|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 1:41:40 GMT -5
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 22, 2015 1:41:40 GMT -5
[quote author=" bert" TONS and REAMS of sermons which invalidate the stereotypes and outright lies of former members aren't published. [/b][/quote] Bert still want to know, 1. Who are the stereotypes. 2. Who are the liers. Please, please, please, would love to know.[/quote] Waiting to see who the liars are too Redback
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 1:45:16 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 1:45:16 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert what is stopping you putting it on TMB then ? Bert you don't have to look very far to find sermons by the workers, I have a pretty good collection of them that are my own also a lot that have been passed down from generations before."
That's good. Read them. You will find most, if not all, of them are not illegible for anti-Worker sites.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 1:46:26 GMT -5
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 22, 2015 1:46:26 GMT -5
What are the stereotypes? Good grief Redback!!!!!
Don't you know? Here's a few, just for the professing women folk:
Professing women hold prurient attitudes towards culture Wouldn’t shave under their arms without asking the workers permission first. Are stoutly buried beneath the ministry. Think that the more meetings and conventions they go to the more is their righteousness and their respectability as friends. Talk about Workers instead of the bible. Don't care what's in your heart, as long as you show up in meetings, in a dress, with a bun and a testimony. Are legalistic, rule bound, critical, condescending, exclusive, self righteous, guilting and pressuring, two faced, inconsistent and pretending to be like Jesus. Disturb anyone's psyche by erroneous biblical teachings. Suffer from mind numbness and spiritual poverty as their lives center around hairdos. Steer clear of scriptural discussions as they are out of their depth. Instilled with false guilt because of the professing woman's uniform. Have a stunted perception of the world around them because of a lack of awareness, Live in a "professing club med" environment that is ingrained or even born into them Thinking is too often warped by fear, the kind the devil would like us to have. Teach their kids from an early age that shaking hands after meeting shows others how 'Godly' they are. Wouldn't stop to help like the Samaritan did -- it would make them late for gospel meeting. Hide TV’s from the Workers tear families apart. Join the church for its society Develop poor social skills. Have sacrificed priceless quantities of love and joy to bitter rules. Go to meetings to approve themselves Indoctrinate their children as early as possible. Are spiritually lazy, emotionally weak and easily manipulated. Preach themselves. Are often hypocritical both in word and deed. Are really unhappy and incomplete. Are seeking for something more but would never admit this. Have a subtle, intellectual dishonesty about themselves. Are noted for their spreading of misinformation about others to blacken or discredit those who come against them. Feel uneasy around outsiders because they are secretly jealous and envious of their freedoms. They live on feelings, experiences, and appearances, rather than doctrine. Can't handle too much mental stimulation at one time. Parade around with their nose up in the air. Look masculine. Suffer from personality destruction. They are never allowed to be who they really are. Make children act invisible and useless. Aren't allowed to talk about how they feel. Suffer from not knowing how the real world works. Suffer for not taking responsibility for their own choices because they have never had their own choice. Suffer from sexual confusion: women are made to feel unfeminine Suffer separation from God and from a load of guilt. Suffer from a feeling of having wasted their lives. Aren't allowed to cross legs in meeting Turn their watches upside down. Have dress codes and hairstyles to verify they are righteous. Older women won't wear wedding bands Want to dress like sister Workers. Are afraid to examine or question what the Workers say or do. Erect a mental block between themselves and anyone who does not look professing. Are stuck in the 1800's Feel spiritually superior to everyone in the world after a two minute meeting statement. Oppose mixed bathing. No regard for morality when it comes to defending their religious sect Unable to see their detrimental and counter-productive effects. They suffer for not understanding the Bible. Their supermarket shopping baskets tells you about their real lives Call the older single girls lesbian. Whip their kids at home Approach death with fear They conveniently forget the story of Jesus turning water into wine because they don’t believe in alcohol. They are uncomfortable with anyone that might just be normal Don’t wash people’s feet Their husbands have pornography addictions They have death in their faces Often put themselves down as unworthy and unlovable Professing lady stepped over her husband's body (not professing) to go to Sunday meeting. The women aren’t allowed pants, makeup, jewellery or short hair, but use the service of the local hospital where nurses have short hair, pants, jewellery, makeup and even tattoos. Don’t have a clue what their children go through at school Don't want to associate with weak saints who might contaminate their faith. They associate with people they feel safe associating without the fear of punishment from the workers. Send money for animals but not humans. Think nothing of their husbands carrying bibles and hymn books in handbags. Gospel meetings help pass time for those who don't have entertainment in their home. Lack parenting skills. They can’t answer questions They have an answer for everything.
Good list there Bert, one that stands out women not allowed to cross their legs in the meeting: Reminds me of the young Australian worker who got slapped across the face by the older worker because she crossed her legs when she was sitting up the front of the mission ! And before you even go down the road of that's a lie, the young worker was my best friends sister who I have known for many years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 1:52:22 GMT -5
Roslyn I have no doubt that MANY are accurate - for some. Remember, no lies here, just exaggerations, cliches, bias sampling, red herrings, strawmen and of course, lots of hate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 2:29:07 GMT -5
Thank you very much for the list Bert, I had no idea that so many nasty things have been said about the stereotypes. I think it is disgusting, and should not happen. No doubt it has been done by those lying former members. At last I get the picture, you must have a wonderful filing system, you should write a book, I would buy one.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 22, 2015 8:59:42 GMT -5
I think what Bert is trying to say is that if all the sermons, messages and letters of workers were compiled and published, it would take a great deal of searching to find them preaching the ministry. How many sermons on "the ministry" have been published on the websites and in books? Like Bert, I think if workers' words were taken as a whole, the conclusion would be different. Especially if they were not out of context. It's not hard to find some 'sermons' to support your view when there has already been editing of the whole and possibly editing of individual sermons/letters. Emy what do you hear when you sit in convention ? So are you saying the sermons I have posted about have all been edited ? First of all, the ones you linked have been "chosen" (edited from the whole group of workers' sermons/letters) and sometimes parts of them have been selected to publish.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jun 22, 2015 9:06:21 GMT -5
I have really enjoyed reading and reflecting on the letter in the OP. This letter reminds me of the “old time religion” that I have known and loved. I use the expression “old time religion” earnestly with deep respect and affection. I find the letter to be “earthy”, real, sincere, heart-felt. It appears to be written with conviction by a man of deep and abiding faith.
The second time I read through the letter, I would pause momentarily, close my eyes and be transported to an ancient spot where a few folks sat around an evening fire and a story-teller would tell them the story of their history, of their traditions and of the beliefs that made them a special and peculiar people. At another spot, I paused, closed my eyes and was transported to a convention, I could feel the rigid grey board of the seat and at my back where I sat at the back right side of the meeting barn, listening to one of the workers (story-teller) tell of my history, my traditions, and the beliefs that made me special and part of a peculiar community.
The telling and retelling of these stories generation after generation is the mortar that welds a collection of individuals into a cohesive community. It is the telling and retelling of these stores that shapes a fellowship with a common vocabulary. Listening to the story of the threshing floor at age 8, age 28, age 48, age 68 and age 88 will be heard differently every time. Our experiences shape both what we say and what we hear, but the archetype lives on indefinitely. To me it is a wondrous thing, and as someone mentioned in another thread it is that fellowship that I most sorely miss since I left the F&W Fellowship.
Call it culture, tradition, religion, agency or social construct, it matters little to me personally. What matters to me is a framework, a context, in which individuals can connect one with another and experience greater love and greater compassion for others as a consequence of that connection.
It is at this juncture, however, where a sourness begins to creep into my reading and appreciation of the letter. LL has a wonderful ability to paint word-images of the meaning he derives from life’s experiences (such as individuals dying from cold exposure) and biblical passages. In this letter LL links the word-images into a critique of those who have beliefs different from his own and he judges their beliefs to be in error. All of this would be fine if it were not for the fact that scripture clearly and unambiguously councils against judging others. I lack the capacity to have faith in the spiritual wisdom of one who castigates others on one hand while unabashedly choosing to ignore his own culpability in precisely the same behavior.
The comment that I found most disturbing was in the first paragraph; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I may be an agnostic, but the idea that any portion of the teachings of Jesus segregates any portion of the world into the context of “them and us” lies well beyond my cognition and experience. Can anyone explain the intended meaning of this phrase? If “defense of my faith” requires that I must look at my neighbor as “other” or different than myself then clearly I have missed the whole point of Jesus’ teachings.
It saddens me to observe confusion between defense of faith and defense of belief. I happen to embrace a faith in values and purposes that transcend self and I believe this faith is eminately defensible. I perceive value in traditions and practices of “the old time religions” that strengthen those values and purposes. I have no vested interest, however, if the defense of those “beliefs” to the explicit or implicit disrespect for beliefs of others that may differ from my own.
Was there not wisdom in the admonition not to put new wine into old skins?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 9:45:29 GMT -5
I think what Bert is trying to say is that if all the sermons, messages and letters of workers were compiled and published, it would take a great deal of searching to find them preaching the ministry. How many sermons on "the ministry" have been published on the websites and in books? Like Bert, I think if workers' words were taken as a whole, the conclusion would be different. Especially if they were not out of context. It's not hard to find some 'sermons' to support your view when there has already been editing of the whole and possibly editing of individual sermons/letters. Emy, what you say makes sense. Same thing applies to the Bible. People take verses out of context, and build a belief system around it. That is why we have so many Churches. Some interesting reading on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biasPeople "in" do this, as well as people "out".
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 10:02:39 GMT -5
hberry likes this
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 10:02:39 GMT -5
I have really enjoyed reading and reflecting on the letter in the OP. This letter reminds me of the “old time religion” that I have known and loved. I use the expression “old time religion” earnestly with deep respect and affection. I find the letter to be “earthy”, real, sincere, heart-felt. It appears to be written with conviction by a man of deep and abiding faith. The second time I read through the letter, I would pause momentarily, close my eyes and be transported to an ancient spot where a few folks sat around an evening fire and a story-teller would tell them the story of their history, of their traditions and of the beliefs that made them a special and peculiar people. At another spot, I paused, closed my eyes and was transported to a convention, I could feel the rigid grey board of the seat and at my back where I sat at the back right side of the meeting barn, listening to one of the workers (story-teller) tell of my history, my traditions, and the beliefs that made me special and part of a peculiar community. The telling and retelling of these stories generation after generation is the mortar that welds a collection of individuals into a cohesive community. It is the telling and retelling of these stores that shapes a fellowship with a common vocabulary. Listening to the story of the threshing floor at age 8, age 28, age 48, age 68 and age 88 will be heard differently every time. Our experiences shape both what we say and what we hear, but the archetype lives on indefinitely. To me it is a wondrous thing, and as someone mentioned in another thread it is that fellowship that I most sorely miss since I left the F&W Fellowship. Call it culture, tradition, religion, agency or social construct, it matters little to me personally. What matters to me is a framework, a context, in which individuals can connect one with another and experience greater love and greater compassion for others as a consequence of that connection. It is at this juncture, however, where a sourness begins to creep into my reading and appreciation of the letter. LL has a wonderful ability to paint word-images of the meaning he derives from life’s experiences (such as individuals dying from cold exposure) and biblical passages. In this letter LL links the word-images into a critique of those who have beliefs different from his own and he judges their beliefs to be in error. All of this would be fine if it were not for the fact that scripture clearly and unambiguously councils against judging others. I lack the capacity to have faith in the spiritual wisdom of one who castigates others on one hand while unabashedly choosing to ignore his own culpability in precisely the same behavior. The comment that I found most disturbing was in the first paragraph; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I may be an agnostic, but the idea that any portion of the teachings of Jesus segregates any portion of the world into the context of “them and us” lies well beyond my cognition and experience. Can anyone explain the intended meaning of this phrase? If “defense of my faith” requires that I must look at my neighbor as “other” or different than myself then clearly I have missed the whole point of Jesus’ teachings. It saddens me to observe confusion between defense of faith and defense of belief. I happen to embrace a faith in values and purposes that transcend self and I believe this faith is eminately defensible. I perceive value in traditions and practices of “the old time religions” that strengthen those values and purposes. I have no vested interest, however, if the defense of those “beliefs” to the explicit or implicit disrespect for beliefs of others that may differ from my own. Was there not wisdom in the admonition not to put new wine into old skins? Great post. I'm sure the ancient stories which provide a context in which the ancients could situate their identities, also preserved enmity, animosity and tribal warfare. Your description reminded me of the rich storytelling traditions of First Nations culture, which I enjoy reading even now, but those cultures centuries old animosities with other tribes were deeply wired in, and insurmountable as a result. As you point out, the teachings of Jesus and other wise spiritual men were intended to help us surmount those ridiculous hatreds, not perpetuate them or create new ones. Much of the negative criticism of others found in the sermon is factually correct. The problem is that it's only a part of the story, and part of a story is a form of a lie. There are men and women in other churches who are every bit as sincere, solemn and dedicated to following Christ as he is, not at all looking for an 'easy way out', and that is conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 10:19:32 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 22, 2015 10:19:32 GMT -5
Seems Jesse, Virgo & Bert have little to say about this letter, other than Bert with his obsession with asking "who gave you permission to post this" ! Maybe they are quiet because again this sermon proves what the Ex's say, but Jesse, Virgo & Bert have tried to say things have either changed or we don't understand. Roslyn I didn't read past the first few words. If I see this stuff on the internet I tend not to read it because it's not only not authorized but it was chosen for publication to promote a particular point of view. TONS and REAMS of sermons which invalidate the stereotypes and outright lies of former members aren't published.
Hey isobelrose, showing your thorns again, you like doing that don't you? And if you really believe some put our convention notes online to inspire others then you are seriously d.u.m.b. and I have a bridge I want to sell you.
People who post our notes online do it for various reasons which I have identified from the TTT site, including:
1 - misrepresentation 2 - clickbait 3 - controlling our history 4 - creating a counter-narrative 5 - dissuading people from attending our church 6 - to insult 7 - to look better than you actually are
This thread proved bert right, again. Whining and criticizing seems to be all posters like you are about - it's what defines too many posters here on TMB - and it's ugly. If there was a whining and criticizing filter here on TMB your posts would shrink like a popped balloon. It's really not something you who are so prone to whining and criticizing should be so puffed up and proud about. 'Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.' You love making mud puddles and wallowing around in them, your comment is proof. It is what it is. I blocked you to avoid them as much as I can.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2015 13:35:16 GMT -5
Seems as though people are name calling and doing the same things they accuse others of doing on here. I guess it's okay as long as we think we're right?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2015 14:39:51 GMT -5
This thread proved bert right, again. Whining and criticizing seems to be all posters like you are about - it's what defines too many posters here on TMB - and it's ugly. If there was a whining and criticizing filter here on TMB your posts would shrink like a popped balloon. It's really not something you who are so prone to whining and criticizing should be so puffed up and proud about. 'Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.' You love making mud puddles and wallowing around in them, your comment is proof. It is what it is. I blocked you to avoid them as much as I can. What an ugly, whining, post!!! C'mon Jesse, I'm sure you can do better than that. Please stop attacking the poster and contribute something positive to the discussion.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 14:41:43 GMT -5
The comment that I found most disturbing was in the first paragraph; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I may be an agnostic, but the idea that any portion of the teachings of Jesus segregates any portion of the world into the context of “them and us” lies well beyond my cognition and experience. Can anyone explain the intended meaning of this phrase? If “defense of my faith” requires that I must look at my neighbor as “other” or different than myself then clearly I have missed the whole point of Jesus’ teachings. I don't see that anyone is addressing this question, and really, it is an important question. Before I left the fellowship, I would have said (and believed it to be true) that the reason we have a distinctive ministry and form of worship is because we have the Spirit, and only WE have that Spirit because we keep ALL (meaning basically Matt 10 and some house church references) the commandments of Jesus. However, as George Walker said, you can't literally keep Matt 10, but we keep the spirit of it. And that's fine, and it's commendable, but is keeping the Spirit of a teaching enough to be a salvation distinctive? Having found the same Spirit at work in the lives of other Christians, devoted Christians concerned about holy living and honoring God, it seems to me that the Spirit isn't as concerned about the form of the ministry as we might be but rather more focused on the soundness of the teaching, as teaching is the Spirit's role in our lives. So, if the teaching encourages us to love our neighbor as ourselves and God with our all our heart, mind, spirit and strength, a changed life will result. Nonetheless, as folks like LL have never removed themselves from their current environment, the "sameness" of Spirit is hard to see. And yes, there are groups who do and teach wacky things, and some have long abandoned their focus on scripture, etc. I acknowledge that. Not all churches are helpful in your walk with God. However, as a human being, it is difficult not to devolve into 'us and them' thinking. There is comfort in feeling that you are right, and that what makes you right is The Important Thing. For the workers who have 'bet the farm' on their form of things, I understand their focus on it. I don't have answers for much, and in fact I have fewer answers as time goes on, and that makes my walk with God more dependent than ever on what I consider to be the indwelling Spirit of Christ. I readily acknowledge that the outcome of this Spirit in my life might look a lot like the outcome of another person's efforts who have no belief in God. However, I can simply be thankful for people who are nicer, kinder, gentler than I am as I pray more diligently to the Spirit that He would work out more of the likeness of Christ in my life. When we told our elder that we were leaving, his response was "but only we have the right ministry and right form of church and everything else is counterfeit." That was his only defense of belief, and I thought of him as I read LL's letter. This may not answer your question, and it might not have been your question at all, but it is a good question and I hope others who think more deeply and write more clearly than I will speak to it also.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 22, 2015 15:05:50 GMT -5
What LL is saying is that salvation is in the ministry and meeting in the home. It is not Jesus who saves but the ministry, - mans works rather than Jesus life, death and sacrifice. He has done exactly what he accuses others of doing which is taking a few verses which Jesus clearly said were to be in effect only while he was with them and LL has weaved a doctrine around them making them the essentials for salvation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 16:10:19 GMT -5
From what some express, the method becomes the way, replacing the message of Christ, a being as the Way to everlasting life. Well, not for me! (Fini)
Yahu'shuah ha Meshiach is my way, now, in 2015, not tradition, not method, nothing else. Some people brag about returning to the shores of Galilee. Well, I have not merely bragged about it. I have done it out of love for my Lord.
Now, in constant pain, often unbearable except by uncontrolable utterings, I am ready to leave. If I remain it is only for the sake of others!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jun 22, 2015 16:33:25 GMT -5
Yes, hberry, your post does directly address my question. Thank you. Our thinking seems to develop along similar lines.
Thinking more about the “defense of belief” and the “defense of faith”, I feel my ire rising. I keep going back to the phrase from the letter; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” and I realize that one could not “defend their faith” at such a level. To me, depending on “the ministry” and “the meeting in a home” as a foundation for faith is at best superficial.
I will not get drawn into a discussion of being saved by “works” or “grace”. First of all I have no clue what “being saved” even means and second of all I have no aptitude for theology. But my respect and affection for the F&W community is not grounded in such considerations.
I have walked unto a convention grounds (within the last several years), kept my mouth shut, my eyes and ears open and to the extent possible, my heart open. I strolled the grounds, sat in a meeting, joined the rush to the dining tent. Based on that one, half day experience (as an outsider), I cannot imagine an elder in the community asking “how can we defend our faith?” I walked away with a renewed conviction that these were indeed a group of people set apart in some meaningful way from most of the people I interact with from day to day. It blows my mind that one within the group could fail to notice! Is this one more sad example of “familiarity breeds contempt”? Is there anyone who can address this question?
I remember, as a young fellow thinking about why the workers went out as pairs. Was it to be different from other religions? Was it a prideful statement that we fulfilled a specific biblical verse and others did not? I even remember being asked the question by my friends. After a long, long time, it slowly began to make some sense to me. How powerfully persuasive it is to send out two different individuals (each with their own foibles) and ask them to reflect and present the case for peace, compassion and love in a society not inclined toward such traits. I do not believe that sending out messengers of the faith in pairs was either arbitrary or capricious. True a ministry composed of two ministers instead of one is a mere matter of form, but it is the message they bear that represents the substance. If I failed to grasp a personal understanding of the significance of a particular form of ministry, I too would be unable to “defend my faith”. Surely everyone has some appreciation of how difficult it is to put two individuals together and ask them to represent a common faith to an unfamiliar audience. To read of a worker’s concern for the “defense” of a form of ministry without even the suggestion of understanding of the underlying meaning and significance of that ministry challenges me to question my own credulity.
Does it matter that the F&W Fellowship meets in a home? Personally, I don’t think so. To my mind, it matters more where they choose to concentrate their attention and devotion. Meeting in a home is a “form” of worship. Choosing to reflect more deeply on ones purpose in life is the “substance”. If I am left with little more than the fact that I meet in a home to “defend my faith”, indeed, I will fail.
The path leading to my exit from the fellowship was paved in part by a similar confusion between form and substance. I lived in a border state at a time when Jim Crow laws continued to be practiced. My Fellowship chose to segregate conventions rather than meet together in common worship. I was unable to go to meeting and speak of love knowing that the community to which I belonged lacked the conviction to stand for a transcendent love regardless of consequences. I was unwilling to “defend a belief” and sacrifice my fundamental understanding of my faith in exchange. The world changed, not the responsible ministry of the time. A sad realization. The sadness that attended that realization and the choices that followed remain with me to this day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 16:51:44 GMT -5
[quote author=" NathanB" Jesus Christ is the founder and the chief cornerstone of the New Testament churches. The workers and friends believe Jesus way of Salvation, truth and teachings are the same as yesterday, today and forever... The WAY of Salvation has NOT changed... Jesus saves! He is the WAY, the Truth= Salvation. Workers and the friends are like signs posts point people to Jesus is the WAY, the Truth and Life. [/font] [/quote] Nathan, what some of us are trying to point out is that 2x2's don't have a monopoly on this. Recently we attended a combined service and a Salvation Army Captain gave the message. His topic was "The harvest is great, and labourers are few". If I had of shut my eyes, it could have been a Worker in a Gospel Meeting. A very strong message. Some years ago because of a business deal, we became good friends with a Presbyterian couple. Every Sunday night they had fellowship in their home. You did not have to be a Presbyterian to be there, it was open to all, including Catholics. They preached and lived Christ. There are many other examples of sincere people we have met who follow Christ. They have been a real inspiration to us. So unless you get out of that cocoon, you will never find this out. If I want to have 2x2 fellowship I have to go to a Gospel meeting and profess. With Christ it was free to all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2015 17:06:22 GMT -5
Who gave you permission to publish this? It doesn't sound like something Lerwick intended to copyright -- writing to "some people" isn't a private letter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 17:17:43 GMT -5
God is not mocked. Maybe some won´t see much in this word picture, maybe we won’t see ourselves in this picture, but I hope all can see in a measure the care, love and concern that Gods servants have for His people *** Given some CSA scandals in the ministry, how can he really point fingers at the "people of God" and not point one or two at the Servants?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2015 17:30:10 GMT -5
Who gave you permission to publish this? Why are you so intent on making sure anything the workers say is hidden from those outside the membership of your church? I truly don't understand this line of reason? About the time the latest English language hymn book was compiled, there came a panic with it about copyright. Apparently there were some copyright violations in the previous hymn book, and people began going overboard with what they weren't supposed to do about it -- so much so that in some places people were told it was illegal to tape record people singing some of the hymns. I think Bert's just got his needle stuck.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2015 17:37:04 GMT -5
Yes, hberry, your post does directly address my question. Thank you. Our thinking seems to develop along similar lines. Thinking more about the “defense of belief” and the “defense of faith”, I feel my ire rising. I keep going back to the phrase from the letter; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” and I realize that one could not “defend their faith” at such a level. To me, depending on “the ministry” and “the meeting in a home” as a foundation for faith is at best superficial. I will not get drawn into a discussion of being saved by “works” or “grace”. First of all I have no clue what “being saved” even means and second of all I have no aptitude for theology. But my respect and affection for the F&W community is not grounded in such considerations. I have walked unto a convention grounds (within the last several years), kept my mouth shut, my eyes and ears open and to the extent possible, my heart open. I strolled the grounds, sat in a meeting, joined the rush to the dining tent. Based on that one, half day experience (as an outsider), I cannot imagine an elder in the community asking “how can we defend our faith?” I walked away with a renewed conviction that these were indeed a group of people set apart in some meaningful way from most of the people I interact with from day to day. It blows my mind that one within the group could fail to notice! Is this one more sad example of “familiarity breeds contempt”? Is there anyone who can address this question? I remember, as a young fellow thinking about why the workers went out as pairs. Was it to be different from other religions? Was it a prideful statement that we fulfilled a specific biblical verse and others did not? I even remember being asked the question by my friends. After a long, long time, it slowly began to make some sense to me. How powerfully persuasive it is to send out two different individuals (each with their own foibles) and ask them to reflect and present the case for peace, compassion and love in a society not inclined toward such traits. I do not believe that sending out messengers of the faith in pairs was either arbitrary or capricious. True a ministry composed of two ministers instead of one is a mere matter of form, but it is the message they bear that represents the substance. If I failed to grasp a personal understanding of the significance of a particular form of ministry, I too would be unable to “defend my faith”. Surely everyone has some appreciation of how difficult it is to put two individuals together and ask them to represent a common faith to an unfamiliar audience. To read of a worker’s concern for the “defense” of a form of ministry without even the suggestion of understanding of the underlying meaning and significance of that ministry challenges me to question my own credulity. Does it matter that the F&W Fellowship meets in a home? Personally, I don’t think so. To my mind, it matters more where they choose to concentrate their attention and devotion. Meeting in a home is a “form” of worship. Choosing to reflect more deeply on ones purpose in life is the “substance”. If I am left with little more than the fact that I meet in a home to “defend my faith”, indeed, I will fail. The path leading to my exit from the fellowship was paved in part by a similar confusion between form and substance. I lived in a border state at a time when Jim Crow laws continued to be practiced. My Fellowship chose to segregate conventions rather than meet together in common worship. I was unable to go to meeting and speak of love knowing that the community to which I belonged lacked the conviction to stand for a transcendent love regardless of consequences. I was unwilling to “defend a belief” and sacrifice my fundamental understanding of my faith in exchange. The world changed, not the responsible ministry of the time. A sad realization. The sadness that attended that realization and the choices that followed remain with me to this day. This is a powerful post Ynot, and one that could help the movers and shakers of the 2x2 fellowship if they were willing for a course correction. The focus has become one of "defend our form". Did Jesus say "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have a 2x2 ministry and meet in homes”? Hardly! John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 18:01:04 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 22, 2015 18:01:04 GMT -5
Yes, hberry, your post does directly address my question. Thank you. Our thinking seems to develop along similar lines. Thinking more about the “defense of belief” and the “defense of faith”, I feel my ire rising. I keep going back to the phrase from the letter; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” and I realize that one could not “defend their faith” at such a level. To me, depending on “the ministry” and “the meeting in a home” as a foundation for faith is at best superficial. Paul thought the ministry was important in Romans 10:14. Probably because Jesus did too. I don't find the way Jesus sent the ministry out and chapters like John 17 very easy to blow off. Each will have to decide for themselves how important they think it is. I don't agree with those who think Jesus reversed previous instructions to the disciples.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 18:35:58 GMT -5
Yes, hberry, your post does directly address my question. Thank you. Our thinking seems to develop along similar lines. Thinking more about the “defense of belief” and the “defense of faith”, I feel my ire rising. I keep going back to the phrase from the letter; “if the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” and I realize that one could not “defend their faith” at such a level. To me, depending on “the ministry” and “the meeting in a home” as a foundation for faith is at best superficial. Paul thought the ministry was important in Romans 10:14. Probably because Jesus did too. I don't find the way Jesus sent the ministry out and chapters like John 17 very easy to blow off. Each will have to decide for themselves how important they think it is. I don't agree with those who think Jesus reversed previous instructions to the disciples. Paul was very focused on the gospel message (1 cor 1:23 and others). Romans 10:14 "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" does not speak to form. I understand that you believe in the form and insert the idea that folks don't believe in Jesus if they don't follow the spirit of Matt 10, and that's fine. We need to live by our convictions. I love Phil 1:18: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice." I've seen clear evidence of the working of the Spirit through the preaching of other pastors, both in their lives and the lives of their listeners (which would include me~) to believe that the form matters more than the message. And I love John 17! It is next on my list to memorize.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 19:11:26 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 22, 2015 19:11:26 GMT -5
Paul thought the ministry was important in Romans 10:14. Probably because Jesus did too. I don't find the way Jesus sent the ministry out and chapters like John 17 very easy to blow off. Each will have to decide for themselves how important they think it is. I don't agree with those who think Jesus reversed previous instructions to the disciples. Paul was very focused on the gospel message (1 cor 1:23 and others). Romans 10:14 "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" does not speak to form. I understand that you believe in the form and insert the idea that folks don't believe in Jesus if they don't follow the spirit of Matt 10, and that's fine. We need to live by our convictions. Here is all of it; "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" That speaks of preachers being sent - in much the same way Jesus referred to it. The only way to blow off the ministry is if you think Jesus reversed the ministry instructions in Luke 22:36. "and insert the idea that folks don't believe in Jesus if they don't follow the spirit of Matt 10" Even though I believe the ministry has meaning that's hard to ignore I don't insert that idea.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 19:15:14 GMT -5
hberry likes this
Post by Lee on Jun 22, 2015 19:15:14 GMT -5
Psalm 19
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jun 22, 2015 19:17:11 GMT -5
Paul thought the ministry was important in Romans 10:14. Probably because Jesus did too. I don't find the way Jesus sent the ministry out and chapters like John 17 very easy to blow off. Each will have to decide for themselves how important they think it is. I don't agree with those who think Jesus reversed previous instructions to the disciples. Hi Jesse. Your comments seem to be directed at my earlier post but I admit having difficulty following your line of thinking. I make no pretensions of being a biblical scholar but it seems to me that if you follow Paul's reference back to Isaiah, he too is referencing the substance of the message carried (peace and good tidings) not the nature of the vehicle used to carry the message. I am not sure if you had the opportunity to finish reading my entire post. I attempt to describe my understanding of a substantive basis for the practice of sending out the carriers of Jesus' message of peace and love by pairs of individuals. Perhaps you take issue with my understanding, if so, I would be delighted to hear a more cogent argument interpreting Jesus' directive to send the disciples out in pairs. If you are still referencing my post when you speak of "blowing-off" John 17, my confusion deepens. Perhaps my form of expression leads to incorrect interpretations of intent but I can assure you that I am not in the habit of blowing off anything of substance on this forum. Regretfully, I am unable to engage your comment regarding "Jesus reversed previous instructions" since I have no awareness at all of any debate concerning reversed instructions, sorry, wrong hombre. I hope you have the opportunity to clarify some of the points leading to my confusion. Thanks
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 19:29:44 GMT -5
Paul was very focused on the gospel message (1 cor 1:23 and others). Romans 10:14 "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" does not speak to form. I understand that you believe in the form and insert the idea that folks don't believe in Jesus if they don't follow the spirit of Matt 10, and that's fine. We need to live by our convictions. Here is all of it; "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" That speaks of preachers being sent - in much the same way Jesus referred to it. The only way to blow off the ministry is if you think Jesus reversed the ministry instructions in Luke 22:36. "and insert the idea that folks don't believe in Jesus if they don't follow the spirit of Matt 10" Even though I believe the ministry has meaning that's hard to ignore I don't insert that idea. Jesse, my pastor will tell you he was sent and tell you how God gripped his heart. Talk to any pastor: they are clearly sent. But I don't intend to argue with you about this, because your viewpoint was mine until a few years ago and I understand it. It isn't how I read scripture, but that's between God and me--I have to live by my scriptural convictions, as do you.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 19:30:38 GMT -5
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 22, 2015 19:30:38 GMT -5
Roslyn I didn't read past the first few words. If I see this stuff on the internet I tend not to read it because it's not only not authorized but it was chosen for publication to promote a particular point of view. TONS and REAMS of sermons which invalidate the stereotypes and outright lies of former members aren't published.
Hey isobelrose, showing your thorns again, you like doing that don't you? And if you really believe some put our convention notes online to inspire others then you are seriously d.u.m.b. and I have a bridge I want to sell you.
People who post our notes online do it for various reasons which I have identified from the TTT site, including:
1 - misrepresentation 2 - clickbait 3 - controlling our history 4 - creating a counter-narrative 5 - dissuading people from attending our church 6 - to insult 7 - to look better than you actually are
This thread proved bert right, again. Whining and criticizing seems to be all posters like you are about - it's what defines too many posters here on TMB - and it's ugly. If there was a whining and criticizing filter here on TMB your posts would shrink like a popped balloon. It's really not something you who are so prone to whining and criticizing should be so puffed up and proud about. 'Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.' You love making mud puddles and wallowing around in them, your comment is proof. It is what it is. I blocked you to avoid them as much as I can. Thanks Jesse If you blocked me to avoid seeing my posts, don't comment then ! It is very simple you know ! Which then comes to the next question why don't you & Bert start your own site for all the F&W ?
|
|