|
Post by sharon on Jul 3, 2009 14:54:05 GMT -5
Stanne....welcome...I hope we don't give you too much to swallow at a time...I'd like to see a leveling out between the differences between the "innies" and "outies" if you will! I'm still within the fellowship, but not blind to a lot of what has been and what seems to need to happen and hope to help others just face that which is "truth" and move on into knowing more about Jesus!
We have some very fervant ones on here from both sides but we also have some who are learning from both sides....and I like to think that is growth!
Blessings as one of our dear posters puts it! That's Selah by the way...a nice gentle soul!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 3, 2009 15:07:06 GMT -5
Thank you, sharon. I've read your posts with interest. It is a lot to absorb, isn't it. I so agree with you that Jesus, our Lord and Savior, should be the focus. I like to think that I took the good as I moved on, never leaving behind a faith in Christ and all that He did for us and does for us. Blessings to you as well as you discern your journey of faith.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 3, 2009 15:45:22 GMT -5
There's a BIG difference between NOT allowing MARRIED people/workers in the ministry than from SAYING the overseers forbidden workers to MARRY!
With the shortage of workers these days... perhaps, someday the door will open for married people entering the ministry like they did in the past 100 yrs.... or 2,000 yrs ago. Put it this way Nate: - People are forbidden to marry while in the work.
- Married people are forbidden to preach the gospel.
I fully understand the reasons for those rules. But that doesn't make it right or scriptural. Prehaps I should add that I wouldn't have a problem with an organization having those rules, as long as they didn't insist that they are the only way to salvation. Effectively they are saying you can only come to Christ through unmarried preachers.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 3, 2009 18:06:42 GMT -5
You have an interesting logic there Nate. It's probably more than half a century since married workers were welcomed into the ministry, and you ask me if I know any worker who started in the work with married couple workers? ? I have no problem with the single worker rule for our church organization - unless they insist "no man can come to the Father but by us". Unmarried status was not a requirement for New Testament ministry. Neither was it a requirement to belong to the staff of an organization. Whose staff did the married deacon Phillip belong to when he preached the gospel to, and baptized, the Ethiopian Eunuch?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 3, 2009 18:07:25 GMT -5
nathan, which overseers allow married workers in their area?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 3, 2009 19:22:37 GMT -5
A modern-day Phillip would belong to the Lord Jesus' Staff.
However he wouldn't be accepted on an overseer's staff.
They need to ditch the "no man can come to the Father but by us" doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jul 3, 2009 22:14:38 GMT -5
Phillip did not join the workers church. He did not stand up and profess in a meeting. He did not join a group of professing people or the workers staff before he or his daughter's prophesied. He followed the Lord and him alone. No men, no group of workers from a certain church group.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 0:09:48 GMT -5
Yes, Philip, Paul, and the apostles were in fellowship but there's no reason to think they belonged to a "staff" or an organization of any kind. They were led by the Spirit - not by man. The need for preachers of the gospel is as great today as at any time IMO, yet Philip would NOT be accepted as a preacher by today's workers because: - People are forbidden to marry while in the work.
- Married people are forbidden to preach the gospel.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 1:13:11 GMT -5
~~ Then why are you staying? that is what I'd like to know. If you believe the workers are not led by the Spirit. It seems you don't believe most of what your workers teach, preach, and believe. Hey, Nate - you seem keen to get rid of me! I'll go when or if God tells me to go. Meanwhile, I get a lot of help on Sunday mornings and from some workers. When Jesus is most of what workers teach then I'll believe most of what workers teach. How about you?
|
|
matia
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by matia on Jul 4, 2009 3:35:32 GMT -5
To you all How many of the diciples were married
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 4:16:48 GMT -5
I think it is likely they all were. Batchelorhood was a rare thing back in those days. People were married off not long after attaining adulthood, a practice still prevailing in middle eastern countries. Man and woman needed each other much more than nowadays to survive and get through the day's work.
An argument from silence has to favour leanings towards cultural and normal practices of the times.
It pays to sit ourselves in on the following conversation. Although Jesus is speaking about all followers he is addressing the disciples' questions about themselves.
In Matt19:27 Peter said to Jesus (in reference to himself and the other disciples), "Behold, WE have forsaken ALL, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?"
Verse 29 Jesus says " and everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands.....etc." Not conclusive, but certainly strong inference. Also we read elsewhere the disciples all had their own homes, and there is reference to Peter's wife.
The few references that we have point to them being normal men in normal circumstances, but with an abnormal calling.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 4, 2009 4:27:40 GMT -5
~~ Then why are you staying? that is what I'd like to know. If you believe the workers are not led by the Spirit. It seems you don't believe most of what your workers teach, preach, and believe. Hey, Nate - you seem keen to get rid of me! I'll go when or if God tells me to go. Meanwhile, I get a lot of help on Sunday mornings and from some workers. When Jesus is most of what workers teach then I'll believe most of what workers teach. How about you? How can you get a lot of help on Sunday mornings and from some workers when you are so critical of said fellowship and ministry? I agree with Nathan it just don't stack up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 4:34:17 GMT -5
I find that most of what JO says is "constructive criticism," if taken in the correct manner.
Spritual assistance and growth is a two way matter, not consigned to "one-way" traffic. JO probably gets help and gives it. It seems some do take him on board?
Much of this stacks up for me.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 6:52:02 GMT -5
How can you get a lot of help on Sunday mornings and from some workers when you are so critical of said fellowship and ministry? I agree with Nathan it just don't stack up. Kiwi, I'll tell you what helps me: 1. The sincere and humble prayers and word of testimony of my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings. 2. The sincere and humble attitude of some of the workers. Now I'll tell you what turns me right off: 1. Blind allegiance to ideology and mindless repetition of one-true-way theory. 2. Pride, arrogance, holier than thou Pharisee attitudes, and trying to control and manipulate fellow believers. Can I ask you a question Kiwi? Why do you come to TMB where criticism of the fellowship and ministry is to be expected and then complain about it?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 4, 2009 8:31:06 GMT -5
"Quote:That's just a slight in the facts of life! Don't you jest or hear people jest one another by giving them names that are not their real name? It's a joke and I'm sorry that the beginning workers did not see that becoming a problem! In the USofA, to call a relatively strange person to yourself "mate" or "darling" can be construed as "harrassment"! I kid you not. In the medical training of the students of the day, we have to teach them not to call a patient or any visitor "darling", "honey" or any other familiar nicknames as it is "demeaning" to them. The formality of addressing a stranger or near stranger has gone back to the days when "sir", "madam" have become the "new" interaction names you give to people you do not know their name! Otherwise you put yourself up for "harassment" charges! I kid you not! Yes I can understand that when it is a stranger you are talking to, but for the majority of us who are no stranger to this group, is is never taken as an insult when it is refered to as the truth, or the way, and never will be, and generally that is what people use when describing it. I agree that some names are used as an insult, but if those people that use the insults are that way inclinded, they are going to use insults regardless, and we are just going to have to get over it because the bible shows us that it will happen. I have asked this question before but didn't get an answer... what has changed that we now need a name? I think God would much prefer for you to explain the reason for the hope that is within you, rather than promoting exclusivity by saying that you belong to a name. If we were to pick a name, and lets say for this example the name was "Bob's Religion". Now that is going to be absolutely meaningless to everybody unless you wrote a large document explaining everything about Bob's Religion. But, you know what me and 99% of the people are going to do don't you?... I would say, "No I don't follow whatever is in that document... I go according to the bible". I will be saying, no I highly doubt that I am a Bob's Religion, I am just serving God as an individual, and I am not taking that name. Anyway, this comment may really be hinting that I am not able to go to any country in the world and find those of the same faith if there is in fact some there. Having a name is not neccessary for that purpose. Plenty of your fellow American's make it over here and seem to be able to find us ok. This is the second time you have made this comment. Could you expand it a bit for me please? I have not problem with people taking me serious when they ask about my faith. In fact, when I mention that I do not belong to any religion but I my purpose is to serve God, I get taken very seriously because they know that I am not just responding to them with the name of a religion regardless of whether I had even been to a service in the last 12 months or not. They know that this is real. As I have said to you before, give your service to God a name if you think that it is going to help you be taken seriously, but I do not have that problem, and I am still not convinced that there is a real problem with not having a name, because some of the "problems" you have bought up here are not problems at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 9:45:48 GMT -5
At one time, having no name was congruent with the fellowship. It was once very loosely structured, it was more spirit led, it had very little organization. Having no name fit very well with that, it was more of a spiritual movement than an organized church.
Today we are highly structured and organized. We have very structured fellowship mtgs with certain people authorized to host and conduct them, certain procedures and behaviours in those meetings and many restrictions. The convention system is equally well organized and structured.
For such a highly organized and structured group, it is no longer congruous to have no name. Having no name no longer makes sense. Outsiders see the organization, question the fact that there is no name, and told it is because we have no organization! They shake their heads and think "what the.....??"
Notwithstanding the legal obligations, the informal names have arisen because the group is a distinctive group and all distinctive things have a name to identify them. Claiming that we have no name and no organization today works against the mission of preaching Christ because some people recognize this idiosyncracy and walk away before giving the preaching a chance.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 4, 2009 10:22:40 GMT -5
To you all How many of the diciples were married I think it is likely they all were. Batchelorhood was a rare thing back in those days. People were married off not long after attaining adulthood, a practice still prevailing in middle eastern countries. Man and woman needed each other much more than nowadays to survive and get through the day's work. An argument from silence has to favour leanings towards cultural and normal practices of the times. It pays to sit ourselves in on the following conversation. Although Jesus is speaking about all followers he is addressing the disciples' questions about themselves. In Matt19:27 Peter said to Jesus (in reference to himself and the other disciples), "Behold, WE have forsaken ALL, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" Verse 29 Jesus says " and everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands.....etc." Not conclusive, but certainly strong inference. Also we read elsewhere the disciples all had their own homes, and there is reference to Peter's wife. The few references that we have point to them being normal men in normal circumstances, but with an abnormal calling. From what I've read about the culture, life and times of Jesus day, most men were married by age 17 or 18. It was considered disgraceful not to be married by 20.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 4, 2009 11:15:00 GMT -5
Thank you, sharon. I've read your posts with interest. It is a lot to absorb, isn't it. I so agree with you that Jesus, our Lord and Savior, should be the focus. I like to think that I took the good as I moved on, never leaving behind a faith in Christ and all that He did for us and does for us. Blessings to you as well as you discern your journey of faith. Stanne - check your private messages - I wrote U [Go to top of ths page and cick on word "MESSAGES" Hey, XXXX, you have XXX messages, 1 IS new.]
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 4, 2009 13:19:15 GMT -5
[quote author=todd I have asked this question before but didn't get an answer... what has changed that we now need a name?[/quote]
Seriously? Wasn't that just being discussed a page or two ago? We discussed quite a number of doctrinal things that have changed. How do you know who believes and practices which doctrines now that they are so varied?
I did give an answer. Perhaps it didn't meet your criteria. And that's okay. It's your faith.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 19:13:30 GMT -5
~~ Yes, I agree Kiwi something isn't right. The body says they are in (2x2) but the minds are going a different direction.
Jesusonly..... I love reading your posts when you encourage others to focus on Jesus. No, I don't want you to go... just try to focus more on the positive and less on the negative. Nathan, I am able to stay because I focus on the positive. However the negative in our church and ministry is a disgrace and by defending it or pretending it doesn't exist we are seen to be condoning and enabling it. People are hurting as we speak. Do you honestly believe God is pleased with the church and ministry the way it is? I believe a lot of repentance is needed before the friends and workers' church will be spiritually prosperous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 19:39:46 GMT -5
There is a recent study out which has discovered that "focusing on the positive" may actually have the opposite effect.
I read it briefly in an article, in a recent Economist magazine I think.
The study found that people who choose to focus on the positive very often end up sinking to greater depths of negativity after such an exercise. That's the fact part.
The theory for the reason for this phenomena is that it is people who struggle with the negative, with poor self esteem, poor self image, doubts etc are the ones who make the choice to embark on a positive thinking exercise. However, by doing that, it only reinforces what they already believe, that they struggle with negativity. It actually confirms to them that they are negative, have problems,etc. So by doing so, they only head deeper into despair at some point.
I have noticed a number of posters over the years who insist on focusing on the positive. That's probably because they are negative people. The people who seem negative here are probably the positive ones! Quite fascinating to mull over really.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 4, 2009 20:43:37 GMT -5
How can you get a lot of help on Sunday mornings and from some workers when you are so critical of said fellowship and ministry? I agree with Nathan it just don't stack up. Kiwi, I'll tell you what helps me: 1. The sincere and humble prayers and word of testimony of my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings. 2. The sincere and humble attitude of some of the workers. Now I'll tell you what turns me right off: 1. Blind allegiance to ideology and mindless repetition of one-true-way theory. 2. Pride, arrogance, holier than thou Pharisee attitudes, and trying to control and manipulate fellow believers. Can I ask you a question Kiwi? Why do you come to TMB where criticism of the fellowship and ministry is to be expected and then complain about it? You see I don't get to see this [Blind allegiance to ideology and mindless repetition of one-true-way theory.] Or[Pride, arrogance, holier than thou Pharisee attitudes, and trying to control and manipulate fellow believers.] I don't hear it from my brethren or the workers nor do I read it in the many notes I have with the majority coming from your way. Of the workers from your land I have never heard of it either. Why do I come to TMB where criticism of the fellowship and ministry is to be expected and then complain about it? Because it sticks in my craw that people wish to have a spirit of criticism & complaint which I see as false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2009 21:11:22 GMT -5
Kiwi, try to put yourself in the shoes of "people who wish to have a spirit of criticism and complaint which I see as false". Why do you think they do this? Nothing else to do? Bored? Mischievious? Why would they make up false complaints? Just plain evil people?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 4, 2009 21:18:11 GMT -5
Kiwi, try to put yourself in the shoes of "people who wish to have a spirit of criticism and complaint which I see as false". Why do you think they do this? Nothing else to do? Bored? Mischievious? Why would they make up false complaints? Just plain evil people? It obvious why people criticise and complain, it is because they have no Christ given peace and Christ given joy in their lives. So when there is none of that then only what is human will come to the fore, [criticism and complaint] these are definitely not of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 4, 2009 21:29:53 GMT -5
Hey kiwi! It obvious why people criticise and complain, it is because they have no Christ given peace and Christ given joy in their lives. So when there is none of that then only what is human will come to the fore, [criticism and complaint] these are definitely not of Jesus.
You do know that describes your posts also don't you? While there are many here who do criticize and complain about your church, you turn around and criticize and complain about what they post...... Criticism and complaints aren't necessarily indicative of not having a Christ filled life (in my opinion). The bible is full of it. Just read Paul's letters in which he criticizes and complains to the various churches about their actions. A big difference is that he also encourages and supports them after his criticism. Many of our posters here do that also. You just need to keep an open mind to see that. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 4, 2009 21:56:06 GMT -5
It obvious why people criticise and complain, it is because they have no Christ given peace and Christ given joy in their lives.So when there is none of that then only what is human will come to the fore, [criticism and complaint] these are definitely not of Jesus. By this standard Jesus was a whinger. There's a vast amount of His criticisms and complaints spread throughout the gospels. Matthew 23 is a veritable litany of complaints and criticism. He was very upset by religiosity and social injustice and had plenty of negative things to say about it. The mere presence of criticism and complaint has no bearing whatsover on whether a person has Christ given peace and joy. Was Jesus peaceful and joyful when He railed at the religious, or when He overthrew the moneychangers in the temple? There really is such a thing as righteous rage and it can be expressed in the face of oppression and exploitation. Beware lest we make Jesus in our own image! A domesticated Jesus, shaped to fit our own pride and prejudice is of no value to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 21:58:16 GMT -5
1) Nathan, I am able to stay because I focus on the positive.
~~ Then tell us what you believe is positive for a change.
2) However the negative in our church and ministry is a disgrace and by defending it or pretending it doesn't exist we are seen to be condoning and enabling it.
~~ Can you tell me what are the negative in our church and ministry is a disgrace are you talking about?
3) People are hurting as we speak.
~~ Yes, I know some are hurting.
4) Do you honestly believe God is pleased with the church and ministry the way it is?
~~ Yes, I do. The church and ministry has come a long way than 100 yrs ago. The church and ministry will NEVER be perfect because God is trying to perfect them through trials, experiences in life so they learn to TRUST and RELY on Him.
5) I believe a lot of repentance is needed before the friends and workers' church will be spiritually prosperous.
~~~ Yes, I agree all of us need a lot of repentance individually fron sins, pride, self-righteous, falsehoods which we all possess....
I believe other churches have the same problems as we do also.Nathan, I'm not so concerned about rogue elements and isolated offenses but rather systemic failure. The church as a whole is not focused on Jesus like it should be. There is pride and arrogance that comes from the "no man can come to the Father but by us" doctrine and it causes a lot of suffering that is not of God. If you want an example of the fruits of this doctrine just listen to the Alberta tapes. I have already told you about what I see as positive: 1. The sincere and humble prayers and word of testimony of my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings. 2. The sincere and humble attitude of some of the workers.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 22:06:51 GMT -5
It obvious why people criticise and complain, it is because they have no Christ given peace and Christ given joy in their lives.So when there is none of that then only what is human will come to the fore, [criticism and complaint] these are definitely not of Jesus. By this standard Jesus was a whinger. There's a vast amount of His criticisms and complaints spread throughout the gospels. Matthew 23 is a veritable litany of complaints and criticism. He was very upset by religiosity and social injustice and had plenty of negative things to say about it. The mere presence of criticism and complaint has no bearing whatsover on whether a person has Christ given peace and joy. Was Jesus peaceful and joyful when He railed at the religious, or when He overthrew the moneychangers in the temple? There really is such a thing as righteous rage and it can be expressed in the face of oppression and exploitation. Beware lest we make Jesus in our own image! A domesticated Jesus, shaped to fit our own pride and prejudice is of no value to anyone. Thanks for this Rob. It reminds me of what Pattison wrote of William Irvine's preaching in the early days: Another expression he was fond of using in the first days was: "Jesus was a common man." And although at first to our Pharisaic ears, it sounded very irreverent and repulsive (so much so that some would-be-grandees, who in other respects were a bit interested in the work, took great offense and from this and other causes walked no more with us), yet none of us could contradict or deny the simple fact; and admitting and thinking it over, and making it real had a very healthy and corrective affect on me at any rate, (all events) changing completely my conception of who and what Jesus was and is, from the fictitious "Gentleman Jesus" to the Jesus of the New Testament, whom the 'common people' "heard gladly" and who had always been, both at home and abroad, from cradle to grave, the poorest and lowliest.www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/pattisong.php(I hope no one will take this as an attack on the divinity of Jesus - I'm almost certain that is NOT what WI was suggesting).
|
|