|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2013 6:33:34 GMT -5
Just curious, has anyone ever finished speaking during meeting just to have someone stand up after you and correct you (in their opinion) on what you have said? This type of thing is really getting to me! The first time it happened, I had said that every day is a new choice whether or not to serve God. Immediately after I spoke a worker stood and corrected that it's not making a new choice every day. Funny.....because just recently a worker spoke about how every day when we wake, it's a new choice to whether or not we want to serve God!!!!!! Huh, I guess I wasn't wrong with what God put on my heart after all!
Second time that it happened to me, I spoke about how there is a lot of confusion out there on Christian beliefs. Immediately after I spoke, someone stood to say that there is NO confusion if you believe that there is only ONE WAY! This person was speaking about the system, not Jesus.
What God lays on my heart to speak about is NOT open game for someone else to stand and tell everyone in the room that I'm wrong.....I don't care if you are a worker or not! Why bother to take part, if we are only ALLOWED to say what is popular in the system. I am by no means a wave starter, so it really bothered me when these things happened.
-ph- You stick to your guns, peacefulheart. Ever noticed, those who display the most confusion are workers, EXCEPT on system stuff like you say (on that, they're rock solid). Your post was refreshing and it's an important issue, because allowing everyone to participate in meeting is perhaps the most beneficial part of our fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by mod3 on Mar 11, 2013 18:57:00 GMT -5
Nominated today for post of the week: Jesus didn't tolerate other religious viewpoints. Jesus didn't tolerate alternative moral viewpoints either. Read Mathew's Gospel in particular, you see a particularly hardline, intolerant and narrow point of view. We increasingly tolerate narcotics, pornography, bad language, violence, gambling, sex outside of marriage, non-Christian faiths, militant atheism, welfare dependancy etc etc etc... Increasingly we question the nuclear family, the rule of parents over children, having children, going to church, church, authority moralizers, wowsers etc etc etc... What Jesus didn't tolerate was lack of compassion for others, and seeking own gain and pleasure at the expense of others. If he was "intolerant", he was only intolerant of selfishness, evil, pride, greed, abuse, hypocrisy. Narcotics, pornography, bad language, violence, gambling, sex outside marriage are bad for the simple reason that they hurt and damage souls - both our own and others'. Jesus was intolerant of things that harm self and others. The question is, do we believe that He knows how we were created, what our nature is, and what is good for us. Or do we want to decide that for ourselves. I believe that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will recognize truth and beauty in His words and will follow them, and be blessed in it. If one doesn't hunger and thirst for righteousness, well, that's a different story... I grew up in an atheist environment, not knowing anything about Jesus. But when I read His words, I felt I was finally home, I had finally found the one who spoke to my soul, and who agreed with me (by showing I wasn't crazy in thirsting for spiritual truths of goodness and purity, as I didn't know anybody like me for the first 20 years of my life) and I with Him. But I was always hungry and thirsty for these spiritual truths, and when I found them, my soul was fed and satisfied. You can't force feed anyone spiritual truths, they have to be hungry for them...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 18, 2013 17:45:22 GMT -5
My first big lessons about healing came after I left Meetings and lost my faith. I stopped going to meetings back when people who "lost out" effectively dropped out of sight, never to be heard from again. Although my professing family did not reject me, my sense of isolation as an "outsider" on the "Outside" was pretty intense. I would have benefited from having a forum like TMB to participate in! Healing took many years, was mysterious, unpredictable...definitely not linear. Here are a few things I consider major elements of my healing process: Therapy I began healing when a couple of friends helped me find a therapist. This was about 7 years after I stopped going to meetings. My therapist became a witness to my life story in a space in which I came to feel safe enough to explore it. The first breakthrough for me in therapy was when I became aware how numb I felt inside. Soon after, I was able to describe how it seemed like there was a bomb crater where my childhood and early adulthood were supposed to be. Around the same time, I started having vivid dreams which I came to think of as glimpses of what was going on inside. In my first dream, for example, I was lost in the city I lived in....all of the houses, trees, street signs and other landmarks one would normally use to navigate had been leveled, leaving a landscape filled with cellar holes where the buildings used to be. The Bomb Crater Over time, I discovered that the bomb crater wasn't empty....that although I had a lot of rebuilding to do, and I had many losses to grieve, there were also plenty of things about my childhood that I could still celebrate and cherish - even things about growing up going to Meetings. I discovered that the love I had felt for many of the people I grew up with was still there. Along the way, I struggled to "erase" some of the teachings and images and words that I had been exposed to from an early age - but it was like they had been permanently etched somewhere on my insides. For some time, I resented their presence. Eventually I found ways to re-frame them - even celebrate them as part of who I am and where I come from. Shame I became aware of a crippling sense of shame, and I recognized, with a sinking feeling, that if I was ever going to feel better I had to face it. I decided to use a secular version of the AA 12-steps as a guide. Steps 4 and 5 were critical: I made a list of all of the things about myself and my life that I felt shame about - especially things I didn't think I could ever share with another person. And then, I did just that....took some very deep breaths and revealed the contents of my list line-by-line to my seasoned (and almost frustratingly unimpressed!) therapist. I forced myself to talk about everything that came up over a period of weeks. The process of exposing these parts of me was excruciating and, at times, terrifying - I count it as one of the bravest things I've done in my life. When I had squeezed everything out....anything that was even remotely connected to a sense of shame...I was left with an incredible inner silence. It was in this space that I began to accept the fact that I am human...and from there, could begin to accept the fact that everyone else is human as well. Forgiveness and compassion Forgiveness of myself, for being human....forgiveness of others, for the same. This includes William Irvine, George Walker and Andrew Abernethy. I have come to expect that I can always (eventually) discover a way to feel compassion for another human being, no matter how much they may have hurt me or others. For me, this flows directly from facing my own "failings." This is an attitude I try to cultivate in myself. Grief It was helpful to have some basic knowledge about the stages of grief. When I recognized that the anger I felt was probably coming from a place of grief, I began to feel hopeful that I could move beyond it. I have come to believe that accepting loss as an inevitable part of life and learning how to grieve are key life skills. At some point, I realized that if I could trade-in my life for a different one, I wouldn't. I'll leave it at that!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2013 20:06:38 GMT -5
Leo is as deluded as they come. Talk about a false preacher. Jesus gave His life for the World - Jesus alone is the way the truth and the light. there is no adding or taking away from that. Leo's comments in italics. A ministry, a pattern, Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, not a ministry. The ministry is of men. The Truth of God does not rest on the ministry and a way of fellowship, it rests on the sacrifice of Jesus, not our own sacrifice. The Truth meaning Leo's church came out of the Truth and broke away from it. A church started by a man. This came about by 1. False Preachers 2. False EldersOf course, false preachers and false elders of which he appears to have been one. After all his church was a break away and started by a man. These elders wanted to run it and take authority away from the apostles
Yes again, Irvine wanted to run it and take the authority away from the existing church. He wasn't willing to submit to anyone. Need I say any more. LEO STANCLIFF: •"My hope of salvation is the blood of Christ. But I would like to explain to you what it means. The blood of Christ is the ministry and the church in the home. Without the New Testament ministry you don’t have the blood of Christ which includes the church in the home. The forgiveness of sins is a fringe benefit." [1981] From "Quotes from Workers" www.workersect.org/2x205g.htmlThere's a lot of Methodist too in Leo.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2013 6:22:02 GMT -5
Leo made some of the most amazing historical discoveries known to man.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 30, 2013 3:04:32 GMT -5
I was in the work for 16 years and became acquainted with a very large number of workers both European and North American (I talked quite freely with many of my peers)-- I never (I am not denying they exist) became aware of any worker that I would feel could be diagnosed as pedofile -- On the other hand, sexuallity (and the lack of it) was a clear issue with many) -- and the sexuallity/passion issue did eventually lead many out of the work -- some not soon enough!. As far as I can see, many (although probably not all) of the sexual abuse issues that have come to light are not the result of unnatural sexual deviation such as pedofilia, but rather just the result of an unnatural and for some, impossible life style, as well as oppurtunity and doubtlessly failing principal. To me it is a tragedy for everyone that these get regarded, dispised and rejected as clinical pedofiles.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 29, 2014 15:10:34 GMT -5
Nominated for post of the week. Bugger where people have been and where they are going. People are what they are, you connect how you connect and surprisingly or not, most people are excellant. Being non-exclusive to me means who the hell am I to judge anyone. I do but that has no justification. Nice post! Of course we don't have the justification to judge anyone but it is so much fun that who can resist! And most people are excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 5, 2014 2:31:57 GMT -5
Have you read the 1991 letter by two sister workers on WINGS? If so how can you say CSA hasn't been taken seriously as if there was absolutely no one ever who took it seriously? I have quoted some of the workers we have spoken to directly. I am not saying that nothing has been done and that there is no progress. I do conclude that the progress seems to be slow and not motivated by sincere care, but by Internet exposure and legal pressures. When we asked an overseer if Ira Hobbs would still be in the work were it not for Internet exposure and pressure (after he told us to be careful about Internet!!!), he relied: "He probably would." There are more things I could quote we have been told directly by workers on different continents, all of them pointing to a lack of willingness on the part of the ministry as a whole to deal with these things. The question is not whether there are some who did take it seriously. There were certainly those who have. But were they “low on the totem pole” and fighting a lonely battle against the grain? Was Fern Strouse ultimately perceived as a hero or a renegade? No - the question is where was the majority who were in a position of responsibility and oversight? We know workers today who take these things seriously, but who are not free to talk about it openly for fear of repercussions. They do not want me to quote them. A year ago, a senior worker at a special meeting made the clear distinction between “personal sin” such as the incident with David and Bathsheba versus “devotional and doctrinal sin”. The latter being clearly a big problem but the former being something understandable that can be dealt with. At Georgetown this fall a senior worker in the Sunday morning “prime time” testimony upheld the encounter on the road between Tamar and Judah as a noble example in which “Tamar was just showing she wanted to share in the promises of God to the chosen family.” These sort of comments about such topics at such a venue by those in authority indicate that there continues to be a serious disconnect between themselves and regular folks in terms of basic moral and ethical boundaries. The fact is that we have been lead to extend hospitality to known wolves in sheep's clothing and our trust was abused. The sanctity of our home and family was violated. We feel cheated and deceived. Until we receive an apology for that and until all the workers who have committed abuse have been renounced and those who have committed immorality removed from the work, we cannot conclude that those in places of authority understand the seriousness of these things, nor that they will not keep repeating the same mistakes. Well, we know they ARE repeating the same mistakes, because there are those who have committed immorality/abuse and are still in the work. I understand that it may be difficult for a B&R person to enter into our feelings. But, please try to understand that we did not sign on to receiving immoral and abusers into our home when we professed or when we trustingly had an open home overseas. Nor did we sign on to receiving workers who don't want to know what is happening in the ministry or to having fellowship with people who don't want to know what is happening, thus creating the conditions for abuses to continue. There was no fine print to read and get informed when we professed. We were lead to believe that this fellowship is morally and spiritually superior to other churches. When we professed, we did not have family and friends cheering. Professing meant separation from family and friends - it came with a great cost. Do I care "how much progress has been made"? I am glad for it, but it doesn't lessen the feeling of being personally cheated and deceived.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 27, 2014 20:58:43 GMT -5
I agree that shadowy isn't the perfect word. Shadowy implies that an offender is hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and harm someone. F&Ws may well be hiding their religion in the shadows and may well be looking for the perfect opportunity to spring it on someone, but the intention to hurt, harm or damage is not there. They think they are doing the right thing and they all believe that if someone comes into the group its the best thing possible for that person. Indeed, the fellowship is not a shadowy danger to the world. But within the fellowship, there is a shadowy danger to the members themselves, hiding in the secrecy and lack of transparency. Who makes decisions? Based on what principles? With whose interests in mind? Most friends and lower-ranking workers are left in the dark as to what happens at the higher levels of the ministry. I have the impression that most don't even want to know as curiosity about it would signify a lack of trust in overseers, and they may even realize that it is best not to know as the knowledge would shake their faith in the ministry. It is "safer" to not know. ...when we asked: who is responsible that such and such was allowed to remain in the work? who made that decision?, we did not receive an answer. ...who made the decision that such and such would be sent to our home in spite of known allegations? no answer. ...how can we know that it will not happen again? no answer. ...workers we've talked to and some friends tell us that BB is at the head of the work in the eastern US; an overseer tells us he is not. Why then do all these people think that BB is at the head of the work?? Or, if he is, why is it officially negated? ...there seems to be a group of "equals" who make decisions at the highest level of the ministry. Who they are and how they to came to belong to this group of "equals" is a mystery. We asked who they are, but did not receive an answer. The following comes to mind as the background for our unanswered questions: An overseer spoke at the last convention: "People don't know what we (the ministry) have been entrusted with... We need to love and respect the workers..." Another overseer said at the end of the convention, that "you have not just heard the workers speaking, but you have heard the voice of God here." From this it seems clear that they are above the need to be transparent or accountable . At the same convention, a sister worker said in a raised voice, as if irritated by suggestions that it is not so: "This is NOT just another sect!!!" Who would dare suggest that there may be problems that need to be addressed in this group of people (remember, it is NOT an organization!) that is NOT just another church on the block, and whose ministers have been entrusted with something that cannot be named, and whose ministers are the mouthpiece of God? It seems consistent that the first-mentioned overseer at this convention also said that: "some would give us lists and instructions, but it is all worthless." Final words of our overseer regarding the issues that concern us (CSA and immorality in the ministry) were: "In dealing with the souls of men and their destiny it seems awkward to us to use formalities normally present in associations with men." This is not all he said, and I apologize for taking them out of context of everything else that was said. But, I believe they do reflect the prevailing sentiment among overseers: the fellowship is so above what is of the world that there is a danger that things like CSA guidelines and transparency would bring it down to the level of worldly organizations. (Of course, they would also make decision makers suspect to being held accountable for their decisions.) Therefore, decision-making processes and players remain in the shadows. Overseers have created a secure kingdom for themselves - a kingdom whose inhabitants are generally willing and eager to follow and obey without asking questions. Indeed, the prevailing thought in the fellowship is that the dangers don't come from the secrecy at the highest levels of the ministry, but from questioning and not putting one's full trust in the ministry and its decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 29, 2014 9:21:40 GMT -5
Nobody should ever be permanently excluded from church fellowship because of their sin. If this were the case, none of us would be eligible. What IS required, is that we confess and repent of sin, and seek to struggle against it. For some sins, this will require a high level of accountability. I believe in justice, I believe in the protection of vulnerable people from the sins of others, but I do not believe in the demonisation of anyone. There is never an excuse to treat anyone badly, or as less than human. How we treat others is a reflection of ourselves, not them. Chris will have to continue to come to terms with his guilt, now very public. There has been a level of justice. There must also be avenues for repentance, confession, forgiveness and restoration to the church - of any sinner. I do not know where Chris is in this process. But I do know that Christ will not turn any away who truly repent. I hope that the workers can show some wisdom in acknowledging their own guilt in being a party to Chris's sins by putting him in ministry in the first place, and not providing any kind of accountability or disclosure to assist in protecting others. They never sought to deal with his sins of the past by seeking out the victims and dealing with what had happened. Instead, they made him a worker and put him knowingly into the homes of unknowing friends. They put the wolf in with the lambs. Somehow they expected this to all be ok. They continue to protect the worst of sinners instead of exposing them and dealing with them. They continue to ignore victims and or even vilify them for coming forward. What a ministry. What a mess. I, for one, pray that Chris will have a true understanding of his crimes, and true repentance. I pray that he will see the need for high accountability for himself for the rest of his life. I pray that his victims will have healing and peace. Psalm 103.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Sept 27, 2014 21:39:29 GMT -5
A Summary... A Many posts on this thread have evolved from a post I made asking Maja: "Do you feel that if a worker has been immoral once, perhaps fallen in a temptation that they should never have a place in the work again?"
Her answer is no. I am unable to be in agreement with that, I find nothing to support it in the teaching of Jesus Christ. B Then she placed another list before me. I am in agreement most of the matters she listed. However I am unable to be in agreement with her requirement that workers guilty of immorality are to be rebuked publicly. She does not require this of friends. I find no scripture or teaching to support what I consider to be a discriminatory practice. C I have posted earlier that I consider Maja a sincere person with integrity and I still do. I have a meaningful relationship with a number of ex members of the fellowship that I have come in contact with through TMB, I appreciate them. I have a confidence, respect and appreciation for not a few ex members of the fellowship who post here. I am unable to honestly say that of some of the fellowship that post. Thank you for this summary. B I placed 'another list before you' because I honestly thought the answer needed an explanation. I never said I am against friends being rebuked publicly (I've never had a problem with that until I learned that the same rules are not applied to the workers); instead I pointed out the paradox of the laity being treated more harshly than the ministry (double standards). Back to the 'list' and the original question you asked of me: among the points listed (and you state above that you are in agreement with most of them), do you find any that would justify removing a 1st offender from the ministry?
So you don't have to go back and find the list, I will include it here: 1) Because it’s a celibate ministry: No explanation needed, although it is discussed bellow.
2) Care for the soul: Is it good for the one who has engaged in sexual immorality to remain in the celibate ministry? In Matthew 19:10-12, Jesus seems to say that the power to chose celibacy is a gift. If a minister who has committed to a celibate life engages in sexual behavior, it clearly shows that he did not receive the gift of celibacy and should exit the celibate ministry. Otherwise, he is sweeping the problem under the rug, ignoring it, and continuing on the path of self-destruction. In 1 Corinthians 7:9, Paul advises that those who cannot exercise self-control should marry, “for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Allowing a person who has proven to be unable to exercise self-control to remain in the celibate ministry discourages honest self-examination and sincere search for the solution to the problem. Let’s consider why an offender would be allowed to and even encouraged to remain in the celibate ministry? Is it because being in the ministry and the perpetuation of the ministry are more important than spiritual health of the offender? If on one hand being in the ministry is seen as the ultimate sacrifice and even one that ensures the greatest reward in heaven, and on the other hand participation in it is encouraged in direct disobedience to the above verses, what is the resulting message? Is it not that to sacrifice is better than to obey? Does this message benefit anyone now or in eternity?
3) true understanding of “falling into temptation:” From various conversations we’ve had, it is clear that when it comes to sexual sin committed by the workers, there is a tendency to treat it akin to someone slipping on a banana peel and falling. It is seen as an accident, even as something unavoidable given the nature of being in the celibate ministry. You are supposed to just pick yourself up, brush off your cloths and keep walking, pretending that nothing has happened. But no, sexual sin is not an accident. It is not something one just “fall into” out of the blue. Being in the celibate ministry doesn’t excuse it any more than it’s excusable for anyone else. We have heard one overseer say from the platform that it is OK to have “personal problems” as long as one doesn’t have “doctrinal” and “devotional” problems, pointing out David’s sin as an example. Doesn’t this statement point to the very lack of understanding of sin? I believe that personal, doctrinal and devotional problems go hand in hand and feed off of each other. Likewise, personal, doctrinal and devotional health cannot be nurtured independently from each another. Another Overseer found in the letter of Jude the justification to claim that ‘carnal sin’ is not as serious as ‘spiritual sin’ of rebellion against authority. There is a lot implied here, (especially considering the fact this was spoken at our local convention right after our letter to Overseers being sent out), but let’s just focus on the implication that carnal sin is not of spiritual nature. Is it really not? Surely Paul would not have advised Corinthians to remove from their midst a man for a lesser-ranking trespass of no spiritual significance (1 Corinthians 5)? Sexual sin starts in the heart and has to be nursed for a very long time before one’s conscience has been seared enough that he can act on it. It is only an outward expression, a symptom of a disease that has already taken foothold in one’s soul (Matthew 5:28). It points to a problem deeper than the physical act or verbal harassment. It is this problem, at its very root, that has to be honestly acknowledged and dealt with. Why should one with such a deep and fundamental, yet untreated problem remain in the ministry? Doesn’t this denial of deeper problems encourage festering of the same? Why is the ministry the right place for people with unresolved deep and fundamental problems?
4) lack of mechanism to track offenses: There seems to be no world-wide database for the purpose of tracking such offenses. Therefore, that an offense is said to be “the first one” is a mute point. It cannot be proven. If the workers only stayed in one field all their life, and if their first known offense was made public, there would be reasonable chance that no future offense would go without notice. As it is, offending workers are moved to another part of the country, another country or even another continent, and there is no offense record following him. Therefore, each time he can claim that this was “the first offense.” Lack of transparency in dealing with these issues further contributes to this concern.
5) avoiding the trap of double standards: There is one standard for the workers and another for the friends. When a young lady gets pregnant through pre-marital sex, her rebuke and punishment are public. Yet, when a worker is found in the same sin, his rebuke if any is in private and punishment nonexistent. Let me contrast that by giving an example from the church we are currently attending. When one of the ministers in that congregation was found to be having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, his sin was publicly announced, he was removed from the position in the ministry, and required to undergo counseling. However, if it had been a regular member who was found in adultery, his sin would not have been made public, because he is not in a place of authority and responsibility.
6) avoiding the trap of hypocrisy: Even as we heard at our last convention, it is claimed that the workers are the true ministry because “they live what they preach.” An Overseer contrasted that to “false preachers” who may have good sermons, but don’t “live it.” If a worker has shown that his life doesn’t reflect his words and calling, there should be honest cognizance of and willingness to correct anything that would indicate hypocrisy and the case of trying to remove a speck from another’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own.
7) recognition of the problem that true (consensual) sexual immorality is not likely to be brought to light, while abuse is more likely, and that Overseers have not been able to distinguish between the two: Overseers have excused reported abuse as consensual relationship, or even as it being the victim’s fault. This is a clear obfuscation of the true nature of the offense, and it averts constructive resolution of the problem. The abuser is not presented with the option of choosing the path of healing and restoration, but only of ignoring the problem. He learns that he can get away with such behavior, which enables him to keep abusing more victims, while the victim that reported the abuse is brushed aside, re-victimized, and even vilified.
8) recognition of the problem that Overseers do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes sexually inappropriate behavior especially in cases of sexual harassment: reports of sexual harassment such as an attempt to kiss and touch, complimenting a woman’s looks, or an attempt to talk about another’s sexual life have been dismissed and rationalized as “normal behavior people engage in every day:” Overseers are either not able or not willing to understand that such behavior is only “normal” when it occurs within a consensual romantic relationship. Otherwise it falls under the category of sexual harassment. Regardless, neither sexual harassment nor consensual romantic relationship have a place in a celibate ministry, and Overseers apparently don’t realize this.
C Thank you for your kind words. Please do not take anyone's questions or statements as attacks. The purpose of a forum is to ask questions and honestly state our opinions and perceptions, even the difficult and uncomfortable ones. Please note that I have not directed any questions to members of the fellowship who have not participated in the discussion and challenged others' views. Once you challenge somebody else's views, you have to expect questions and challenges in return. You are not being singled out, rather you have made yourself an active participant in this discussion. However, your continual blaming of fellowship members for speaking honestly here, while ignoring the reason why they can speak honestly only here is disingenuous and has the appearance of trying to silence them (enforce Fellowship rules even on this forum, which comes very close to bullying).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2014 9:39:08 GMT -5
We have had a request that this post by review005 be given prominence as 'post of the week', albeit belatedly: Based on the definition that maja is using, I think it is a no-brainer that it is 'no'. Her point seems to be that a non-celibate individual has no place in a celibate ministry. IF in fact the workers are expected to be celibate, then they would need to be removed from their position in order for the church to claim that it has a celibate ministry. Either that or it is a no-brainer that the ministry is lying to everyone when they say that they are in fact a celibate ministry. Personally, I don't care if the workers have orgies on a regular basis, nor whether they visit prostitutes when on convention rounds. It isn't my church, so if the members don't care that their workers are having sex and claiming to be celibate, then they have the ministry that they deserve to have.
Is it a no brainer?From the Merriam Webster dictionaryDefinition of CELIBACYabstention from sexual intercourse Examples of CELIBACY<a widower who has maintained absolute celibacy since the death of his wife> It is a very serious matter if a worker has been immoral even once (I am not talking about repeated or habitual immorality) It may often been the case that they will not continue in the work. However I reject what Maja and a number of others are supporting her in; that unilaterally such a worker should never have a place in the work again. No matter how reasonable, logical or compelling lists of 8 or 18 or 118 reasons are that someone may put forward I simply will not accept human limitation being placed on God's provision for forgiveness and restoration. If I do I consider myself no different from the scribes and pharisees that taught for doctrine the commandments of men. A worker who has fallen once in immorality and repents (in the true meaning of the word) and is forgiven by God and has a place in the ministry again can live a celibate life just a much as the widower quoted from Merriam Webster dictionary lives a celibate life. a)I do care if workers have orgies on a regular basis and visit prostitutes when on convention rounds. b)I do care if workers are having sex and claiming to be celibate. c)I do care if anyone would advocate human limitation being placed on God's provision for forgiveness and restoration. a, b and c are all contrary the teaching of Jesus Christ. {take your choice, they are all wrong, I'd say any one of them (not repented of) would possibly qualify a person for entry to hot place! } (sins of the spirit, sins of the flesh stuff! : There are those following this thread that know I do more than say " I care" in a post on TMB when an allegation of immorality in the ministry is brought to me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 11, 2015 8:13:37 GMT -5
I believe that friends and workers posting on this forum doesn’t accomplish much. Those who are contrary to the Work are being empowered by the friends and workers posting on these boards. This forum may have been created with good intentions at first, but it seems to be a place for the enemies of the friends and workers to constantly cast accusations (usually anonymously and thus without proof). By responding to these people, we simply add fuel to the fire. I’m going to add some of my background to this post (and you can take my word as truth, or you can ignore my words). But, these are my thoughts on ‘churches’ and ‘pain’ and ‘problems’ that accompany any church, whether it’s the Baptist Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or the friends and workers. The reason that ALL churches and secular organizations have these problems is this: we are humans. No matter what church or what organization one belongs to, there are going to be those who are nasty, gossips, legalistic and possibly perverted. The things that the enemies of the friends and workers are accusing of us are the very same things that go on in their own churches and organizations, (whether it’s atheists, Eastern Religionists, the Boy Scouts, the public school system or whatever). So, to have a whole webpage on the misdeeds of the friends and workers is very hypocritical IMO. You are pointing fingers at us, but 3 fingers are pointing back at yourselves. Your morality, and your churches are no better, no holier, no healthier than ours. We are all human. We are all attempting to the best we can with what we have. To speak so evil of your own former friends, current friends, family, etc. is unproductive, mean spirited and nasty. I was raised in a Baptist Church, and CSA occurred in the congregation I was raised in. There was a man who preyed upon boys who didn’t have a father (I was one of those boys). None of the victims said anything about this man to their moms, or to anyone else in the church. It’s just something that was done, and that this group of boys accepted at that time. When I was in my early 20s I called the Church and spoke to the pastor. I told him what had happened not too many years before. His answer was “What do you want me to do about it?” I was shocked. I was angry. I didn’t pursue it any further. I told my mother about what happened at the same time. She was very angry at that Church, and she urged me to pursue this further, but I chose not to. The man who had preyed on us was no longer in the area, and no one knew where he’d gone for sure. I’m sure he’d moved on to another Baptist Church in another area, preying upon other children. Although I didn’t pursue to find this man (I think it would have been futile), I’ll tell you what I didn’t do. I didn’t start a campaign against the Baptist Church. I didn’t accuse a whole denomination of hiding pedophiles. I didn't assume that the whole system was corrupt just because one pervert had preyed upon young boys. I don’t hate the Baptist Church. I never felt at home in that Church, but I don’t go about blaming the Baptist Church for problems I’ve had personally due to CSA. And I have had problems. Bud, with the Lord’s help I’ve overcome those problems. Growing up Baptist, we weren’t allowed to listen to Rock Music, dance, go to movies or attend school functions such as dances, Proms, etc. Not one person in my family has ever gone to a High School prom. Do I claim that I was somehow damaged because I was raised in a restrictive church? No. It was no big deal. As a child, I obeyed my mother. I knew she had my best interest at heart. She didn’t restrict my activities to be mean, but she restricted my activities because she felt that she was doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord. And perhaps she was. Many say that the friends and workers believe that we are saved by works. I disagree. I’ve been mediating on Psalm 1 and Revelation 22. In these passages it speaks of a river. It speaks of those who: 1) walk not in the council of the ungodly. 2) stand in the way of sinners. 3) sit in the seats of scoffers. The friends aren’t save by works. We are saved because we choose to follow Jesus, in the way that Jesus established (thus, we obey his commandments, making him Lord), by separating from the world and choosing to associate with Jesus’ people. These are not works. This is simply choosing to not associate with the world, and to associate with believers. When one professes, they are like a planted seed. That seed is planted by a river, and is watered and nourished by that river. That seedling sprouts, and becomes a tree. If it’s uprooted and moved away from the river (the fellowship) it will wither from lack of nourishment, and will become llike the chaff, which the wind driveth away. If you wish to say “This is how it is in any Church,” then that’s fine with me. Perhaps you are right. But, the friends choose to do this within the frame-work of the meetings. If people have a problem with our decision to do this, I’m not sure what to make of that. I find it interesting, in reading how people have transitioned from the friends and workers to other churches, that I don’t see these people having to be ‘born again’ or rebaptized. Does this mean that you were all born again in the friends and workers? Did your new churches require you to ask Jesus into your heart? If not, my conclusion is that you found the Lord in the meetings. This means that perhaps we are doing our job after all, of leading people to a relationship with Jesus. I personally find a lot of ‘scoffers’ on this website (Psalm 1:1). They are those who are intentionally attempting to destroy the work. Many scoff, others make fun of those who believe in God, most attempt to make the friends and workers out to be a bunch of drawling idiots who can’t think for themselves, and some make unfounded accusations against named and unnamed friends and workers, etc. etc. This is insanity IMO. I’ve chosen to follow this way. I don’t make a judgment on other churches or on the souls of other Christians. I may not fellowship with them, but then it’s clear that they have no desire to fellowship with me. I’m happy where I am. I don’t find abuse, or CSA, or legalism in this way. If others do, then perhaps they simply have not found the peace and love that I’ve found in this way. Maybe people should begin to look inwards at their own hearts instead of casting stones at others. I’m personally finished with this forum. I’m not willing to fuel the hatred and the hypocrisy that I’ve seen on this board,. It’s truly an insane place, and I believe that it’s not productive to be here. I’m sure that this post will be completely ripped apart by many of you. That’s fine with me. Go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2015 17:27:32 GMT -5
As more facts have come out and the inquest has been, it is clear that there is much to infer or interpret or whatever. Unless anyone has direct access to and can quote verbatim from Percy's letter then unfortunately secondhand snippets are always going to open up a can of worms. I have defended Percy and will continue to do so and think highly of him, I believe him to have been a decent honourable man but as I do not know his accuser I have no way of ascertaining the facts from their point of view. To those who take a view that his action proves his guilt I simply say this- Put yourself in his shoes and think about how you would cope with the accusation that he faced. I feel that his action is consistent with his reputation as a peacemaker and whatever the wording of the letter I am sure that the intent would have been to give closure to the matter. There are no winners here. Two families have lost the friendship they once shared, a man has lost his life and much hurt has been caused. It all could have been handled so differently and the outcome have been so much better if specialist people who had no vested interests, no axes to grind etc had been involved from the start of the matter. The person who made the allegation too needs help and support as i'm sure that this outcome was not the intention A lesson here for everyone is that nothing is worth this much hurt and distress. Things that should be talked about must be talked about. I urge anyone who is bottling something up to talk about it no matter what it is. Find somebody with an ear to listen, try me- I'll listen! There are so many ways to get hold of someone to talk to such as the Samaritans here in the uk. Talking does help. It may be a first step to a resolution of something. I've written all I wish to write. I'll go out tomorrow into this beautiful shire and be thankful for my life and my family and my health and my sanity and the view that is pretty special too. I'm working tomorrow in the village where Percy is buried. As I drive past the graveyard I will think of him.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 29, 2015 5:44:37 GMT -5
Woke up this morning and here's this from Bert. It just has to get a high distinction: Redback, different people have different perspectives on alcohol. It's like many things in the bible (especially divorce) that if something isn't clear in scripture then it's a good sign you must make the decision for yourself. One good argument is Paul's. He said to the effect that if he, someone "strong" could engage in something without effect, but someone "weak" could do the same thing, and be damaged - then it could be HIS fault. Example - Paul might drink, and someone who has a problem with drink could say "But Paul drinks, why can't I?"
In my church some drink alcohol, some don't. Simple as that. But we are all wary of how young people could see that.
As an aside. On a really hot day, when I am quite dehydrated, a cold beer is simply the best drink I have ever had. But before I get to the bottom of that glass or can the bitterness kicks in, and I can't drink anymore. I like it that way, actually - it means I won't have a problem with beer in my life!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 14, 2015 22:14:05 GMT -5
I nominate post of the week.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 23, 2015 18:28:17 GMT -5
A controversial subject, but recommended as Post of the week: I grew up in a professing home but stopped going to meetings a long time ago. I wrote the following for a college class and would like anybody who is interested to please give your opinion. Thank you! Why has religion and our church condemned homosexuals? The Bible tells us so, right? I have believed the same thing all my life too, believing what my church (The Truth), the workers and the Bible had told me. Growing up in rural Minnesota to good parents, trying to do the right thing and knowing since my earliest memory that I was gay, I have struggled to reconcile my gayness with God’s word. Among the many reasons the Christian Church, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has condemned their gay and lesbian members are 6 passages in the Bible that traditionally have been quoted as the Bible’s, thus God’s, view on homosexuality. In Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is all about God’s abhorrence of homosexuality. Or is it? Angels were sent by God in the form of men to see if 10 righteous people could be found in the whole city of Sodom and God would spare the city if they were found. Lot received the angels with warm hospitality but it angered the men of Sodom because he had, as John Boswell describes it in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, “violated the custom of Sodom (where he was himself not a citizen but only a “sojourner”) by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city” (Boswell 93-94). The men demanded to be let in so they might “know” these two men, which is, of course, the popular line of thinking: that it means to “sexually know them.” But “to know” in the sense of “to know sexually” is only used 10 out of 943 times this phrase is used in the Bible, according to Boswell (94). The citizens of Sodom could not have been exclusively homosexual otherwise there would have been no continuance of the population so it must be gathered they were primarily heterosexual. When Lot offered his daughter instead, the men of Sodom got violent and stormed the door whereupon they were blinded. In that light, this story lends to the argument that sexual desires were not the issue but it was the lack of hospitality and the previously mentioned undertaking of the angels to find 10 righteous men, which obviously they did not, that angered the Lord. No biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins nor did any Jewish scholars before the first Christian century teach that the sins of Sodom were sexual in nature. Further study reveals that “[…] this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness (sic) of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). Deuteronomy 29:26 states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was idolatry. In the first chapter of Isaiah, the nation of Judah is rebuked through a comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific sins, say Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, who wrote the book, Is The Homosexual my Neighbor? , that are mentioned are greed, rebellion against God, empty religious rituals without true devotion to God, failure to plead the cause of orphans and widows, failure to pursue justice and failure to champion the oppressed. There is no mention of homosexuality (Scanzoni 60). Jesus himself didn’t say that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality but rather inhospitality: “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Matthew 10:14-15). Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 warn of lying “with mankind, as with womankind,” calling it an abomination and that they should be put to death. But reading the entire chapter sheds a different light as other offenses are also listed as punishable by death such as cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9), committing adultery (20:11-17), and working on the Sabbath (22:30). Other abominations include gossiping (Leviticus 19:16), trimming your beard (19:27), mixing seeds of different plants or wearing clothes made of half linen and wool (19:19). As you can plainly see, the “abominations” of the Old Testament don’t quite apply to today’s world. Yet those who continue to proclaim God’s hatred of gays, that the Word of God doesn’t ever change, will quote these verses to prove their point. It must be mentioned that the New Testament of the Bible was written in a what many people thought was a “spirit-inspired” language that was mysterious and reserved only for those inspired by God who would write what we now know as the New Testament. It wasn’t until after the discovery of manuscripts containing articles such as bills of sale, etc., that were written in the same Koine Greek dialect that the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible were written in, were historians and bible scholars able to directly translate from the original texts. However some unique problems still existed because as often is the case in translations, especially with a span of nearly 2000 years, words don’t translate “word for word.” For example, the Greeks had no word for homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, because in that male dominated society, sexual relations were based on domination and submission, not romantic attraction as we think of it today. Marriages were usually arranged for benefits and procreation only and men were assumed to have sexual attractions for both sexes. More importantly, we need to understand, there was no understanding at all of sexual “orientation” in the ancient world. The idea that some people are born that way only became general knowledge in the last hundred years or so, although some people today that believe it to be caused by environmental conditioning or personal choice still are challenging that. The world was a very different place then and what seems normal now wasn’t then and vice versa. Francis Mondimore, in A Natural History of Homosexuality, explains that is wasn’t until the early Middle Ages that sexual behaviors became to be regarded as something that needed to be named and defined as sins and/or crimes. He says “condemnation of homosexuality developed as part of a shift in moral thinking about sexuality which occurred several hundred years after the birth of Jesus” (Mondimore 22). with a group of Greek philosophers called the Stoics. Their philosophy, which greatly influenced St. Paul, the Pauline Epistles, and Thomas Aquinas whose Summa theologica became the basis of doctrine for the Catholic Church, included the belief that all things sensual were sinful. Any sex outside of the purpose of procreation was considered unnatural including masturbation, coitus interruptus (an early form of birth control whereas the penis is withdrawn from the vagina before orgasm), oral or anal sex (it didn’t matter if it was homosexual or heterosexual) and these were lumped together with bestiality under what came to be known collectively as “sodomy.” The first chapter of Romans in The New Testament is used probably most often in denouncing gays, and to be honest, gave me the most trouble as a person trying to find an answer to a seemingly impossible question. But when read in its entirety, in historical and contextual significance, certain things stand out and become much more important. Remember that Paul lived in the time and under the influence of the philosophy of the Greek Stoics whose belief that all sex that was not procreative was sinful and unnatural (Boswell 129). Paul also argued that marriage was a last resort for those who could not control their sexual desires with celibacy. Paul is writing to both Jews and Gentiles his belief that sin has alienated all people from God. “The Gentile world had turned from God to idols; the Jews had turned to smug self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and harsh judgments on others […]”(Scanzoni 66). In the first part of the chapter Paul admonishes the Christian people in Rome of idolatry, to which Boswell agrees, but as he points out “the point of the passage is not to stigmatize sexual behavior or any sort but to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity (108). The last part of the passage that seemingly condemns homosexuals by saying “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly […]” (Romans 1:27). Part of the argument that people who believed homosexuality was a sin was the term “natural.” They believed that if something was not found in nature it was unnatural, therefore sinful. The problem with this thinking is that homosexuality is found in nature; they just hadn’t the scientific knowledge or perhaps weren’t observant enough to see it. In his book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity,” Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexuality is found in over 450 different kinds of animals and in virtually every corner of the earth. Bagemihl writes that not only do animals (like humans) interact sexually with members of their own sex but that a full range of homosexual components is also observed. They include courtship, affection, sex, pair bonding, and parenting (12). Another argument might go something like this: Plastic is unnatural so then plastic is sinful? The reasoning that if it wasn’t found in nature makes it sinful has been proven to be false. Other New Testament verses that have been used to indicate that homosexuals would be excluded from entering the kingdom of heaven are I. Corinthians 6:9 and I. Timothy 1:1-10. In the Corinthians’ verse, the first Greek word that later was translated into the King James Version of the Bible as “effeminate” is ambiguous at best. It was an extremely common word in the Koine Greek language and has many meanings, ranging from “soft,” “delicate,” and “gentle” to “loose” or “wanting in self-control” in a purely moral context says Boswell (106-107). He continues with “The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings […] in reference to heterosexual persons of activity”(107). He goes on to say that this word was also used to describe masturbation by native Greek speakers in the early middle Ages and in St.Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae (Boswell 107) which is, of course, no longer thought of by most religious entities as sinful, deviant or a preclusion to entering heaven. The second word in I. Corinthians 6:9 which became “abusers of themselves with mankind” in the King James Bible originally meant “male prostitute” which by the fourth century became confused with a number of words that disapproved sexual activities (Boswell 107). The most important thing to remember in all of this, I believe, is what Jesus himself said about the subject: Nothing. He was silent on the matter. I adamantly believe that if homosexuality was so awful; so wrong in the sight of the Lord, an abomination, wouldn’t Jesus have said something about it? He does speak of love, forgiveness and not being judgmental of others. Science has started to answer the question, “Are gays born that way or is it a choice?” Ask any gay person you know that question and you will overwhelmingly get a response like this: “Who would choose to be gay, with all the baggage that comes with it: the discrimination, the harassment, abuse and violence that’s directed at gays?” A good example of established religious doctrine that was challenged and changed by discoveries in science was in the 1600’s when Galileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun rather that the other way around. Science continues to support the theory that homosexuality is normal and natural. Sigmund Freud writes, “[…] homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness […]” (Freud 786). The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders in 1973. (Gibson 33). There is evidence that biology does play a part. Simon Levay, a neuroscientist, who in 1991, discovered differences of a part of the brain called the hypothalamic nuclei that was markedly different and varied between straight and gay men. He believes that “[…] homosexuality, like heterosexuality, results at least in part from specific interactions between androgenic sex hormones and the brain during development […]” (LeVay 14). I believe that, based on what the Bible says about homosexuality in the context of the whole chapter or message, the historical considerations, the mistranslated words, the “unnatural” argument, and the backing of the scientific community, homosexual orientation is a normal part of the human condition. Certainly it is not sinful and won’t, in itself, keep a person out of heaven. Now this, it doesn’t matter whether I’m right or not or if you believe me or not. It doesn’t matter because there is not one person who has ever lived who can point their finger at another and cry “sinner!” We are all sinful in the eyes of God and the person who condemns another person condemns himself. Do you remember the old hymn that sings “coming just as we are before God?” We all fall short of the finish line. None of us is without sin. There is no hope without grace. That is the message of the New Testament—The Good News! —The Old Testament and the law have fallen by the wayside. That is why Jesus is our Christ and our Salvation. The Law is no longer and only by Grace are we saved. Paul writes “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Romans14:13). Works Cited American Psychiatric Association. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (3rd edition). Washington DC: Author. 33 Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1999. Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Faulkner, Anne H. and Kevin Cranston. “Correlates of same-sex behavior in a random sample of Massachusetts high school students.” American Journal of Public Health. 88.2 (1998): 262-266. Abstract. 2 July 2004 <http: www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/gbsuicide3.htm#24b> Freud, Sigmund. “Letter to an American Mother.” (1935), published in American Journal of Psychiatry.107 (1951): 786. General Synod of the United Church of Christ. Resolution “Prevention of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth Suicide.” 1999. <http://www.ucccoalition.org/programs/suicide.html> Gibson, Paul. “Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide.” Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide: Volume 3 Prevention and interventions in youth suicide. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health Service; Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 1989. [[Remafedi, Gary, editor. Death by Denial. Boston: Alyson Press. 1994.]] Knepper, Jeanne. Speech. “Let My People In.” Pre-General Conference Briefing. United Methodist Church, Cleveland, 15 January 2000. <http://www.umaffirm.org/gcnews1.html> Levay, Simon. The Sexual Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. Mondimore, Francis Mark. A Natural History of Homosexuality. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume 2: Mortality, Part A. Hyattsville, MD. 1986. Remafedi [1], M.D., M.P.H., Editor, Gary. “The state of knowledge on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Suicide.” Death by Denial: Studies of Suicide in Gay and Lesbian Teenagers. Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc. 1994. Remafedi [II], M.D., M.P.H., Gary and James A. Farrow, M.D., and Robert W. Deisher, M.D. “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth.” Pediatrics. 87 (1991): 869-875. 2 July 2004 <http:www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/gbsuicide1htm#22> Remafedi, [III], Gary and Simone French. “The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study.” American Journal of Public Health. 88.1 (1998): 57-60. Abstract. 28 June 2004 http:www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/57htm> Remafedi, [IV] Gary. “New Research: Gay Youth at Higher Risk for Suicide.” Minneapolis Star and Tribune. 28 August 1997. <http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaysuic.htm> Russell, Steven T. and Kara Joyner. “Adolescent Sexual Orientation and Suicide Risk: Evidence from a National Study.” American Journal of Public Health. 91.8 (2001) 1276-1281 Abstract. 28 June 2004 <http:www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/8/1276htm> Scanzoni, Letha Dawson and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Approach. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2015 23:58:35 GMT -5
Hi Beth, I can completely relate with what you have explained about your family not wanting to talk about it. Many won't. I tried to broach the subject with my in-laws over Thanksgiving. My father-in-law started to get into it with me, then my mother-in-law shut him down quickly. I think there are several reasons for them not wanting to talk about it. 1. It's pretty hard to defend this exclusive thinking. Check out Nathan's attempt. It's much easier to just be silent and not try to defend it. 2. They can get pretty upset about their own family questioning. They would rather not be emotionally stirred like this. 3. Many times, arguing religion is like arguing politics. You get nowhere. No one is any further convinced after you are done, and everyone is upset. In regards to how my wife and I became non-exlusive; I was B&R. I didn't profess till I was 21. Somewhat of a rebel during my younger years. But even so, I never questioned whether the Truth was the "one true way". I always "knew" it was. I was going to Hell unless I professed. So I professed at 21 with the exclusive mind set like I was raised. I got married, had kids. Still exclusive. Then, when my oldest boy played sports in high school, there was this family that there was obviously something special about them. They had a special needs son, but they just had a glow of joy about them. Sure enough, they were Christians, and lived for it. We got to know them. They told us how every so many years they put together a fund raiser, and a whole bunch of them go down to a 3rd world country and build a well for the poor. They talk about it like we talk about convention, or something even more special. My wife and I talked about that family many times just agreeing that there was no way that they did not have a relationship with God. We felt completely connected to them the same way we feel connected to people in our own Sunday morning meeting. This really opened our eyes up to how wrong exclusivity is. There are others that we have found that same connection. I even have family on my Dad's side (he is not B&R) that I have always felt that there is no way they don't have a relationship with God. I know so even more now. So this is how our road to non-exclusivity happened. Once I came here on TMB, it has confirmed more than ever that exclusivity is just ridiculous. Some of the worse behaving people I have seen here are professing people, and some of the best have been non-professing. Of course there are good and bad of both. I have gotten to know some really neat people both professing and non-professing here. Being non-exclusive only causes you to realize so much more blessing and joy of being part of such a great family. Thanks jondough, great story. Blessings to you and your family, admin
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2016 12:34:01 GMT -5
Why does the majority of even the most fervent of religious christians choose medical intervention over prayer? The same reason they choose to eat over praying God will sustain them without food. The same reason they choose to work over praying that God will rain money from the sky for them. I think most fervent Christians are smart enough to know that God provides many means apart from the miraculous for our needs. I could pray for God to take away my headache, or I could take one of the many painkillers developed from the materials he has provided here on earth, and give thanks that he has provided the means to develop painkillers. It can be rather foolish to pray and ask for the miraculous where God has already provided the means for us to help ourselves. We ask for the miraculous when we know we have done all we can, and only God can intervene to change things.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 28, 2016 23:39:03 GMT -5
magpie was not the only child who had not learned the Lord's Prayer... I was ten years old in the 5th grade when I first heard the Lord's Prayer. I had changed schools from California to Mississippi. and there was a devotion every morning in class in MS. Each student had a turn leading the devotion, and ended with a prayer--individual or the Lord's Prayer. Sometimes we recited the Lord's Prayer, which I had never heard until that time. When my turn came, I was petrified. I decided not to pray individually, and to use the Lord's Prayer. But I forgot how it started. There was a pause which stretched out uncomfortably as I wracked my brain. Finally I told the teacher I couldnt remember how it started. She started it, and the class took it from there. That was my intro to the Lord's Prayer. When I drove my two children to school each morning, they often bickered so I decided we would do something profitable. I typed cards with Bible verses, books of the Bible, the Lords prayer, Ps. 23, etc. and we learned them and recited them in the car to each other. I would start with a part of a verse and one child would pick it up and the other finish. Likewise with the books of the Bible. Each child wanted to out shine the other, so they were rapid learners!! It was time well spent IMO!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 13, 2016 15:22:50 GMT -5
Sam Jones was called "The sweet psalmist of Israel" for good reason. Eleven photos of Sam Jones, his poetry and hymnbook, etc. on TTT. One time I read all the hymns Sam Jones wrote, one after another. He had a marvelous understanding of redemption and appreciation for God. Wish I could have heard him preach. I have a wonderful book of his hymns and poetry, drawings someone put together. His handwriting (calligraphy?) is amazing. I wish someone would reproduce it. (It's yellow gold in color in the photo link above.) Sam Jones wrote Nos. (1987 Hymns old & New) 3, 14, 32, 34, 40, 42, 53, 77, 78, 80, 94, 107, 111, 112, 114, 116, 121, 122, 126, 134, 135, 142, 145, 147, 147, 152, 155, 185, 186, 190, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 213, 246, 252, 266, 203, 253, 192, 254, 391, 393, 19, 169, 250, 380, 219, 206, 131, 408, 360, 326, 211, 233, 371, 273, 274, 331, 290, 295, 313, 309, 311, 241, 29, 318, 348, 353, 373, 92, 336, 356, 366, 262, 103, 396, 208, 312, 268. From a review of hymns old and new. Sam Jones was born in Portadown, North Ireland, in 1877. He went forth to preach in 1902 and in 1908 went to South Australia. He moved to Western Australia about 1909, and from there to Tasmania, where he spent about twenty years. He had not been home for 30 years when he came back to England in 1938. He returned to Australia. He died of heart failure on Sunday, April 14, 1946. Sam Jones might well be called, "The sweet psalmist of Israel," in our day because of the number of hymns he wrote and their fragrance and spiritual thought. He loved to dwell much on the theme of redemption and Gods will and purpose to conform us to His image. LINK: Clem Geue speaks about Sam JonesLINK to Bethel, SA Mission in 1910
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2016 15:50:17 GMT -5
This is the most absurd post I think I have seen yet. There are entire religions based on one chapter or one verse of the Bible. You cannot pick and choose what you want and then base everything else on that. I go to meetings but I do not believe that is the only way or that everyone else is wrong. When you make silly little cartoons you just make it look ridiculous. I go to meetings because I enjoy meeting in a small group and discussing things. I do not believe this group goes back to the beginning Only Jesus does and for the person who said that here are 100 thousand followers. Well Jesus has saved millions of people and he didn't give them requirements of asking someone when we could profess or that we couldn't share information with others I don't comment on here very often but I couldn't hold this in anymore. I don't feel like I went to another church that I would no longer be saved or the chance of it anyhow. I do not know how others cannot see this. To me if one thing doesn't add up then you have to question all things. One last thing. You cannot scare someone into loving you. God doesn't want us to love him because we are scared of him Referring to Bert's thread "Shores of Galilee stuff".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 14, 2017 8:27:42 GMT -5
I can't be sure of the occasion(s) Speak is speaking of regarding donations to the Red Cross. But as a fellow NZer I can confirm one definite occasion when a significant portion of a largish amount of money given to the NZ workers was then handed on to the Red Cross. Credit where credit is due. Well done, NZ!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2017 12:04:54 GMT -5
OK Bert, This is from the web-site of Grace Baptist Church in Australia: www.gracebaptistmalanda.net.au With additional commentary at the end by a Christian writer, Tozer: "Poems That Preach - We follow in His footsteps; What if our feet be torn? Where He has marked the pathway All hail the briar and thorn! Scarce seen, scarce heard, unreckoned, Despised, defamed, unknown; Or heard but by our singing, On, children! ever on! – Tersteegan "Unsung but singing: this is the short and simple story of many today whose names are not known beyond the small circle of their own small company. Their gifts are not many nor great, but their song is sweet and clear. …the world is big and tangled and dark, and we are never sure where a true Christian may be found. One thing we do know: the more like Christ he is the less likely it will be that a newspaper reporter will be seeking him out. However much he may value the esteem of his fellow men, he may for the time be forced to stand under the shadow of their displeasure. Or the busy world may not actually know he is there - except that they hear him singing - Tozer" All I had to do was Google, Pruebert! Cheers, Al the Baptist
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2017 13:56:23 GMT -5
Well, in 2012 One guy by the name Brandon from Texas, tried to tell the friends during Sunday Morning meetings that William Irvine is the founder, about other churches at convention when he gave his testimony. He was a Non-exclusive friend and the church elders, and overseer in that state asked him NOT to take part in sharing his testimony in the Sunday morning meetings, because he caused too much stress to the friends in his meetings. He left the 2x2 and joined his girlfriend's church, who then became his wife later. 1907 a non-exclusive worker name John Long was excommunicated from the ministry for sending his 2x2 converts to others churches. I believe if any worker starting preaching like John Long today, and sending his converts to join other churches, will be 100% excommunicated from the ministry. If the non-exclusive friends want to stay in the fellowship, I would NOT recommend to speak your non-exclusive point of view in your Sunday morning meetings and conventions too many times, with the purpose to change those in the fellowship minds. It's OK to speak the non-exclusive point of view on, TMB.... anonymous. Current status update from Nate.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2017 12:36:19 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying. A response is complicated to say the least, and I don't know that I'm able to bridge our differences in perspective. I'm not a good spokesperson for the church, since I'm not really involved in it anymore. Still very much a part of the Church (body of believers) though, just not participating in the organizational, structural framework of the church. You know how it goes when one tries to change bad habits, or even when she's just trying to make improvements...it can be like a pendulum swinging. The Church as a whole (the body of Christ - of which you and I may have different definitions) has been growing and maturing all along the way. If the Church must stay exactly the same, then it must have been mature at it's birth, which we know it wasn't. So, it needs to be constantly maturing through the trials and challenges of many, many circumstances in life. The Church body learns and grows with each new generation or culture or whatever. Just like a new believer makes mistakes, (and older believers too) because that's what happens when people are learning, so must the body of believers, which make up the Church. Sometimes what happens is an extreme correction gone wrong or in process. Sometimes it's just plain wrong. Sometimes it's right, and we haven't grown to understand it yet. Regardless, it's not our part to bring correction as much as it is to bring love. Have we at times gone overboard and condoned inappropriate things? Yes. Have we at times gone overboard in our effort to maintain purity? Yes. We are learning and growing, and these mistakes or growing pains are evidence of that. The early Church had difficulty too. As we progress in love toward one another and work through our differences, we'll become more and more like Him who is love. Love covers a multitude of sins. It is patient, kind and it doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, and it's not proud. It does not dishonour others, it's not self-seeking, and it's not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. AND it's by our love for one another, we'll make Him known to those around us. That tells me love is VERY important. That love will direct us to know when/if some things need to concern us. I believe we need to trust God's work in others as much as we trust His work in our own hearts. Some things may confound us. Let's take it to Him. We are being transformed into the image of Christ, and that's a process of our awareness of who He is in us and who we are in Him. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Sept 19, 2017 16:15:11 GMT -5
Our Lord Jesus entered humanity and became a servant even unto death. In doing so, He gave us the example and model of how to truly serve God and others. But He has finished His work on earth and is now our risen Lord and King. He is Almighty God, along with the Father and Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that we are ALL serving the Lord Christ. (Coll 3:24). We are ALL His servants. The Bible also tells that we are ALL not just servants of the Living God. We are His children. “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”. There is absolutely no distinction between apostle, prophet, evangelist, disciple in the Kingdom of God. We are all His children and all heirs according to His promise. Yes, different roles and different parts in the body to play but all children on exactly the same level, with exactly the same Spirit working in us. “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba” Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” Romans 8:14-17
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 5:52:29 GMT -5
I don't look at Hitchens' videos very regularly but when I do they reinforce my faith in a Creator God who I love deeply. By now Hitchens will have come face to face with Jesus. A good video to watch is the debate(s) between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. If you ever get a chance to hear John Lennox preach take it. For a guy who is brilliant he is incredibly humble and handles the Word of God in not only a knowledgable way but in a very beautiful and spiritual way. The key challenge that Hitchens, Dawkins and every atheist has when it comes to the Christian faith is what to do with Jesus, His claims, actions, words and ultimately His resurrection.
|
|