The Third Way

Discuss the Plymouth Brethren, Christian Brethren, Brethren assemblies - their customs, doctrines and practises.
Moderator: Elizabeth Bunting

The Third Way

Postby TheRussian » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:00 am

I've been threatening to get the ball rolling on a discussion of finding a new way of being church. I've posted some more detailed thoughts on my blog, but I'd like us to consider a few things.

The assemblies in North America are, by and large, failing miserably. The open assemblies are more or less split between "progressives" and "conservatives", the differences ranging over a bunch of issues. I humbly put it out there, that we should abandon both the conservatism and progressivism, and seek a Third Way that everybody can join. I also submit that we should recognize that evangelicalism as a whole will not stand with us: they view us as potential adherents to their suburban megachurches, and potential customers of their bookstores. They will swallow us whole and leave nothing except the predictable feces. I submit that our allies in this will be postliberal mainline Protestants from the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed Churches, and the United Church of Canada. Don't forget that Darby was an Anglican minister before he broke bread with a few other guys in Plymouth, and I think those will prove to be our roots.

In order for this dialogue to begin, I think we must assume two things: an epistemology of humility, which I've discussed numerous times here, and general agreement with, say, the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. From there, we need to begin to reform our thinking in four areas, to form new, exciting agreements. I copy this from my blog, but please substitute questions for my blunt statements of my opinion(s):

1) Ecclesiology. We need to reinvestigate several things; what are the offices in the Church? their functions? the characteristics of the officers? What role and position should full-time workers occupy, and how should they be supported? Should we make allowances for more commended workers? What is the proper sphere of participation for women? what (if any) is the improper sphere? why is the church so segregated in its ministries - how do we get old and young, male and female, interacting? why the lack of focus on community within assemblies? I also submit we need to be more aware of Church History and the works of at least some of the Church Fathers.

2) Anthropology. Where has the church alienated women in their participation in assembly life? what are we doing to equip families for the incredible demands of 21st century life? how do we equip our people to be educated critics of popular culture, and producers of quality cultural products? what obligations does the church have towards the poor, and in which ways can it fulfill them?

3) Soteriology. Not so many questions here, as blunt statements. We need to recognize that salvation is uniquely the gracious work of God, not a human/divine co-effort. We need to understand that the only thing that makes us differ from another in faith is the grace of God; we are all fallen beings, and still would be had God not intervened in our lives at some point. As well, we need to return to the idea that the gracious salvation of God results in a life that will generally and finally be characterized by bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

4) Missiology. What is/are the Church's mission(s)? the mission(s) of individuals? towards unbelievers? the community-at-large? other believers? And, again, a statement: our churches are run by the middle-class, for the middle-class: where is our concern for the poor?

How do we think? Let the discussion, and emergence, begin. :)
Last edited by TheRussian on Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
TheRussian
Samurai
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Postby titusgregory » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:38 pm

TheRussian wrote:The open assemblies are more or less split between "progressives" and "conservatives", the differences ranging over a bunch of issues.
Let us not forget the Gospel Halls!
titusgregory
Apologist
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Postby TheRussian » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:41 pm

Yeah, they're in there, I don't know how to categorize them. I include them under "conservative", because if I create a third category like, "paleoconservative", I'd have to call it the Fourth Way. And soon I'd end up at "27th way". ;)
Image
User avatar
TheRussian
Samurai
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Re: The Third Way

Postby drewcosten » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:54 am

It all sounds very good. I guess I'm just concerned about where people will see someone like myself fitting in. While I suspect that you and I actually agree on more things than one would think, we do differ in a couple areas as I am more Universalist (Caponian to be specific) in my soteriology, would be labelled as a little more liberal in my views on sexuality by most, and am not convinced that the whole Bible is meant to be interpretted as literally as some do (although I do believe that God got His message across even if many of us miss said message). So where would that leave me in this whole endevour?
drewcosten
Universalist
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:12 am

Re: The Third Way

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:00 am

drewcosten wrote:So where would that leave me in this whole endevour?

To be honest, until more people start engaging with this, the same place I am: "curious bystander". :x

We need to sit down in community and talk these things out. If it turns out that the community takes an anticalvinist stance, I'm out of the mix, and likewise if they take an antiuniversalist stance, you would be too; unless you or I could decide that such a community is in fact a place where we could put aside our differences and agree with the interpretive community.
Guest
 

Postby TheRussian » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:01 am

That was me. :x
Image
User avatar
TheRussian
Samurai
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Re: The Third Way

Postby drewcosten » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:06 am

TheRussian wrote:
drewcosten wrote:So where would that leave me in this whole endevour?

To be honest, until more people start engaging with this, the same place I am: "curious bystander". :x

We need to sit down in community and talk these things out. If it turns out that the community takes an anticalvinist stance, I'm out of the mix, and likewise if they take an antiuniversalist stance, you would be too; unless you or I could decide that such a community is in fact a place where we could put aside our differences and agree with the interpretive community.


Sounds good to me. I wonder it's not more of the "anti" aspect of many of the communities that you and I are at odds with in the current Brethren community than it is the "pro" sides.
drewcosten
Universalist
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:12 am

Re: The Third Way

Postby TheRussian » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:13 am

drewcosten wrote:I wonder it's not more of the "anti" aspect of many of the communities that you and I are at odds with in the current Brethren community than it is the "pro" sides.

Oh, my hatred is ubiquitous. :twisted:

I don't know; the "anti" sides don't bother me any more than anything else. I have heard sermons put out there that are strong in their contra presentation against some idea(s), but yet are put out by a speaker in humility, knowing his limitations of knowledge, and seeking to explore the scriptures faithfully. I loved it, and have done the same myself, to good effect. It's just...I'm screwed. I'm so weird; the assemblies are not being true to their history in the areas I wish they were, and firmly grasping the parts I wish they wouldn't. And then there are the assemblies that are determined to become Baptist churches...I'll never be happy. I'm grumpy and frustrated, yet I seek to serve and to build agreement, and be humbled under godly leadership.
Image
User avatar
TheRussian
Samurai
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Postby drewcosten » Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:20 am

So, no "third way" for the Brethren then? That's too bad, but unfortunately not surprising.
drewcosten
Universalist
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:12 am

Postby prescott » Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:40 am

Okay... I'm buying a ticket to get on this train... but I bought a return fare at the same time. :wink:

Blake, I'm with you on the Alliance... I like what I see. I've always been supportive of MacArthur, though I do not call myself a Calvinist. (another discussion, though I am most Calvinistic, I think, than many of my fellow brethren) I think the Cambridge declaration is a good place to start. What other confessions/declarations do you think would do well to define who we are/where we stand? I'd be interested to review more to seek the most stable common ground.

I'm going to spend some time writting today, so I'll have more to say later, but I'll reply to your main post Blake so we have a place to start:

1a- Offices/roles - needed. In my mind, the offices are clear, but some re-definition of their roles IS needed. Namely, I view that the office of the elder is to be that of a democratically elected dictator. Confused? Here's how it should work; A potential elder should be recommended to the oversight by the membership at large. Then proposed by the oversight back to the membership, and once accpeted, that elder should be submitted to. End of story. If he steps out of line, he should be removed from oversight, and perhaps even the church. But this griping and grumbling of the membership about the elders has got to stop. Those that gripped about Peter or Paul got the boot... and they had their differences, but as godly men (that's the key) they could get along. Godly men... not crabby old men clinging on to power for as long as they can. But men who are given the full authority over the assembly... I think that the "Business Meetings" of the assemblies weild FAR to much power. More later.
1b - Full time workers - more needed. Support them if they need it. As most members of the churches prefer to sit on their butts and do nothing, it's a necessary evil. I propose that members get working rather than watching TV at home. Then full time workers can spend time as Paul did, furthering the Gospel. Not spending time doing all the junk that assemblies think workers should be doing... right Pastor?
1c - Roles of women - not touching this one yet. (yes, a cop out... for now)
1d - Community - The assembly should be intertwined with the community
1e - History - we should be more aware of our roots

2 - good questions, not much commentary here for the moment.

3 - AMEN!

4 - No need for comment... Matt 28, Acts, but I'd like to hear more on this. As for the middle-class, you're right... and it makes us flabby and dead. Time to reach out.

However, based on some of these statements, Drew, I don't know where you might fit. I'd like to hear your review of the Cambridge Declaration, so we might figure out where the boards of this great big sandbox go. :)
"Christ is coming... and man I can't wait." Me
http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/
User avatar
prescott
Pundit
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: GTA, ON, CA

Postby drewcosten » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:10 pm

Good to see you posting again, Prescott. (long time no see, btw).

prescott wrote:However, based on some of these statements, Drew, I don't know where you might fit. I'd like to hear your review of the Cambridge Declaration, so we might figure out where the boards of this great big sandbox go. :)


I will first say that I completely affirm the Nicene Creed, which I personally believe to be the most important declaration in Christendom. As far as the Cambridge Declaration, it's a little long, but I do agree with most of its theses, and have questions about others (and am concerned that it does seem to be just a step away from some serious legalism in places). But a short review as requested:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

This is a tough one. I agree that God inspired Scripture, but I don't necessarily agree that Scripture alone guides us. For one, I also believe in the leading of the Holy Spirit (and although I don't believe that the Holy Spirit will contradict what He inspired in Scripture, He very well might contradict our traditional interpretations of it). I am not convinced that Scripture is meant to be interpretted literally throughout though, I believe that God spoke to us figuratively and parabolically in a lot of it, including in parts that Protestants might traditionally interpret literally and historically. I also suspect that there may be human opinion in there that might not necessarily have been inspired by God, but I am not 100% dogmatic about this one as I could be wrong. That said, I might be misunderstanding the term "Sola Scriptura" (I know Blake has spoken of Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura, but I can't recall what he meant by that exactly).

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

I agree with the Thesis, but I have problems with the commentary on it (or perhaps I don't understand it).

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia

Yup, definitely agreed (presuming I'm understanding it properly).

Thesis Four: Sola Fide

Absolutely (again, presuming I'm understanding it properly).

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria

I'm not sure I understand every detail in this one. I agree that self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are not alternatives to the gospel, for instance, but I don't see them as negative things either. I'm also uncertain as to what they mean by neglecting either Law or Gospel in our preaching. But I definitely agree that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always (although I may differ in opinion on what it means to glorify Him from others).

So there's my short review. :)

I'm looking forward to Blake's return so we could perhaps get this conversation going, but I also wish others would join in the discussion (though I wonder if this is just not viable for today's PBs).
drewcosten
Universalist
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:12 am

Okay... here goes

Postby prescott » Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:14 pm

Okay... I sat down on my laptop and started something. Please reply with comment, rewording, addition, deletion, etc. Perhaps this is junk, needs a lot of work, or is good. (yea right) Perhaps a jumping off point Blake. Please reveiw.

Outline for a Brethren Manifesto 1st Draft - April 2005

* Purpose

- A View to the Future by an Examination of the Past

In the 1800's, a small group of men, dissatisfied with the state of their present day church, decided to gather together for the simple puropse of remembering their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The manner in which they chose to worship and remember Him was in the breaking of bread. Though unintentional at the time, a new movement, the brethren movement was born.

Prior to His sacrificial death and glorious resurection, the Lord Jesus Christ took His disciples aside, and ate the Passover Feast with them in the Upper Room. During that feast, the Lord Jesus introduced a new feast, today commonly referred to as "Communion", or "The Breaking of Bread". He took a loaf of simple bread, broke it, and gave it to them, saying "This is my body, which is given for you". He then took a cup of wine, gave it to them again, saying "This cup is the new convenant in My blood, which is shed for you".

Upon His assesion into Heaven, His disciples remembered His words, and continued to meet regularly, many believe weekly, in this same manner; by meeting together in various houses, and breaking bread, the simple symbol of His Body, broken for us, and in the taking the cup, in which was the wine, in symbol of His blood, shed freely for us. As He commanded, "This do in rememberence of me." Luke 22:19

Over the centuries, this simple practice became a "sacrement", a ritualistic ceremony, administered by a man appointed as "a minister of God" on behalf of the people. Though there were various movements of reform over the centuries, this practice remained largely unchanged from about 300AD until the mid-1800's.

At this time, various men, in various regions of the world, upon their own examination of the Holy Scriptures, perceived that this pattern ought not to be so. One of the more well known examples of this was the men that met with J.N. Darby(?) in Plymouth, England, in 1820(?). The new and unexpected movement spread quickly in the UK and North America, as various believers had become disenchanted with the hierarchical structure and dead ritualism of the offical churches. Due to the location of their first known gatherings, they became known as the "Plymouth Brethren".


- History Repeats Itself

Over the decades, many of the same delemnas have re-arisen within this group that broke off from the mainline churches. There have been various divisions over interpretations of doctrines, divisions over practice and preferences, and in many cases, the dead ritualism from which we severed ourselves has reappeared within our walls. Some have tried to counter this stagnincy by embracing the culture of the day. Others have reacted to this and tried to stay on the conservative end of the spectrum, however, they too have been unable to address the problems that exist and that threaten to destroy what we believe to be the closest interpretation to the way of the New Testament practices in existance today.

We have traditionally had two movements, the Open, consisting of the Chapels, and the Closed. What we need is our own reformation; a re-birth, a renewal, an awakening, or as someone has said, a Third Way. Not an emotionally driven alteration as many liberals would advocate, nor an unemotional rejection of change for the misdirected sake of maintaining the status-quo as many conservatives would support... but a true and sincere changing of the hearts of all. What we need is a true and earnest desire to seek the face of God, to conform to the image of His Son, and to do one of two things; for those who lean toward conservatism, who view change as bad, to implement a heart transplant from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh; or for those who advocate more liberal views, to tame the wild ambitions of the flesh and to seek a whole-hearted submission to Him and His Word, no matter what that might cost. Only by so doing with the brethren movement, which we feel was initiated by the Holy Spirit so many years ago in an effort to preserve the Church, survive.


- Our Need for Today and Tomorrow

What we need is a Third Way, neither Open nor Closed, yet both... seeking to maintain the Biblical purity of the Church by adhering to His Holy Word, and a healthy embracing of new ways, a re-evaluation of old ways, and a rebirth of the patterns seen within the Book of Acts so that we may indeed hold true to the Scriptures in our daily walk, and so that these verses may once again be applied to the Church before His glorious return;

"And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:40-47 NKJV)


- A Plea for a New Way

There is a move afoot today within the assemblies. As in the days of Darby, it is being driven by the young, by those who will remain and live on as the previous generations pass on into the Glory. But the legacy that is left will be ours to live with, and it is our earnest and desperate prayer that this movement, the Assemblies, does not die. Some assemblies are closing their doors due to insufficent numbers to pay the bills. Many are filled with the older and wiser generations, with no youth to carry on the work of the Gospel. Those assemblies that are filled with the youth lack the older and wiser generations to teach them the truths they will need to live on, and are suffering spiritual plauges that are killing many. We need the elders to defend and direct us. We need the young to fight our battles and go on the offensive, to boldly proclaim the Gospel in this dark and dying world. We all need to swallow our pride, and seek reconciliation, to seek renewal, to seek rebirth. To begin a Third Way within the brethren movement.

There will be those who will listen, and there will be those who do not. Those older saints who do not will pass on to Glory perhaps with friut born for their Master, but not bringing in the harvest that is white and ready. The younger saints who ignore this plea will be left unprotected and unguarded, more likely to die a spiritual death of apostacy or to fall into the clutches of materialism, and lead unfriutful lives.

For those who listen, there is a hope. A prayer that these two camps, seperated for so long, will join together once again. We all need to examine ourselves, our differences, and even if we choose not to break bread together on Sunday due to our preferences, we need to unite together in all other ways so that we may carry on the Great Commission given to us by our Glorious Master.

Anything less will be to fail our Lord, our Master, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.


* Confessions
- We confess that our movement, known as the brethren, has been fractured in the past by our sin against our brothers. We confess our need for the Holy Spirit to work within each and every one of us, and to live out the life of the Lord Jesus through us. We confess our need to submit and surrender to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and to His innerant Word in all matters, regardless of the personal percieved cost. We confess that each of us will endeavour to labour for His Name's sake alone, and to seek the unity prayed for by the Son before He gave His very life for our sake. We confess our need of His work to build His church, and that no amount of effort of our own will enable this to occur. We confess our need of a renewal and a rebirth.


* Practices
Nothing here yet


* Affirmations and Rejections

- We affirm the unity of the universal church of all born again believers. We reject that unity can be had with those who claim the name of Christ, yet are not born again.

- We affirm the Diety of Christ, His bodily incarnation, His sacrifical death as the complete and only atonement for fallen and sinful man, and bodily resurection. We reject any such group or teaching that deny these truths as unbiblical and non-Christian.

- We affirm the innerrency of the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as stated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerency of 1978. We reject any teaching that sheds any doubt on the origins or authority of the Word of God.

- We affirm that there are many translations of the Holy Scriptures, and that the choice of such translation rests solely on the individual believer, so long as the translation remains true to the majority of the original manuscripts. We reject as unprovable the teaching that there is only one acceptable translation that exists in the English language.

- We affirm that there are believers that exist outside of the walls of the assembly. We reject the notion that true faith exists only within one group, or that any one group has the authority to deny the faithfulness of another group.

- We affirm the right of individual chuches to define their practices for themselves, so long as they do not contradict the doctrines of the New Testament. We deny that such preferential practices constitue a denial of the faith.

- We affirm that the Lord has ordained a plurality of elders for the oversight of individual assemblies, in submission to Him. We deny that such appointed men have any authority to interfere with the affairs of another assembly, unless such assistance is requested.

- We affirm the autonomy of each individual assembly. We reject the hirirarchical structure of Rome, and we reject the undue influence of one assembly over other assemblies unless such authority is specifically requested.

- We affirm that there is to be fellowship between assemblies as seen in the New Testament, a continual exchange of encouragement, blessing and assistance. We reject that any one assembly has the authority to force other assemblies to break fellowship with an assembly unless heretical teaching is continually proclaimed, or unless gross sin is exposed and left undisciplined. At such time, it will be up to the individual assembly to maintian or sever ties with that assembly, and at no time shall any assembly "disfellowship" another assembly or groups of assemblies for not severing such ties.

- We affirm that Blake Kennedy is better looking than Shawn because he can grow a beard. We reject any claim to the contrary as we also have facial hair, and we scoff at those who cannot so grow any. We also reject any requests to have this portion included in the final draft of the document. (sorry Blake)

* Summary

This statement is by no means a completed work. As fallen and sinful men, we pray that in so writing such a document, that we are in full submission to the Holy Spirit, however, we do acknowledge that as sinful men, we may also be influenced by the flesh, and are open to discussion and correction of this document.


To God Alone be the Glory, Forever and Always,


The Advocacy for Brethren Unity and Continuance
(ABUC - or "A Buck"... just some random thing I came up with)
"Christ is coming... and man I can't wait." Me
http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/
User avatar
prescott
Pundit
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: GTA, ON, CA

Re: Okay... here goes

Postby drewcosten » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:30 am

prescott wrote:* Affirmations and Rejections

- We affirm the unity of the universal church of all born again believers. We reject that unity can be had with those who claim the name of Christ, yet are not born again.


I predict that this is going to cause some interesting questions.

- We affirm the Diety of Christ, His bodily incarnation, His sacrifical death as the complete and only atonement for fallen and sinful man, and bodily resurection. We reject any such group or teaching that deny these truths as unbiblical and non-Christian.


I agree entirely with the affirmation, but I do wonder if those who believe everything that a typical modern "born-againer" would but doesn't believe in the Trinity can be considered a non-Christian. Does one have to agree that Christ is begotten, not created, to be saved even if they have complete faith in Him for their salvation and even accept His deity (and for the record, yes I agree that He was begotten, not created, my "heresies" don't include a denial of the Trinity :) )?

- We affirm the innerrency of the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, as stated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerency of 1978. We reject any teaching that sheds any doubt on the origins or authority of the Word of God.


Why don't we take it a little further back in time and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture as agreed upon by believers <i>up to</i> (and including) the fourth century when Scripture was more or less canonized? I also question what you mean by "sheds any doubt on the origins" of Scripture. I personally doubt that John actually wrote the gospel of John, for instance, but I believe that God inspired it nontheless. The same goes for the books of Timothy and Titus (among others) in regards to Paul's authorship, but not God's inspiration.

- We affirm that there are many translations of the Holy Scriptures, and that the choice of such translation rests solely on the individual believer, so long as the translation remains true to the majority of the original manuscripts. We reject as unprovable the teaching that there is only one acceptable translation that exists in the English language.


Pretty good. :)

- We affirm that there are believers that exist outside of the walls of the assembly. We reject the notion that true faith exists only within one group, or that any one group has the authority to deny the faithfulness of another group.


Good.

- We affirm the right of individual chuches to define their practices for themselves, so long as they do not contradict the doctrines of the New Testament. We deny that such preferential practices constitue a denial of the faith.


I'm a little confused on what you mean by the part about practicees not contradicting the doctrines of the NT. Are we talking about head coverings or women speakers here?

- We affirm that the Lord has ordained a plurality of elders for the oversight of individual assemblies, in submission to Him. We deny that such appointed men have any authority to interfere with the affairs of another assembly, unless such assistance is requested.

- We affirm the autonomy of each individual assembly. We reject the hirirarchical structure of Rome, and we reject the undue influence of one assembly over other assemblies unless such authority is specifically requested.


I like this idea, but I'm not sure it's entirely historically accurate. Heirarchical authority didn't come from Rome, it began before Roman Catholicism did from what I've read on Church history, and while I agree with the idea of a plurality of elders I'm not sure that the way the Brethren do it is historically the way the early Church did.

- We affirm that there is to be fellowship between assemblies as seen in the New Testament, a continual exchange of encouragement, blessing and assistance. We reject that any one assembly has the authority to force other assemblies to break fellowship with an assembly unless heretical teaching is continually proclaimed, or unless gross sin is exposed and left undisciplined. At such time, it will be up to the individual assembly to maintian or sever ties with that assembly, and at no time shall any assembly "disfellowship" another assembly or groups of assemblies for not severing such ties.


Which brings up the question of what qualifies as heresy or "gross sin" but otherwise pretty good.

- We affirm that Blake Kennedy is better looking than Shawn because he can grow a beard. We reject any claim to the contrary as we also have facial hair, and we scoff at those who cannot so grow any. We also reject any requests to have this portion included in the final draft of the document. (sorry Blake)


:lol:
drewcosten
Universalist
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:12 am

Re: Okay... here goes

Postby Shawn Cuthill » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:14 pm

prescott wrote:We affirm that Blake Kennedy is better looking than Shawn because he can grow a beard. We reject any claim to the contrary as we also have facial hair, and we scoff at those who cannot so grow any. We also reject any requests to have this portion included in the final draft of the document. (sorry Blake)


HAIR-ESY!!!! All you facial hair growers are HAIR-etics!! Just ask your wives when you try to kiss them. :twisted:
"They offered you a choice
between the death of your principles
and the death of your body" - V
User avatar
Shawn Cuthill
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2658
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:05 am

Postby TheRussian » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:53 am

Male facial hair can be displeasing to the female of the species in kissing, but has other more pleasing functions to make up for it.

:shock: Did I just post that on a Brethren discussion forum? :shock:
Image
User avatar
TheRussian
Samurai
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:23 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Next

Return to Plymouth Brethren Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests