pops up and starts to blindside another member of the kingdom. So, I start to ask again "why are we here if we are so unwelcome in this slice of the Kingdom." Over the past few years I have heard [and had conversations with] Mohler, Carson and others concerning what we think, how we process information and why we do what we do. Those experiences have two very important thing in common, while we may disagree they are willing to hold a conversation and not a monolog; and they never, never, make it personal.
I am disappointed in this whole process, and I pray that God will be in the mix. I am disappointed, as grace is not seen as a valued expression of faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. While I am uncertain what can be done, I am certain that in Christ there is only unity and to cause disunity in the Kingdom is not being "Christ-like" in our expression of faith.
Pax
John O'Keefe
PS: I would have loved to have emailed Mr Perkins himself to open a conversation, but there is no email address for him the site, and I have been told that others have tried - but that their conversation request has fallen on deaf ears.
[note: there is nothing in my email that suggest anything like, "Anyway, Mr. O, being the man he is, tattled on me. He told the school that I was a REALLY BIG MEANY and that I should be DRAWN AND QUARTERED"]
then, president phillips emailed me on 4/03/06:
Pastor O’Keefe,
I have shared your e-mail with Mr. Perkins. Be assured that I am praying with you that this can be resolved to God’s glory.
In Christ,
Bill Phillips
the email you sent to me after that was sent on 4/09/06:
John,
This is Phil Perkins. I will be glad to publicly dialogue with you and/or Carlos Shelton any time and any forum, perhaps at our school. All you had to do was ask the school for my email address. However, you now have this one. Please feel free any time. And give it to Mr. Shelton as well.
At any rate here are five questions:
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
Sincerely,
Phil.
[note: in your comment on ginkworld's blog you said, "I said nothing about his education. That quote is dishonest and you would know it if you read the blogs. I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty. According to Paul a man that is double tongued is unfit for service." so i guess questions 3 concern about the 120 hours of tape have noting to do with education?
you also mentioned that you were truly not concered with his ordination, "I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty." but as you can see questions 2 and 3 deal directly with his ordination]
here is the email i sent to you, and the email i recieved from aol telling me that the email could not be delievered, notice the date was 4/09/06.
Mr. Perkins,
I have no problem with having to "publicly dialogue" on any topic concerning the faith I hold dear, and the kingdom I wish to help expand. But it is your offer, not mine, so the details will need to be made by you and the school.
Allow me the opportunity to address your "five questions," though I am concerned as to why the need to seemingly jump on me? I am not sure I am comfortable with the tone, and the seemingly aggressive move on your part. But, in the unity of the Spirit, and in the grace of Christ I will strive to address your questions.
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
Well, as mentioned in my opening email to President Phillips [that was forwarded to you], I did not hear from Pastor Sheldon directly on anything. It was brought to my attention by a person who knows me, and I believe also knows Pastor Shelton. I do not desire to be involved in the personal emails between two parties; my only reason for writing was to express a "heart hurt" involving the Kingdom, and how we as Christians express of love of Christ with each other and how others [outsiders] see the infighting.
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
I am not in the habit of checking the "Ordination" of other Pastors. It is my understanding that certain gatherings of Christians Ordain in different ways, with different educational requirements and with different understandings of the theology behind the Ordination. For example, in the Baptist Church one is simply Ordained by the local church and there are no educational requirements, it simply takes a call from God. Yet, in the UMC one must hold a MDiv from a accredited theological school. While amny in the Non-denominational world see it as nothing different from anyone else in the Church, except with a call to teach publicly. Am I to say one is better, and one is wrong? Which one is the "right" ordination? In the African American traditions, many bodies have form to ordain Pastors, shall we say they are wrong? So, have I personally check his Ordination? No, but must I do that to say he is a Pastor?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
Pastor Shelton sought the Ordination he felt God was leading him to, is that wrong? Who are we to ever question what God is saying to another? Do we have more say, because we have "better education" or because we have a "better system?" Is it the Ordination or the education that seems to be up-setting you? May I suggest you read their Faith Statement, Core Beliefs and their Code of Ethics [at: http://www.ucmi.org/ucmi/min-assoc/index.htm ]. The issue is never founded around the man made legal issues, but around the teachings of the Word of God.
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
I would approve of no one telling anyone to "burn" for any reason, and if Pastor Shelton said this then I would be the first to tell him he is wrong. In that, we must admit that many churches are filled with "false assumptions of humility and a very self-delusional self-righteousness" but I am of the belief that the redemptive nature of Christ can change that, not insults. I seek to find a redemptive spirit, a redemptive nature and a redemptive grace in all I seek to do - as I would pray and hope all people of Christ seek.
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
I believe I spoke concerning name calling in the above question. Calling anyone a name, or confronting anyone with a tone that can be seen as mean spirited cause me concern and pain, why would you belittle that with you "quotes" and your statements? If you, or a friend of yours, emailed me and shared with me what was being said about you, I would have emailed Pastor Shelton with the same concerns for the unity of the Kingdom; to doubt that seems to be of a spirit I am uncomfortable addressing. If anyone in the Kingdom speaks ill of another it causes me concern and pain, and yes calling you names cause me concern and pain.
Again, I need to express that I am not interested in confrontation, only healing. A spirit of attack is not in my nature, and I am given more to the spirit of forgiveness. If you desire a dialog with me, I am willing to discuss anything you desire - but know that my default is Christ, and human desires and "rights" are not in my way of approaching unity in the kingdom.
Pax
John
here is the "return" from the "daemon" i recieved after sending the email to you, dated 4/9/06:
The original message was received at Sun, 9 Apr 2006 17:21:23 -0400 (EDT) from mailserver.ezot.com [69.7.164.165]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers.
Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator.
--AOL Postmaster
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- dikuk@aol.com
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-xb01.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To: dikuk@aol.com
<<< 550 dikuk IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER 550 dikuk@aol.com... User unknown
[note: i needed to remove the "<" from the email address because bloger picks that up as an invalid html tag.]
here is the email i sent via the president of the school, notice the date is 4/10/06:
Mr. Perkins,
first, please allow me to explain why this is coming via President Phillips; I tried to reply to your email directly, but either your account settings are set in such a way as to not allow email from unapproved address, or their was a problem with the AOL server. I did call the school to get another email and the nice young lady who answered the phone passed me to President Phillips, who graciously agreed to pass this on to you because this was the only email they had for you. A copy of the email sent to me via AOL is at the very bottom of this eamil [after your original email to me]. Let me thank you in advance for understanding. Now, to adrees the issues at hand.
I have no problem with having to "publicly dialogue" on any topic concerning the faith I hold dear, and the kingdom I wish to help expand. But it is your offer, not mine, so the details will need to be made by you and the school.
Allow me the opportunity to address your "five questions," though I am concerned as to why the need to seemingly jump on me? I am not sure I am comfortable with the tone, and the seemingly aggressive move on your part. But, in the unity of the Spirit, and in the grace of Christ I will strive to address your questions.
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
Well, as mentioned in my opening email to President Phillips [that was forwarded to you], I did not hear from Pastor Sheldon directly on anything. It was brought to my attention by a person who knows me, and I believe also knows Pastor Shelton. I do not desire to be involved in the personal emails between two parties; my only reason for writing was to express a "heart hurt" involving the Kingdom, and how we as Christians express of love of Christ with each other and how others [outsiders] see the infighting.
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
I am not in the habit of checking the "Ordination" of other Pastors. It is my understanding that certain gatherings of Christians Ordain in different ways, with different educational requirements and with different understandings of the theology behind the Ordination. For example, in the Baptist Church one is simply Ordained by the local church and there are no educational requirements, it simply takes a call from God. Yet, in the UMC one must hold a MDiv from a accredited theological school. While amny in the Non-denominational world see it as nothing different from anyone else in the Church, except with a call to teach publicly. Am I to say one is better, and one is wrong? Which one is the "right" ordination? In the African American traditions, many bodies have form to ordain Pastors, shall we say they are wrong? So, have I personally check his Ordination? No, but must I do that to say he is a Pastor?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
Pastor Shelton sought the Ordination he felt God was leading him to, is that wrong? Who are we to ever question what God is saying to another? Do we have more say, because we have "better education" or because we have a "better system?" Is it the Ordination or the education that seems to be up-setting you? May I suggest you read their Faith Statement, Core Beliefs and their Code of Ethics [at: http://www.ucmi.org/ucmi/min-assoc/index.htm ]. The issue is never founded around the man made legal issues, but around the teachings of the Word of God.
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
I would approve of no one telling anyone to "burn" for any reason, and if Pastor Shelton said this then I would be the first to tell him he is wrong. In that, we must admit that many churches are filled with "false assumptions of humility and a very self-delusional self-righteousness" but I am of the belief that the redemptive nature of Christ can change that, not insults. I seek to find a redemptive spirit, a redemptive nature and a redemptive grace in all I seek to do - as I would pray and hope all people of Christ seek.
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
I believe I spoke concerning name calling in the above question. Calling anyone a name, or confronting anyone with a tone that can be seen as mean spirited cause me concern and pain, why would you belittle that with you "quotes" and your statements? If you, or a friend of yours, emailed me and shared with me what was being said about you, I would have emailed Pastor Shelton with the same concerns for the unity of the Kingdom; to doubt that seems to be of a spirit I am uncomfortable addressing. If anyone in the Kingdom speaks ill of another it causes me concern and pain, and yes calling you names cause me concern and pain.
Again, I need to express that I am not interested in confrontation, only healing. A spirit of attack is not in my nature, and I am given more to the spirit of forgiveness. If you desire a dialog with me, I am willing to discuss anything you desire - but know that my default is Christ, and human desires and "rights" are not in my way of approaching unity in the kingdom.
Pax
John
[note: i did remove the original letter and the copy of the aol return because they are posted above.]
after this, i did email president phillips when i recieved information that you were bloging about me in such a wrong and hurtfilled way, the email was sent on 4/23/06:
President Phillips,
I personally would like to thank you for your gracious heart and your willingness to be involved in what at best can be seen as a very "hurtfilled" experience. I do desire to apologize if I got you involved in the center of something not of God, but i firmly believe in the redemptive power of Christ. In that, I had been awaiting Mr. Perkins response to my last email, and found it not in the form of an email, but in the public form of a post on my blog and a "new blog" created by Mr. Perkins ["http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/"] called "zits emerge truth abides" [which is insulting, and shares no grace] I do not deal well with hate and anger, and disingenuous dialog is something I shy away from. In fact just last night [a personal friend] and I were talking about how some, on both ends of the discussion, desire to voice their views with hate and anger - and [he] and I agreed that we would not play that game.
Mr Perkins calling me a "indefensibly dishonest person" and that I "threatened" him and "lied" about him are not real; in fact, I believe God has been in this from the beginning because you have copies of every email I sent to Mr Perkins. I have strived to be nothing but gracious to Mr Perkins in both disagreeing with him and agreeing with him, and I never threatened him or lied to him or about anything. It hurts to know this is a man teaching the next generation of ministers and Christian leaders; will hate and anger be a driving force?. I may not agree with his theology, but I was always under the impression that if the Core was Christ, we could talk about other things. In all he wrote, there is nothing about Christ, the redemptive power of grace and the heart of forgiveness.
Pax
John O'Keefe
mr perkins, in no way did i mislead, lie or hide the reality of the conversation. to imply i did is disingenuous, unfair, and uncalled for. you have questioned my honesty, my desire to serve and my call to ministry - even my salvation. you might think yourself "fighting for the cause" but please notice that you are just being mean, hurtful and not open to dialog.
if you notice, you will see that i have agreed that name calling is wrong - and i emailed that to you. i have no desire to get in a name calling debate - you might, but i am not in that walk of faith.
pax
john
i just noticed something very interesting, and now i am questioning how it can be explained:
in your original email to me you wrote, "All you had to do was ask the school for my email address." which i did and they said they could not give out.
but you then wrote [in your last comment to me], "I am still waiting for some answers. The email quote you geve is not in the email and the email address you "confirm"ed with the school--they never had it."
question:
if they never had it [your email address], why did you tell me i could get it from them?
interesting, should i count this to a lie, or a misunderstanding? in my world, grace abounds, i will count it as a misunderstanding.
just so you know, and because i do not do anything behind the back of another -
i eamiled you and president phillips the following:
President Phillips,
An unacceptable line has been drawn in the sand by Mr. Perkins - He has done the unthinkable. On his blog he wrote, in reference to me "Mr. O is typical Emergent and calls his blog Ginkworld Inside the Mind of Punk Monkey. Yeah, and he’s actually a full grown man in his forties. One has to wonder if the drinking of bong water is somehow involved in all of this." There is no call for him to accuse me of doing drugs, or of violating the law. As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I demand he provide proof of my "drinking bong water" or publish an apology for that insulting, inflammatory, and slanderous statement. This insult was uncalled for and is not founded in Christian love; if he is "rebuking" me for an action I have done then i demand he show the proof of such, keeping in mind I have never met this man. Also, his belittling my true desire for compassion and care is something I might expect from a person "of the world" but not of a man teaching Christian Leaders and who is to be "in Christ."
If this is the type of professors you have at your school, rest assured it will not be a place I recommend to any person - I value the heart and faith of people more then to place them in the middle of such slander.
Seeking to forgive
John O'Keefe
PS: I have copied Mr Perkins in on this email. I am uncertain if it will be delivered because of restrictions on Mr Perkins email provider.
no sooner did i send yours, then i recieved a email from aol telling me that the email was not able to be delievered - here is a copy of that eamil:
The original message was received at Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:57:57 -0400 (EDT) from mailserver.ezot.com [69.7.164.165]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers.
Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator.
--AOL Postmaster
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- dikuk@aol.com
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-yj02.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To: dikuk@aol.com
<<< 550 dikuk IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER 550 dikuk@aol.com... User unknown
you have crossed the line.
John,
Thanks for visiting here at Zits. I accidentally deleted one of your shorter comments. I think it is the one in which you got mad at me about the bong water joke. If you could resubmit it I will be glad to publish it ASAP.
Now to your comments. I have more than one email address and the one you mentioned is not at the school.
I see you admited you did not read the conversation between Carlos and myself. Thank you for that honesty. Could you now please correct the record with the school? I'm sure you will do the right thing. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to.
I see also that you acknowledge that the personal insults brought against me were not right. I am sure you will make that right, too.
As to the third question--I am not ordained, either. I just don't go around saying that I am. Honesty--God's calling never requires us to sin against a basic moral commandment like honesty.
Now for last questions and I will not bother you again. You may answer them or not.
Why do you think it is okay for a "minister of the gospel" to teach that all are saved?
Why do you think it is okay for any one to lionize heroes of Communism and the drug culture, as you have done one ginkworld.net?
Why do you think it is okay for any Christian to publicly approve of things that ought not to be once mentioned among us? I refer to the David Sherwood article calling a bisexual "godly" on ginkworld.net.
Why is it that you are angry with me for giving you the gospel?
Phil Perkins.
mr perkins,
i am not angry with you about anything, anger is an emotion we are called to rid ourselves of in scripture - i am disappointed that a man calling himself a christian [even one teaching the next generation of christian leaders] would take the tone and stance you have - and the "joke" about the bong water, was in very bad taste - and was not taken as a "joke" - and to be honest, i do not think it was ment to be a joke; i believe it was ment to impune and insult me.
now to your questions -
you will notice that no place in the emails do i say, imply or even hint that i have been involved in the conversation from the begining - in fact, i boldy state at least twice that i have not. so if anyone at the school took it that i had been, i have no idea where that came from and i have no control over how others see things.
i find it a bit funny, that you are so against calling people names, but in all your posts you have called be many - and never once appoligized for it; so when you "thank me for my honesty" it seems like just another slap in the face, this time with the back hand, for all the times you called me a lier.
ginkworld.net is one of the larger ezine designed to hear voices in the emerging christian conversation - so, for that to happen one must toss out ideas and allow the community to have a conversation.
ginkworld.net is not a place for a anyones [even mine] personal agenda and rubber stamping. many people write for us, while we do not always publish everything i believe we strive hard to take a balance - so all points can be heard.
even if one does not like it, christianity is in the market place of ideas and if it can not stand the conversation - well, it will not see the future. i believe christianity can withstand the conversations and grow deeper and more meanigful as we move in the process - i persoanly believe that God is big enough to handle anything we can ever think about.
John,
Thanks again for your comments.
You are absolutely right about the bang water joke. I was making a point without thinking of your feelings at all. I apologize.
Also, I was sincere in thanking you for your honesty on the admission about not reading my stuff before you criticized. However, you did make claims about me based on what you heard. If you wish not to correct it, that's fine. I won't bring it up again.
Scripture is clear that we are NEVER to approve of sinful practices. To skip around a clear Scriptural command based on the religious practice or tradition of a certain group is not an excuse Jesus accepted from the religious leaders of His day. Please stop.
On the market place of ideas--you are right--Christianity is out there. Letting false teaching in is still prohibited. We are to bring EVERY thought captive to Christ.
One VERY BAD misconception on the Emergent is the idea of "conversation." It is unbiblical to the extent that it replaces authority, the kerygma, and the authority of Scripture. God tells us to shut up and know that He is God. My mom used to tell me that sort of thing all the time. It was her way of trying to get me to shut up about my ideas on a subject she knew more about than I. She was right.
God's mind is what counts. Your ideas and my ideas are TOTALLY irrelevant. Jeremiah states plainly in 17:9 that spiritually all men are liars and fools. That includes me, you, and all around us.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins
John,
One more comment. Do you really contend that we are to allow false-teaching into the church such as you promelgated in your blog on universal salvation in late March to help the church survive?
Christ really doesn't need our help--He's a pretty big Fellow.
Much of Western thought was the introduction of false-teaching into Christianity. And the excuse was to help Christianity adapt to the "new" whatever in the cultural milieu. For instance, that was Karl Barth's idea. Get back to "orthodoxy" by starting with the rejection of inerrancy and add the pagan idea of subjectivism in the place of the authority of God's written word. (Yeah, yeah, he called the tingles you might get when reading Micah the Holy Spirit, but that is another metanarrative.)
Postmodern thought started when Satan asked Eve his questlion in the garden. (They had quite a conversation, I guess.)
I squarely reject your contention that we should make Satan happy to protect poor old God. (In fact, that is what you are suggesting, whether you know it or not.)
To paraphrase Larry Norman Nietsche's dead; God aint even got a fever.
Phil Perkins.
phil,
after the apoligies, i believe i will call you phil at this point - if that is unacceptable please let me know -
i love what pslams 46:10 shares, but i disagree that is says "shut-up" - the hebrew is "raphah" and is a verb best seen as "be still" - or "relax" - in fact, while i love the way the niv and the message put it, i love even more the way the nas puts it, "cease striving and know i am God" - which tells me that all our efforts prove nothing, because no matter what he is still God.
sinful practices? i am not sure what that would be. you see, sin is not what we do it is who we are - as paul tells us, if sin is what we do then all we need do is stop sinning and we are fine. then, as paul adds, jesus would have died for no reason.
if we see sin as a thing we do, then we must be equal in applying our reactions across the board - but that is impossible for our limited human minds :)
we must not only get on the "gay" but also that fat elder sitting on our boards, even if he did underwrite half the cost of the new 1 million education wing of the church; we need to tell the lazy deacon who gives over 10% to the church that we do not desire his money because he is still in sin; can we confront that elderly women who "puts a nip" in her tea to help every night to help sleep, as we do the man at the bar who takes a shot every night to help unwind from his day; how about the dad who spends weekeds watching football while his kids run the streets looking for other things to do; how about that pastor, who says "love everyone" but he does not love everyone; then there is the teacher who teaches love for the homeless and hungry, but does nothing to help with the problem.
you see, actions that do not match words [faith without works] are just lost to the minds of the emerging. we, in the emerging, desire a walk that is real, honest, and most of all 24/7 - our actions must meet our words.
i think one of the biggest misunderstandings you seem to have about the emerging is that we are "postmodern" - we are not, in the idea of "cultural postmodernism" - we are "postmodern" in that we live in a "postmodern" world, and we can understand it - but that does not make us "postmodern" in a theological reality.
sure, we question a great deal, and we will keep questioning - because we find a deeper relationship with christ in that - and i am good with that. as we move forward, as we move to where we believe God is leading us we know we will "evolve" into something different then a "evangelical christian" - and that is not to say being a "evangelical" is wrong, it is not - it is just not us.
now to your concern about my article on "salvation?" http://ginkworld.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_ginkworld_archive.html
notice that the article asks the same questions that have been asked over the years - "who is saved?" and "who did jesus die for?" these are not new questions, but they are important questions -
are you saved if you believe? must you be baptized? must you say the "sinners prayer"? what does one need to do to be saved? while many have an answer, and even call that answer "bibical" many people differ, and many traditions differ - which one is "right?" can one claim they have all the answers? at best, i believe, we can simply strive to answer as best we can, and be open to to other views that may differ from our.
i missed it before, and i usually do not let much get by - but evey now and then it happens.
your quote of jeremiah 17 seemed a bit off to me, but i was running out and did not get a chance to go deeper - but i found the time this morning, and i was wondering how you came to the conclusion you came to, that "states plainly in 17:9 that spiritually all men are liars and fools."
here is jeremiah 17:8-10 [niv]
8] He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."
9] The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
10] "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve."
the scripture deals with the lack of human ability to know the heart of another, but that God can see into our hearts and knows who we are. it shares with us that if we believe what we are doing is of God and we stand firm, God will know the center of our hearts - others can insult us and belittle us, but God will know our hearts and produce fruit. also, there seems to be an element of "the works we do count towards our relationship with God, and maybe even our salvation"
All walls must come down.
Lay down your sword, for the war is over. You can't prove God, he proves himself. He doesn't need any help from man. Man needs him. Man needs to be still and know that God is God. And yes it says He is the truth. It also states he is the word. THERE IS ONLY ONE ACCUSER - When U accuse, you are manifesting the accuser. Stop using the word to destroy. God is UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. Where is the Love? Christ came to save, and redeem. Not to destroy. Being a "quote unquote" Christian means following after the likeness of Christ. Not after traditions and doctrines of men. We will know them by their fruits. So far it doesn't look too good. But it can change by laying down the sword and allowing God use what he chooses. Many are being awakened through emergency. If one is touched, it is worth it all. You don't know where God will lead from there.
did you read the bi-sexual story? Or would you be more comfortable if I called someone a "godly...hypocrite, gossip, or libertine." Was King David "godly" or not? Or both...as most emergents would be willing to embrace. But alas the ethics of most fundamentalists allow for an ends justification of thier means. And thier means is always attack, and assume thier own orthodoxy is the only true one. In looking over the post which referenced my article in it, the complete lack of love in your article is such an abdication of christ-likeness that it makes the whole dialogue [or was it a diatribe?!] frail and perhaps even fraudulent as a voice of a Christian. I am glad jesus used the story of a vile SAMARITAN, and I was glad to use the story of a bi-sexual, and I am even gladder that God can use even the story of your immature tongue and heart in his grand scheme. I hope someday that you are filled with an equal measure of humility to match the venom of your pride.
David Sherwood
20 years Pastoring, 2 degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a man who considers his credentials as shit compared to knowing Christ who see me not through my sins but through his blood. I pray in time...I will see you as he does.
Post a Comment
<< Home