He Can't Handle the Truth

It seems that Frank Turk of "Team Pyro" fame can't handle the truth that by and large the professing church has fallen - or leapt - off a spiritual cliff.

After reading the account of Karolyn Caskey over at CR Online I sent the article in its entirety along with a brief series of questions to Frank Turk (a.k.a. Centuri0n) by e-mail in reference to a recent series of posts in which Frank takes the Biblically unprecedented position that Christians don't have the moral ability to decide to leave their local church.

As you can see for yourself in his sneering reply posted below Mr. Turk is a classic and sad example of the highly Pharisaical church legalist. In fact the only organizations I can think of who hold as firmly to Mr. Turk's "Roach Motel" position on the local church as he does himself (i.e. "you can check in, but you can't check out") are the RCC and the LDS.

Below is Mr. Turk's response to my e-mail along with portions of the original to which he specifically replied - assuming this indignant screeching screed can be called a reply as it reads more like the ranting of an unbalanced individual than a cogent, reasoned response.

After reading his message I replied to Mr. Turk by thanking him for responding, offering my prayers that the Lord would open his eyes to the truth, and wishing him a happy vacation (he's apparently taking some time off for the 4th of July).

Frank,
>
> Long time no speak (mostly due to being banned from
> both your blog & Pyro),
> but nonetheless I thought I'd share this one with
> you.

Wow. How nice of you to share. It's odd that you
don't remember being banned for giving lectures --
that you just say things and don't defend them, and
are unwilling to defend them, and what you say doesn't
lie up to any facts.

Just being banned. That says something -- about
-you-. Too bad you don't know what that is.

> I guess your pastor calling the police and having
> you dragged from church in
> handcuffs is grounds to leave your local church even
> in Frank Turk's world,
> right? Or maybe not?

Because you are a reactionary who doesn't read
anything thoroughly, you have apparently missed this
part of the story:

[QUOTE]
According to Mrs. Caskey, she contacted her lawyer and
asked her to represent her in the meeting at the
church. The meeting was not held, and through friends
in the small town of Allen, Caskey was told that “they
were going to try and dismiss me from the church.”
[/QUOTE]

Now, let me ask you -- where, in my recent series of
posts, have I ever advocated going back to a church
that you have been thrown out of? Anywhere? List one
post.

Yes: the meeting "was not held". The fact that they
were notified her they wanted to hold it would be
enough to tell me -- and any reasonable person -- that
they are not wanted there. However, she never
followed up as to why the meeting wasn't held. The
article doesn't say why it wasn't held. But she knew
that she was no longer welcome.

If you can point me to where I said, "go back until
they carry you out in cuffs," you can then have some
royal indignation. Until then, You are only
demonstrating to me that I did a really smart thing my
banning you. You're an ignoramus who thinks that he
has some moral high-ground from which to issue edicts.

> Perhaps this gray haired
> saint should just take it up
> with the elders after she's been sprung from the
> pokey? Oh, and how about
> the other members? Her children, grandchildren and
> other family, her
> brothers and sisters in the Lord beside whom she's
> faithfully served
> alongside for 50 years, I guess so long as they're
> not being arrested and
> dragged from service they ought to just stay put and
> remain under their
> loving pastor's authority and care, right?

No. She shouldn't have gone back. Do I think her
"pastor" did something despicable and vile? Why yes:
yes I do. I think he's the villain in this little
morality play. But he's a villain who has been
enabled by all those who left and so-called elders who
have no way to hold him accountable.

Mrs. Caskey is certainly one victim in this event.
But it seems rather stupid to go back when one is
being actively told they are not welcome, doesn't it?
You might paint this as her being persecuted -- and I
might find a way to agree with you about that. But
isn't that /what we should expect/ when we stand up
for Christ against the world?

When a worldly man takes over a church as pastor, it's
the Gospel against his slice of the world. We should
expect the world to hate us.

Shouldn't we?

> Coram

To save you some time, I'm going to post this e-mail
to my blog for people's summer reading. Then, when
you mis-represent me (again) you can link to that post
so people can see the whole conversation.

Happy 4th -- don't handle any lit fireworks.

in Christ,

Frank