|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 18, 2007 18:37:43 GMT -5
Sex, Lies, and Life on the Evangelical Edge
An interview with Philip Yancey, the best-selling Christian author who is surprised at how much he gets away with.
Yancey: I've written pretty openly about my unhealthy church background. I get a lot of letters from people in whom that strikes a chord, even though their own experience may be very different. Mine was specifically Southern fundamentalist—angry, legalistic, and racist. The church had mocked Martin Luther King—the pastor called him "Martin Lucifer Coon" from the pulpit. We would cheer in my church as they showed the films from Selma of the police dogs and the fire hoses. Later I realized that we were the bad guys.
I went through a period of feeling betrayed. That was the period where I rejected the church. If they lied about this, then maybe they're lying to me about the Bible and Jesus and God and everything else as well.
My pilgrimage as a writer, fortunately, goes step by step with my pilgrimage as a Christian. In my church growing up they used the same words I use now. They say, "We're not under law, we're under grace." Well, whatever that was, it wasn't grace! So what is grace? It's a good question. I'm not preaching at people. I'm trying to represent the same questions they have.
Yancey: Janet and I had intended to be missionaries. We had planned to live basically at poverty level like most missionaries. We've had to face issues we really didn't want to face. How do we be stewards of large amounts of income? That takes a lot of energy and attention because the culture around us doesn't see that as a problem at all. Jesus saw it as a huge problem. He talked about it all the time, more than he talked about anything else.
We were living in Wheaton, Illinois, the white-bread heart of evangelicalism before they discovered Colorado Springs, and then got the idea to move to downtown Chicago. We were scared, suburban kids. We thought we'd be raped and robbed every day. But that move is what opened our eyes. Homeless people are sleeping under your stoop. There are beggars every time you walk outside your door. Janet was working with people in Cabrini Green, the lowest-income neighborhood in the United States at the time.
In my experience, if evangelicals are not concerned about poverty, it's not because they don't like poor people. It's because they don't know any.
Yancey: Evangelicalism has a triumphalist overlay to it. King cut right across that. Being faithful to the gospel will almost always bring about suffering. It's through that suffering that beauty comes, that transformation comes, both in the individual and, in this case, in a movement. He stayed faithful to the nonviolent vision and lived out the redemptive power of the cross. That's what Jesus did. Jesus died—he didn't get elected!
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Oct 18, 2007 19:43:54 GMT -5
GIT, I'd like to know what your motive was in posting this on a Truth related Message Board.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Oct 18, 2007 20:54:51 GMT -5
Sex, Lies, and Life on the Evangelical EdgeAn interview with Philip Yancey, the best-selling Christian author who is surprised at how much he gets away with.Yancey: I've written pretty openly about my unhealthy church background. I get a lot of letters from people in whom that strikes a chord, even though their own experience may be very different. Mine was specifically Southern fundamentalist—angry, legalistic, and racist. The church had mocked Martin Luther King—the pastor called him "Martin Lucifer Coon" from the pulpit. We would cheer in my church as they showed the films from Selma of the police dogs and the fire hoses. Later I realized that we were the bad guys. I went through a period of feeling betrayed. That was the period where I rejected the church. If they lied about this, then maybe they're lying to me about the Bible and Jesus and God and everything else as well. My pilgrimage as a writer, fortunately, goes step by step with my pilgrimage as a Christian. In my church growing up they used the same words I use now. They say, "We're not under law, we're under grace." Well, whatever that was, it wasn't grace! So what is grace? It's a good question. I'm not preaching at people. I'm trying to represent the same questions they have. Yancey: Janet and I had intended to be missionaries. We had planned to live basically at poverty level like most missionaries. We've had to face issues we really didn't want to face. How do we be stewards of large amounts of income? That takes a lot of energy and attention because the culture around us doesn't see that as a problem at all. Jesus saw it as a huge problem. He talked about it all the time, more than he talked about anything else. We were living in Wheaton, Illinois, the white-bread heart of evangelicalism before they discovered Colorado Springs, and then got the idea to move to downtown Chicago. We were scared, suburban kids. We thought we'd be raped and robbed every day. But that move is what opened our eyes. Homeless people are sleeping under your stoop. There are beggars every time you walk outside your door. Janet was working with people in Cabrini Green, the lowest-income neighborhood in the United States at the time. In my experience, if evangelicals are not concerned about poverty, it's not because they don't like poor people. It's because they don't know any. Yancey: Evangelicalism has a triumphalist overlay to it. King cut right across that. Being faithful to the gospel will almost always bring about suffering. It's through that suffering that beauty comes, that transformation comes, both in the individual and, in this case, in a movement. He stayed faithful to the nonviolent vision and lived out the redemptive power of the cross. That's what Jesus did. Jesus died—he didn't get elected! What does this have to do with the Workers and Friends fellowship Church? GIT, what is your point in posting it?
|
|
|
Post by jerky GIT on Oct 18, 2007 21:21:15 GMT -5
By pointing out the flaws in others, GIT feels all warm inside.
He's such a big boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2007 21:23:04 GMT -5
Thanks GIT. We find ourselves often fighting phantoms on the TMB, that is, people who will say this or that about us, but give no indication of what church or school or thought they ascribe to. But evangelicals have many practices and beliefs that seem typical of what is presented on the TMB, ie love of the world, involvement in social issues, saved by a grace alone etc.
|
|
|
Post by bert too on Oct 18, 2007 21:32:44 GMT -5
bert also employs this tactic: by pointing out the flaws in others, he feels that the flaws in 2x2ism are justified and need not be corrected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2007 21:37:18 GMT -5
Doubt it. If I have taken someone's personal morality (or lack thereof,) to task, then I can't remember when. My criticism lies with people's beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by oh right on Oct 18, 2007 22:31:10 GMT -5
Oh, right. I forgot that you criticize Christians for believing in Jesus as their Savior, instead of the church you attend.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 18, 2007 23:07:29 GMT -5
Maybe we could all just agree that a lot of things have been done, are being done, and will be done in the name of God, Jesus and religion?! I personally, am not a great fan of big religion, so I don't know what this thread is supposed to prove. I suppose that if I had been raised in a different religion that professed to be the only way, I would on a board about that religion. But I was raised in the 2x2 religion, and that's why I'm here. That doesn't mean that I think that any other religion is perfect.... far from it, in fact!
This thread actually proves a point that many exes make often on this board... the way to God is not through any religion. People are fallible and imperfect. Organized religion can bring people closer to God, or get in the way of a relationship with God. But to me, religions that claim to be "the only way" and "the perfect way" are especially troublesome. And anyone who presumes to put themselves between a person and salvation is even more so.
|
|
|
Post by Al Henderson on Oct 18, 2007 23:09:46 GMT -5
Glory in Truth, Bert etc, Hi! What you have posted is no surprise to anyone who has read any of evangelical author Philip Yancey's excellent books on Jesus, the Scripture, Suffering, Prayer etc, including frank and fearless accounts of his life growing up in grace-talking, but sadly, also legalistic and judgemental-walking churches. Were you aware of his writings previously? Yes, it's true that even having a form of 'doctrine' isn't everything (like having a 'form' of ministry or worship) - but neither is it unimportant! Ideally right doctrine (belief) and right character / behaviour will be together. Sadly, it is not guaranteed to be so when there are other factors afoot (like poor leadership, the prevailing culture, people 'buying in' to racism because they have grown up with it never learned to question it etc). I can recall coming from country Victoria and hearing when growing up from respected 'friends' some of the most incredibly insensitive and racist attitudes, jokes, innuendos etc e.g. about Aboriginal people, immigrants, refugees etc. Some references equally as appalling, insensitive and denigrating as anything Philip may have been encouraged to watch by a misguided pastor (and he should not have been exposed to that, I agree). Who in Australia has not heard terms like 'those bloody Abos ('boongs' is a common term equivalkent to 'coon'). I have heard workers of German extraction say coldly and loudly that the Jews go what they deserved in WWII. So there is no monopoly on crass ignorance. And people in glass houses will throw stones... Equally, I can attest from my own experience to having met many gentle amd caring evangelical pastors and people who have both doctrine and behaviour in healthy balance, that is, recognising their own abject spiritual poverty and need before God while leaning entirely on His grace (what else will save us), and also not exhibiting marks of racism, violence etc. On the contraray they pray for the poor, refugees, the marginalised, and go out to meet them where they are and give them material sustenance, spiritual encouragement and hope. Of course we all struggle with inner attitudes, lusts and wrong desires - we are all works in progress on the Potter's Wheel. Unfortunately there are some pretty hard bits of clay the Lord has to work on. I know because I am often one. Although I now attend a Baptist church in Australia, my experience is quite different from Philip's because he was in a cultural milieu (the racist South of the 60s) that would have influenced all too many people, including in some churches. There are other accounts of people (including white Southern fundamentalists) who didn't subscribe to the prevailing racism of the times. Yes, IT IS a blot of shame on evangelicalism, and on human nature (primarily) that should be acknowledged and learned from. I am not one who assumes that every friend and worker should be condemned because of the sins of a few, horrific though those sins may be. I have a few on my conscience too (not of the same nature - but still sins!). But all sins should be acknowledged and learned from. Some are of a personal nature and effect - others are of a corporate nature and effect. Some individual sins (i.e. sexual predators) affect and infect a church or fellowship community and should be rightly dealt with. If they are not so dealt with, despite years of sincere people trying to get change to happen and shedding tears over people who are the victims of power abusers, then why be surpised that issues are publicly raised, people leave and there is some residual questioning about why such things are allowed to go on? Philip Yancey bravely and rightly puts the spotlight on some extremely sick and unconsionable behaviour by some evangelicals. No question. But we know that such things that scurry in the darkness are not confined to one church group. It includes no less those church groups who believe they are the only right group. I recommend Yancey's books (we have several on our bookshelves at home) as a thoroughly interesting, balanced, challenging reality-check for us all. I am not sure what reason there was for GIT to post the comments, but strangely enough I find them encouraging, as Philip has not renounced his (essentially evangelical) faith - but he has pointed out some dirty linen that needs to be thunk about and avoided in the future that's fer sure. Certainly his own experiences and reflections, and the tough questions he poses, are healthy to take on board for any honest and open-minded Christian who acknowledges their own flaws. It is also good for us all to be reminded of the reality that no single church community, church denomination or para-church organisation, (or any group pretending not to be a church) is 'the one true perfect' community of belief. Good doctrine does not guarantee people who always act righteously. The evangelical churches I have encountered in the last 8 years in 'evangelical-world' are full of sinners saved by grace. Yes full of sinners saved by grace who are at various stages of maturity, commitment and understanding. I would extend that thought to the meetings as well! That is why I accept people in the friends and workers church as fellow believers in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I grew up in the 'meetings' and lived and breathed the 'truth' as presented by the workers until the age of 41 years. I was a bit 'antzy' when I first left, mainly over, as Bert puts it 'what people believe' in the meetings - that is, the habit of automatically condemning (damning) other Christians outside their group, not preaching clearly the reality of who Christ is (God the Son), and the awareness of a number of nasty little things that were 'piling up under the carpet' that were not being addressed despite tears to workers about them etc. Have never had a major problem with the ministry or church structure as such, just do not see it as a 'rule of salvation''. Far more important things are neglected within the 2x2 church community many of us know so well, like denying the work of the Holy Spirit in others, identifying the Truth (Christ) with the 'truth' (friends and workers) and minimising real issues and assuming they would just work themselves out. Many 'friendlies' are genuinely members of the Body of Christ, but not all who are of the mystical (there ya go GIT!) Body of Christ are 'in the meetings'. In the same way that all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats! Some who are still in the Body of Christ have left the body of the 'meetings' to fellowship and grow and contribute their ministry gifts elsewhere, unfettered by sectarian visions of 'who is in and who is out' of the Universal Church. Thanks again for the reminder of Yancey's helpful writings GIT! I think I will go and read 'The Jesus I Never Knew' again just to remind me what it was like before I did come to know Him! (By the way, I did know him and was even baptised into fellowship with Him before I left the meetings in case you are wondering - I am continuing to get to know him still!) Cheers and blessings Alistair Henderson
|
|
|
Post by Elevation on Oct 18, 2007 23:31:06 GMT -5
Tear someone else down to elevate yourself in relative terms.
This is what the lazy do. This is why this thread was started.
This forum is about the religion called Truth. It's flaws are pointed out here. Pointing out the flaws of other religions here to prop up Truth in contrast is a cheap shot, but apparently all they have.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay on Oct 18, 2007 23:31:32 GMT -5
But evangelicals have many practices and beliefs that seem typical of what is presented on the TMB, ie love of the world, involvement in social issues, saved by a grace alone etc. Bert, I found this description of evangelical: The church I attend is considered evangelical. Love for the needy in the world would be a more appropriate phrase to describe a belief we hold. As far as involvement in "social issues", shouldn't all Christians have an awareness of the need to show love, mercy and justice to all of God's creation? Jesus went out of his way to interact with those whom society at the time shunned. It was important enough that the example of the good Samaritan was passed along for future generations to emulate. We are saved by "grace alone". Good works are an outgrowth of the Holy Spirit's work within us .. Gal.5 says it so beautifully. I respect Philip Yancy -- I think he's a fine author. And I believe the article GIT posted needs to be a reminder to all Christians. We need to "test the spirits" in each and every group we meet with. As I posted recently we can't sit weekly in our services, then go home to our comfortable life and not feel convicted to reach out to others if God is truly at work in our lives. It's just impossible. Understanding the Gospel story must always include understanding the need to share with others, and not just by giving lip service. Often the first step is to show others you care about them and their daily physical needs. Food ... shelter ... clothing ... job. They'll see the love of Jesus in our hearts if we're sincere. I'm in the middle of a three month study on the life of Paul. The more I study the more I understand how personal sacrifices & service can reach others. I know there are those in your fellowship who donate time & money to help others. That also exists in many other Christian groups. The biggest difference is we're able to harness the power of "group" effort, which often accomplishes something an individual alone can't. I believe the f&w's have yet to see the opportunity in that setting. Evangelical shouldn't be a "dirty word". I feel proud to fellowship with others who feel compelled to serve in our community. More importantly, though, I feel God leading me to do so.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 18, 2007 23:37:35 GMT -5
To Elevation: read the first sentence of what you wrote, and then realize that a lot of people do this to GiT, on this board, everyday. So...let's not just put Git, myself next I would imagine, bert, nathan, or anyone else in this category, k?? Next, I was thinking about the TMB vs. GiT thing on the way home from work tonight. Why? you ask.... (ok, so you didn't ask. gonna tell ya anyway.) Toby Keith's latest song came on...you know the one that says... "I'm a man of my convictions, call me wrong call me right..but I bring my better angels to every fight. You may not like where I'm going, but you sure know where I stand. HATE ME if you want to...LOVE me IF YOU CAN." Another part of that song also says...before *something, something...in other words, all of this junk...turns to angry words and bitterness..... "maybe we should just agree to disagree." It got me thinking that one of the biggest messages Jesus brought was love...and all of the people that are constantly nitpicking GiT (and myself included when I respond to THOSE people) aren't exactly showing a very loving, tolerant Christian spirit themselves are they??? Snipey posts, posts meant simply to anger, embarrass, put other meanings to someone's words or...a myriad of other issues.....that's not Christian. Point being, maybe everyone (again, including myself) who calls themself a Christian, should think just a few seconds longer before they post something from now on. There are few people here that I have seen be very consistent with this. Linda/Selah comes to mind...most of the rest of us have succombed to the angry/bitter/annoyed monster. Just a thought. M.
|
|
|
Post by perfection on Oct 18, 2007 23:37:40 GMT -5
Many of the defenders of the religion called Truth claim their religion to be free from flaw, since its foundation is of the divine.
Others attack the notion of "a perfect way (for an imperfect people)" by pointing out the flaws of the religion called Truth.
The defenders see this as unfair. "Why are they picking on us without picking on all the other religions?"
What the defenders fail to realize is that the vast majority of Christian churches do not have a problem owning up to the imperfections in their church. The religion called Truth, on the other hand, does. They've been in full denial mode for half a century now.
Pointing out the flaws in an organization claiming to be perfect has much more impact than pointing out the flaws in an organization that admits to its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by touche on Oct 18, 2007 23:40:57 GMT -5
To Elevation: read the first sentence of what you wrote, and then realize that a lot of people do this to GiT, on this board, everyday. Great suggestion wanttobewithgod. I've done as you suggested. Now I ask you: with the contrast you just posed in mind, consider this: Pointing out the flaws in an organization claiming to be perfect has much more impact than pointing out the flaws in an organization that admits to its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by karma on Oct 18, 2007 23:50:36 GMT -5
It got me thinking that one of the biggest messages Jesus brought was love...and all of the people that are constantly nitpicking GiT (and myself included when I respond to THOSE people) aren't exactly showing a very loving, tolerant Christian spirit themselves are they??? Snipey posts, posts meant simply to anger, embarrass, put other meanings to someone's words or...a myriad of other issues.....that's not Christian. Nope! That's the law of attraction. What did you find that was loving, tolerant, and Christian in the original post? What do you find in GIT's other posts that are loving, tolerant, and Christian? Good advice. Maybe it would also be more Christian for all of us to refrain from backing up posts with an obvious lack of Christian principles and sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Oct 19, 2007 0:16:40 GMT -5
Hi GIT,
Thanks for posting Philip Yancey's remarks concerning some of the issues we see around us. He is a very honest man, and I appreciate that. Perhaps his many experiences with wrong-doing in the name of Christ, brought him to such a place of truly experiencing His grace.
Being truthful about the short comings and failures that abound wherever there are people (whether they claim to be Christians or not) is something to be commended IMO. I don't mean we have to go around unecessarily pointing out the negative things; just that we certainly don't need to hide them, or pretend they're non-existent.
His book "What's So Amazing about Grace?" is an EXCELLENT book. I think you'd enjoy it.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 19, 2007 1:33:31 GMT -5
It got me thinking that one of the biggest messages Jesus brought was love...and all of the people that are constantly nitpicking GiT (and myself included when I respond to THOSE people) aren't exactly showing a very loving, tolerant Christian spirit themselves are they??? Snipey posts, posts meant simply to anger, embarrass, put other meanings to someone's words or...a myriad of other issues.....that's not Christian. Nope! That's the law of attraction. What did you find that was loving, tolerant, and Christian in the original post? What do you find in GIT's other posts that are loving, tolerant, and Christian? Good advice. Maybe it would also be more Christian for all of us to refrain from backing up posts with an obvious lack of Christian principles and sentiment. In that case, karma, the law of attraction is not a Christian thing is it? So are you following science here, or religion? Apparently in this case you must choose one. You are doing EXACTLY what you don't like GIT doing here, like it or not...he has done something wrong in your eyes, so you are doing something wrong back to him. This is what you say he is doing by bringing up other churches instead of focusing on the f&w church. I thought two wrongs didn't make a right? Also, even though it is just my opinion, the things I say to anyone on here...I have said many times, similar things to GIT about things that he has posted. If you read here or on TMB2 you will see that. I don't make remarks to GIT as OFTEN as I do to others, no......mainly because I think GIT gets beat up enough on this board...and that's my perrogative to feel that way. Many of the posts YOU think have an obvious lack of Christianity in them....I think do. So, we disagree. This is why I back them up. I'm sure you wont' agree with me, you don't have to like it, you don't have to anything...all I was suggesting is that we shoudl all be a bit kinder...which is what IS more Christian...meaning ALL of us, me, you, GIT, whoever. to touche, you make a good point as well. However, most other churches (I will assume you admit willingly.....) do not admit to their flaws either...they GET FOUND OUT> same as the f&w church. Let me be clear in what I think here..it is not RIGHT in ANY church for this to be so...it should be taken care of immediately and never EVER swept under the rug...but please let's not insinuate here that the Catholic church (just for example) openly admitted their priests (some of them, of course) were pedophiles until they were found OUT. They didn't. M.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 19, 2007 2:55:43 GMT -5
To all folks who participated in this thread,
I'm sorry I did not get the chance to add my reasons for posting this message - it was the last thing I did before I left for work this morning. I do feel I need to make one thing very clear: I like Philip Yancy. Over the years I have come across a variety of his articles and have found him a helpful writer for deeper spirituality in the divine life of the Lord.
I posted this message because Yancy owns up to the fact that life is not perfect out in the world of evangelicalism. As he explains, he grew up in an "unhealthy Christian" environment where racism was rife. As time's arrow has flown forward, Yancy has changed his stance on a lot of issues, including his view of the war in Iraq.
(I admit that I once was a fervent supporter of the Iraq war, because for some reason I thought nations did not need to act according to the same Christian principles I would expect from an individual person. An individual who gets shot, or has his family murdered, and who turns and forgives and blesses his oppressors would exemplify Christian spirit. Why not nations?)
People on this forum have criticised me for using certain real-life examples drawn from evangelicalism. They say that I am trying to make my Church right by putting other churches down. But this has never been my intention. (Not least because it would be a logical fallacy).
My intention has always been to try and get - even force - exes to apply consistent standards to the Fellowship, exactly as they would to denominational churches. When I present an example of an evangelical church demonstrating the same failings as the Fellowship, the way exes respond is markedly different. And the only differential is that the evangelical church is NOT the Fellowship.
I advance these sorts of arguments to show that they attack the Friends for things which happen all the time in denominational churches which they either attend, or accept.
When these examples are put forward, the aminosity is amazing. The mere posting of an unflattering article can be enough to destablise the religious identity of exes, who respond, I think, from a position of significant fear. Psychologists will tell you. Fear prompts anger; and the more violent and enraged the response, often (I am not making a blanket statement here), often the more motivated by fear.
It is interesting, I think, how strenulously I am condemned if ever I respond harshly to the daily digest of hurtful opinions and unfair condemnations of my Church, yet the moment a single article is presented critical of a church somewhere in evangelicalism, there is an outflow of anger.
The more time I spend on this forum, the more I develop the opinion that many exes have an unworkable worldview which makes it impossible for them to understand Christianity. I conclude that many exes have simply exchanged one trap for another. Perhaps it is a personality issue.
What, after all, leads a person to enter a church and then focus solely on that church, ignoring the teachings?
Then they exit that church, full of unpleasant things to say and unpleasant ways of saying it, and hook up with another church which is defined more-or-less by everything the Fellowship is NOT. They still exist in a swirling matrix of religion; and institutionalism; and establishmentarianism. And all the while the teachings of Christianity are merely adjuncts to the institution; to the worship style; to the charity; to the programmes; to the music; to the superior toilet-flush systems. Etc.
The absence of balance, and the "thought police" mentality is suggestive of a worldview in conflict. (Check for instance, just read how many exes respond to my posts - they make comments about my thoughts, my feelings, my emotions, my spirituality, and my relationship with God). Note the responses I have recieved without typing a single word of my own text.
And a worldview in conflict leads to spiritual and philosophical dysfunction. It leads to an inability to explain rationally and defend one's perspective. For truth emerges from conflict, which is why I am saddened not to have the chance to debate the issues raised by the exes.
|
|
|
Post by al henderson on Oct 19, 2007 5:30:19 GMT -5
Hi again GIT!
I read the range of responses - mine was a pretty long one - I'd lilke to thank you again for reminding us of the honest insights that can be found in writers like Philip Yancey, who although not 'professing' in meetings terms, is nevertheless, as you would agree, a person who expresses a deep spiritual understanding and is no doubt a Christian, even though he is not in the 'truth' fellowship.
Cheers and blessings
Alistair
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2007 6:15:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 19, 2007 7:58:39 GMT -5
How uplifting
|
|
|
Post by bluejay on Oct 19, 2007 18:42:03 GMT -5
In post #18, GIT in part said:
I find these comments of yours offensive & completely false. I've read hundreds of posts from "exes" where they state very plainly the primary importance in any 'church' is that the foundation be Christ alone. Nothing else. The worship style, charitable focus, the programs and the music are secondary. If the foundation isn't scripturally sound, it's flawed. If the teachings don't line up with scripture, it's false. (Your comment about the superior toilet-flush system was sarcastic, rude & uncalled for) imo.
The f&w's & other Protestant denominations share many common beliefs. The main difference is how they interpret the Mat.10 passage. What bothers me, git, is how easy it is for you to look down upon the spiritual lives of "exes". I know I walk daily with God, guided by the Holy Spirit. And yet, you mock anyone who claims to have a relationship with Jesus outside of your group. You mock all groups other than your fellowship. We (exes) don't choose frivolously or lightly where to meet and who to fellowship with.
Yes ... I know you personally take a lot of heat on this message board, and it must be frustrating for you. I do understand that and know it's human nature to strike back. You've studied the Bible & church history in much more depth than I (and possibly others) have. Let that be an advantage for you. The choice is yours as to how to share & communicate here. Does it need to be a right/wrong situation every time? Can't the exchanges be edifying & encouraging? I feel you're letting your biases blind you to God's work on the earth.
I took no offense at your original post, as I know it was a truthful article. There are organized groups who meet in the name of Jesus who do very little to show God's glory. It's good for us to remember that.
The two greatest commandments are to love God, and love each other. This board is a great opportunity for all of us remember that ... and to put into practice love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self‑control.
|
|