Church Planting Thirty Years Later

In 1982 my wife and I planted our first church in Philadelphia – Faith Independent Baptist Church. The long church name seemed awkward back then but I wanted to be sure people knew up front where I stood. Fresh from eight years of ministry training at fundamentalist schools, I was a committed independent, fundamental Baptist. As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well. The church’s doctrinal statement enshrined a dispensational hermeneutic essential for correct interpretation, the pre-tribulational rapture as the next event on the prophetic calendar, and the King James Version as the official translation. As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.

Fast forward to 2011 where in the same city I am now working with a team of elders to plant another church in a spiritual wasteland where we parachuted in with a few families but without a significant core group. After thirty years of church planting I claim no special expertise, offer no guarantees of success, and sense an even greater dependency upon the Lord to build His church. Similar struggles, resistance to the gospel remain.

This one-year-old church is elder led, non-denominational, non-dispensational, and uses the English Standard Version. Much has changed. Most remains the same. I would venture to add that what is essential has not changed. In areas where change has occurred, thirty years of ministry, of study, of relationships, and of experiences have conspired to bring me to the place I am today. For many years IFB was all I knew or cared to know. Now I find myself rarely at home in this fragmented movement of competing networks. I find myself increasingly on the outside looking in. This is my journey, but I’m glad I was not alone.

After planting a church in Philadelphia from 1982-1987 my family and I went to France and then Romania in church planting and pastoral training ministry. Those years spent overseas provided opportunities for fellowship with believers from different horizons and spared me the need to engage in many of the needless conflicts being fought in the States. There was less need to conform to others’ expectations of what it meant to be safely within the fundamentalist orbit.

During that time overseas I pursued further studies with Reformed Theological Seminary’s extension in Budapest and in time completed a degree in theological studies. For the first time I was challenged from a different theological perspective by men with whom I had strong disagreements. Yet I was persuaded of their evangelical commitment, their love for God, and their commitment to God’s authoritative Word. I began to see that we could differ interpretatively and still enjoy fellowship in the gospel. I was moving away from former positions for which I could still argue but could no longer support biblically with integrity.

In late 1998 we returned to the States where I began a short residency in Deerfield, IL at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and where in 2004 I completed a DMin in Missiology. Once again I was struck by the combination of scholarship and godliness among the professors. There were differences in some areas but the centrality of the gospel transcended those differences.

From 1999-2008, I was missions pastor and director of church planting at a well-known suburban church. I travelled frequently and taught overseas in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Peru, China, and several other countries. There were opportunities to teach in the area of missions and church planting at several schools and seminaries and invitations to preach at various conferences. My visits to China were especially revealing as we looked for house church leaders with whom we could partner for training purposes. I found myself looking for “significant compatibility” and agreement with the historic Christian faith rather than agreement with my convictions. My time in Lebanon among Arab believers caused me to look at Scripture afresh and contributed to modifications in my views on eschatology.

Some might find it surprising that personal experiences have influenced my theology to such a degree. In reality our experiences or lack of them have a great part to play in how we read Scripture. We read it with the eyes of those around us, those who trained us or those we look to for guidance. Our experiences should not determine our theology yet how we read and understand Scripture cannot be separated from our outside influences and experiences. Some may consider it a badge of honor to hold the same beliefs and convictions they held thirty years ago. While I can say that for the fundamentals of the faith, I must confess that second and third-tier commitments and interpretations are held loosely and are no longer a cause for separation or hindrance in partnership in the Lord’s work. Perhaps it’s partly due to the fact that I recognize it is His work not mine and that I labor in His vineyard not one of my creation.

On one hand, I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework. On the other hand I find after all these years in ministry, with experiences and exposure to global Christianity, that IFB fails to describe how I see myself in my relation to the Lord, in relation to other believers, and in relation to the mission of the church.

The last few years have been especially decisive in the direction I have taken. When I returned from Romania in 1998 I knew that both I and the spiritual landscape that I knew had changed. Then in 2008, while temporarily living in France and helping to plant a new non-Baptist church, I wrote an opinion article on Fundamentalism. It was my way of signaling at that time that although I was on a journey out of Fundamentalism as I had known it, I wanted to remain friends with Fundamentalists. I began to write, to challenge conventions and traditions. I have not always been irenic and have not avoided controversy.

When I described myself as a “soft cessationsist,” questioned elements of dispensationalism, took issue with unbiblical separation, did not clearly espouse literal six-day, twenty-hour creation days, expressed my dismay at the paucity of resources committed to church planting, or challenged traditional thinking in the church’s engagement with culture, I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.

Whether or not I should’ve written some of those articles for publication is another story although I have few regrets. I know there are some who are so much surer in many areas where I have questions. I know others who do not want to rock the boat and, to mix metaphors, prefer to fly under the radar. I suppose that would’ve been a safer route for me but that bridge has already been crossed. I must confess that I have found somewhat amusing the wide range of men who have disagreed with me, attacked me, or separated from me. There has been something for many to dislike although certainly not the same things.

I have no one to blame but myself although these experiences reinforced in my mind how important agreement is to Fundamentalists in areas where I believe we have scriptural latitude to disagree charitably. The agreement demanded by many IFB gatekeeper leaders, churches, and institutions in order to play in their yard far exceeds biblical teaching. The loyalty required by many in order to be safe requires submitting to traditional rather than biblical standards. It is not a virtue to have an inquiring mind in much of Fundamentalism. I had to decide whether I would shut up or speak out knowing that speaking out might marginalize me.

There are a few glimmers of hope as some IFB brethren have begun to break out of their isolation. I think particularly of Northland University which has invited professors from outside IFB circles and of Calvary Baptist Seminary with Mark Dever at their ATC Conference. Of course these moves have triggered substantial criticism from within IFBdom which comes as no surprise. Many IFB factions, which contribute little to theological reflection, brook nothing which deviates from their long-held conventions. I encourage those who choose to stay within the movement to continue their pursuit of God-honoring unity with those outside the IFB pale.

As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting. I have no illusions that moving on will bring greater resources or guarantee success in church planting. I’m not looking for greener grass. At this point any grass will do. I still welcome friendship and even partnership with my IFB brothers who have not drawn unreasonable lines in the sand. But I’m too old to jump through all the hoops, too ornery to kowtow and prefer relative obscurity and a few warm relationships to playing ingratiating politics and pleasing men.

Much has changed over the years but God has not. He is faithful and He remains the Lord of the harvest in these challenging and needy times, the ultimate Judge who knows the hearts, and the Accomplisher of His divine purposes. Before Him only I lift my hands, bend my knees, and bow my head.

Discussion

To: Shaynus

Shanus stated: “Bob, two things. First, your original post with the comment about the door not hitting Steve on the way out was in fact about Steve, not the issues. Take your own advice in the future.”

What thread are you posting on?

. The central subject and issue of the article is who? The subject is Steve Davis.

The rest of your post is off subject. Probably because you have not yet realized who the subject is. :)

Have a good day.

[Bob T.] To: Shaynus

Shanus stated: “Bob, two things. First, your original post with the comment about the door not hitting Steve on the way out was in fact about Steve, not the issues. Take your own advice in the future.”

What thread are you posting on?

. The central subject and issue of the article is who? The subject is Steve Davis.

The rest of your post is off subject. Probably because you have not yet realized who the subject is. :)

Have a good day.
So it’s OK to talk about personalities and people as long as they are Steve Davis, who is now a “serious issue.” The point is you can’t harshly attack a person in this forum and not open yourself to criticism. You can’t have it both ways.

[Shaynus]
[Bob T.]

I notice “ChrisS” and his teenage son who read these forums. I can’t help but wonder how we are influencing his son to be a better thinker or not.
He enjoys critical thinking, and tries to apply that in his reading, both of this thread and theological material, comparing them to mainstream media and society today, more specific to apologetics and the various church movements these days. Rest assured that he knows that nobody on here is near perfect, and as to how you/others are influencing his thinking, it has seemed to be very positive, especially given the assumption going in that you all love the Lord. He forms his opinions, sure, and might agree with some even if he disagrees with the methodology or argument used, if that makes sense… I should just get him a user ID and let him speak for himself, I suppose. He’s a teen, he already knows it all, right? ;)

Of personal note, he and I have tended to live in a theological world where we have seen the creation of “straw men”, and we are aggressively seeking to change how we view various points and opinions which may differ from ours, as well as those holding those views. In short, it is good for him (and me, for that matter) to see real Christians discuss real issues.

I can’t really figure out where all the intensity in the reactions to Steve are coming from.

Isn’t it pretty close to self evident that…

1) Aside from his openness to (not embracing of) old earth readings of Gen 1 and “softness” on cessationism (not embracing non-cessationism) his positions on things have been held by various orthodox Christians since at least the time of the Reformers. I don’t agree with several of these, but it’s not like they’re something new. Some of the reactions here suggest he’s founding a new Cult of the Body Snatchers or something.

2) Harshness is appropriate in response to apostates and blatant heretics (see Jesus’ example, with Paul, Peter and Jude). Warmth and winsomeness is what’s necessary in response to brothers who struggle with questions or disappointments, etc. There is no virtue in treating a brother like an infidel. In the discipline/separation passages, you don’t stop treating a brother like a brother until you can no longer believe he is a brother.

3) Unexamined beliefs ought to be examined. There is no danger in asking “Why?” about a wide variety of questions if you’re committed to the authority of Scripture as a given.

4) When you know you have the truth on your side, you don’t feel threatened by ideas that are contrary. You find them somewhat interesting as a way to strengthen your arguments or better understand others you hope to win over. I can’t help but think some of the frothing at the mouth I’ve seen here lately reflects some insecurity of convictions. As a kid growing up in fundamentalism, the guys who could not handle questions or challenges went quickly to my “not worth listening to” list. Graciously, there were plenty of warm and winsome fundamentalists in my orbits who did not collapse into spasms of outrage whenever someone said “I think you’re wrong.”

They are a major factor in why I’m a fundamentalist today.

Why do some find it so hard to be immovable yet calm, patient and gracious? …I’ve found it hard myself at times. I guess the real question is why do some not even believe in being immovable yet calm, patient and gracious?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Bob T] My response to Susan on this thread was to her obvious rebuke to church leaders. On this thread she was the first one to post against another poster or posters regarding conduct and not about the thread subject. I posted regarding her rebuke because she is an SI administrator and moderator. I raised the gender issue because it was and is appropriate because she was attempting to rebuke church leaders and was doing so because she wrongly perceived this as a situation one where appropriate compassion was not in view.
I’d like to clarify one aspect of my initial post, since it has been so thoroughly and constantly misinterpreted-
[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.
Gal 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.
Funny how Scripture tells us in one verse to bear one another’s burdens, and then two verses later tells us that every man has to bear his own.
The first sentence and the second sentence were separate thoughts, but I neglected to make a new paragraph, so it should look like this-
[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it.

The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking….
SO now, the second paragraph is addressing points that Bro. Davis made in his OP as I intended, such as
As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well.
As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.
and
I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.
However, no matter where you go, there you are, which is why the phrase “of any stripe” is included in my comment. Which is not a rebuke, but a comment, and not of anyone specifically, or I would have been specific. But CE’s, Neo-whatevers, or any other group is going to have power mongers, predators, and manipulators in their number who endeavor to rise to the surface to gain control over the weak. A big clue is usually whether or not they have any patience, compassion, or humility about them when dealing with people, especially those who have doubts or are struggling.

I can certainly understand why YF’s are looking for an atmosphere of ‘cooperating for the Gospel’, a generosity in ministry and doctrinal discussions, and an elevation of Scripture over IFB traditions. And when you are working in an area, such as some inner cities, with a large number of people who are 2nd generation welfare, have barely mastered personal hygiene, haven’t yet grasped the concepts of earning their living, paying their debts, or being faithful to a spouse, you aren’t quite as concerned about teaching them proper eschatology or dispensations or cessationism. You are just really hoping that this week when you do a head check, none of the kids have lice. Very few IFB churches that I know will tolerate the ‘dirt’ that inner city work, or ministry in an impoverished area, involves.

But bending in an area such as creation is IMO extremely dangerous. For reasons that are delineated elsewhere, much better than I could possibly hope to convey, the literal acceptance of the creation account does impact the Gospel message. One of the first things we do with our Sunday School is give a thorough grounding in Genesis 1-11.

I apologize for the confusion my initial post has caused, and the subsequent wasted time addressing points I did not intend to make, but that is my fault for not being clear and formatting my post in a way that communicated my thoughts accurately.

Many young fundamentalists are swayed because they don’t know why they are fundamentalist. When they ask questions, they don’t get Biblical answers, they get “60 years of fundamentalist tradition” and their spiritual life is put to question for asking. So many silently go on without uttering another objection until some movement comes long and gives them answers, although faulty.

We aren’t teaching them. As young people we teach them about purity and nothing else. We are upset that young pastors are reading MacArthur, Piper, etc, but who in IFB are writing any new books? Are we really teaching our non-ministerial students much in our Christian colleges? I know I received very little Biblical training.

You can’t strong arm belief, it works for a little while, but it flies away with the chaff. We need to persuade men’s hearts.

We argued against his reasons and rightly labelled his transition and change of doctrinal positions and view as the same as that expressed in history as New Evangelical and therefore labelled steve with the same label they did give themselves.
There are many within fundamentalism who also know their history and they would strongly disagree with you on this one….but rathat Steve is leaving fundamentalism for Conservative evangelicalism, but not for new evangelicalism…..that the two are not the same. There are many especially among the GARBC and the IFCA that do not hold to the narrowness that promise Unfulfilled has defined separation and New Evangelicalism, yet both of these associations are still separatists and have strongly critiqued new evangelicalism from the 1950’s and what remains of it even now. To insinuate that Sharper Iron fits the description of some pseudo fundamentalist group only gives credence to your type of fundamentalism, which has much in common with the IFB, but leaves out historical streams of fundamentalism such as the GARBC and the IFCA which are both about 1200 churches strong. Its the same argument that I have tried to make to Lou and a few others, but when I bring this up, I only hear crickets…..

Yet I though you would be more understanding, since part of your background includes both the IFCA and the GARBC. You know that there is diversity with many type B’s and type C’s (if we are to use Joel T.’s taxonomy) among these groups and there always has been that type of diversity among them since the 1960’s as they tried to discern how to apply separation among evangelicals that were not militant separatists. You know the history of Bob Ketcham….where he applied separation from Billy Graham, yet not with Warren Wiersbe, even though Wiersbe had all the associations with just about every evangelical group you can imagine, some of which have been labeled as New Evangelical…..Anyway, my whole point is that not everything is as cut and dry as you seem to make it out to be when it comes to how Fundamentalists labeled New Evangelicals with both doctrinal and how they applied separation……….

[Shaynus]
[Bob T.] To: Shaynus
Shanus stated: “Bob, two things. First, your original post with the comment about the door not hitting Steve on the way out was in fact about Steve, not the issues. Take your own advice in the future.”

What thread are you posting on?

. The central subject and issue of the article is who? The subject is Steve Davis.

The rest of your post is off subject. Probably because you have not yet realized who the subject is. :)

Have a good day.
So it’s OK to talk about personalities and people as long as they are Steve Davis, who is now a “serious issue.” The point is you can’t harshly attack a person in this forum and not open yourself to criticism. You can’t have it both ways.
Shanus, surely you can understand that the article by Steve Davis was about himself. Therefore all posts on this thread are about Steve Davis, his changed beliefs and his journey.

Also, you made a post about what you considered harsh language and included examples. If that was not a joke and you considered those really as harsh language examples, then I would recommend you stay in bed all day and never go anywhere as the whole of society is too harsh for you.

Also, you talk about your age and influencing twenty and thirty year olds. Almost my entire class in constitutional law at WSU last semester were 20s and 30s. We get along very well. However, one thing I can tell you about your post modern age group is they have developed an academic reputation for not being able to think as clearly and concisely as former generations. In Law school it is the unspoken understanding. It has been written about. Dallas Seminary also had an article by one of their professors on that subject that was actually a few years ago. Some theological professors have actually changed teaching methods according to that article. In Law we actually have to be a little more patient in allowing students to rewrite legal papers. I am not sure what repore I have with your age group today. In pastoring, at my former church we had a very large youth group of about 80% males and about 80% from non Christian, unchurched homes. Today several are in ministry. I do occasionally hear from some today. One is an Army chaplain now in Iraq and I get his emails regularly. I was considered to have had good repore with them according to our youth pastor and others.

Today some of the younger Christian generation need to get off their posterior, out of the classroom, and volunteer for a stint in the military or work on the oil rigs or in the mines. In the 1970s Hadden Robinson wrote an article about glad handing smiling pastors who lacked back bone. My opinion (surely to be attacked on here - I await the fun) is that is part of our problem today. If there is hope for America to have real future leaders, it won’t come from Harvard or Yale, or from groomed party people. It should come from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Evangelical and Fundamentalist leaders came the old school of non ministry hard knocks background. Todays progress made at some Christian college then seminary, then ministry, has many with minimalist untested convictions. Ministry can be hard. But often it is not hard enough.

Please forgive me for not having paid much attention to your posts. However, I probably may continue to do so.

I think one problem here on SI is that there are some who may be YF by background but are in reality now CEs (confused evangelicals) still trying to plug into Fundyism without having sufficient convictions. The result is they have more hang ups than the President’s suit closet.

Many posts on SI appear to be by those frustrated with what they term Fundamentalism but still discussing within some sort of Fundamentalism forums.

To: Joel Shaffer,

Thank you for the post. Here is my perspective.

First, CEs are really an inadequately defined group. John Piper is classic New Evangelical but Puritan reformed in soteriology. The other big names vary greatly. The only one of the variously named CEs that really should be in that newly labeled category is John MacArthur and others of his convictions. As you surely know JM has and does use harsh language (he is dogmatic) against those who have accepted other then literal 6 day creation and the Charismatic movement. Steve Davis has no place in the JM arena.

I have lived through the NE controversy. At Biola in the 1960s, it was a divided student body over the issues. The faculty held quiet differences of opinion but would discuss in conversation. Back then Biola and Talbot considered themselves as not NE and criticized Fuller. Today all is quiet and Biola is still more conservative than Fuller but definitely not Fundy or CE. JM parted ways with Talbot and Biola in 1986. Talbot extension at JMs church became Masters. There were some behind the scene mild hard feelings.

By the way, Bauder’s articles which addressed CEs were good but too broad and naive. From my vantage point I will readily call JM and crew CE. They are also mildly but definitely anti Fundy. JP and others are Evangelical reformed with broader acceptance of some doctrines.

Steve Davis drove past JM, and perhaps even some others. His openness to Charisma and non literal creation Genesis account plus some others makes him a definite moderate Evangelical but because of his journey and openness he is also an NE. To me, the nature of his journey and over all view puts him as NE.

I do recognize that in Evangelical circles today no one uses NE as a label. It has died out with the NE first generation. Today you are Evangelical and no one wants to be wacko Fundy out here except the KJVO. The IFCA changed its name to get rid of any association with the term Fundamentalist.

If someone asks me, I and our assembly of believers are Biblical (or just “Bible”) standard Christians. I like the term “Bible Standard Christian.” For further understanding I would explain that some would consider us as Evangelical in that we believe the gospel or good news of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible. I would also explain we are a type of fundamentalist historically in that we are particular about certain Bible doctrines as essential for a healthy spiritual life and world view, some are literal creation, true spiritual walk that denies Charismatic views, and some other helpful Bible teachings. To understand missions one must understand the Biblical view of the Kingdom, the separation of Israel and the assembly, and the mission of the assemblies.

But I accept and appreciate classic Fundamentalism and do not shy away from the label. Like Evangelical, it is now a broad label with many different groups huddling under the Umbrella.

I do not think that the KJVOs are entitled to the term historically but hey are so labelled today and they do love the term.

To see where Steve Davis is and what he is seeking to persuade others as true please look at all of the papers he has published on SI. They include missions, kingdom, creation, Charismatic possibilities , etc.

By the way old guys have too much experience. I was youth Pastor at the Evangelical Free Church of Orange, CA. from 1962 to 1964. Went to some EFCA meetings. It has changed for the better and the worse since then. The Swindoll influence was probably good but limited. Now they are probably better off than Converge (BGC).

Bottom line: I think my view on Steve Davis was fair, especially considering all the articles SI published on here and their content. Thats what I have been responding to.

As far as posts go this is my last on this subject. Perhaps my last on SI. Too much time has been given to this. SI is no better than the sum of its parts and is not really ministry but just information and discussion of a specialty type.

Appreciate your posts.

For some others: For those sick of labels, you are in the land of nowhere with no signs to follow or words to use. You cannot even identify your faith or God. Labels are. Deal with them.

[Bob T.] As far as posts go this is my last on this subject. Perhaps my last on SI. Too much time has been given to this. SI is no better than the sum of its parts and is not really ministry but just information and discussion of a specialty type.
Emphasis mine
[Bob T.] But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.”.
To quote you from Friday.

We say that in Minnesota too!

This thread represents the new low in the history of SI I think. It is so bad that I can’t even stomach the tactics of the side I agree with. When down the road when fundamentalism is dead and gone, an archaeologist may find this thread somehow and it will answer some questions about how it happened.

Well, Greg, the thread is much better now after that post. ;)

Jim is just trying to find a little humor in the situation. Sometimes we need a little of that to avoid going completely bonkers in the Chamber of Moderating Secrets.

Safe to say we’ll be hearing less from Bob. Which is too bad, in some ways. There are some good points in there. They just don’t really compensate for the mode of delivery.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron:

This thread is one reason why I seldom check SI. New Evangelical? How easy the term is tossed out and how poorly it is understood. Moreover, I marvel that some have so much time on their hands to write these long posts that go nowhere? How does this advance the work of Christ? Now the term pseudo-fundamentalist. These ad hominem arguments advance no conversation or promote genuine work of God.

The whole thing is lamentable. So Steve Davis is wrong … let him be wrong before God who is his judge. Whatever Steve is, he is no NEW EVANGELICAL. He may be wrong and I think he is on some things. So may you (Aaron) but you are no PSEUDO Fundamentalist. These attacks are … . well I am tired of the silliness. We could all use a bit of humility in our walk with God!

Jeff Straub

Jeff Straub

www.jeffstraub.net

[Aaron Blumer] Well, Greg, the thread is much better now after that post. ;)

Jim is just trying to find a little humor in the situation. Sometimes we need a little of that to avoid going completely bonkers in the Chamber of Moderating Secrets.

Safe to say we’ll be hearing less from Bob. Which is too bad, in some ways. There are some good points in there. They just don’t really compensate for the mode of delivery.
No need to get defensive Aaron (or sarcastic either); I was not referring to you. And I am not capable of improving this thread I’m afraid. I was just pointing out that the average person reading this has to be appalled. The nastiness here is unbelievable, but even more unbelievable is the constant attempts to try to justify nastiness from the Bible. To listen to some guys spin it, nastiness is a virtue.

I’m sorry but either side telling the other to leave and not let the door let them on the way out seems over the line to me.

[GregH] I’m sorry but either side telling the other to leave and not let the door let them on the way out seems over the line to me.
Look carefully at what I said (and didn’t say)

I actually said almost nothing except: “We say that in Minnesota too!”

Bob’s words (addressed to Steve) were and are ugly: “But as they say in Philadelphia; “don’t let the door hit you in the back on your way out.”.”

Did Bob consider Steve’s feelings?

I simply turned his own words back on himself.

Perhaps I am his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_La_Mancha] Knight of the Mirrors to show Bob the ugliness of his own words! (Click the link for an explanation)