|
Post by LSMND on Oct 23, 2007 13:06:33 GMT -5
quote - "... the workers have revelations from God... It seems to me to be odd that most of the revelations (if not all) are about long skirts/short skirts/splits in skirts or dyeing hair, cutting hair and general modesty of the women." That's not a revelation. That's reading the admonitions in the New Testament, and understanding the nature of the spirit.quote - "I await eagerly to hear reports that there have been revelations instructing men not to wear wigs or hair pieces or absurb comb-overs and to keep their hair cut above the collar." Paul gave that revelation, stating that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. That's good enough for me (not that I have much hair.) ;Dquote - "I want to hear about appropriate clothing amongst the men: no jeans/denim or corduroy, trousers off the ground and not frayed at the back, dress shoes, shirt and tie, suits on a sunday and blazer and dress trousers at every other meeting. I'll not hold my breath though." As long as it is neat and presentable, that's fine. Same as your job interview, same as your wedding, same as a funeral etc. You know, showing how you feel by how you dress.I don't believe the instructions issued from the platform on a Monday evening at Irish conventions are "revelations". They are as I said, instructions. They are directed solely at women because professing men tend not to wear skirts. At least not in public. The point is, all the instructions are directed at women. Some young men dress quite shabbily when going to the meetings/missions or conventions in Ireland and I am quite, quite certain they would not dress in such a manner at a wedding. Funerals and job interviews are not subject to the same preening as weddings but they still would turn themselves out better for them than the meeting. Surely if the Spirit was working in the people it would not be necessary to issue edicts from the platform. Whipping the people up into making their appearance on the outside fall into the accepted dress code is mere window dressing. It is better surely to allow the Spirit to work and let people make their own judgements as to what is modest and respectful? What's more, we were told that girls/ young ladies had to dress in a manner that was not provocative to young men as it might distract them from considering labouring in the harvest field or distract those already in the work. Why must that particular burden be placed upon the females? Why must females be responsible for curtailing a man's lust? And I still have not received an answer about wigs and other illusory confections for men although women are told not to dye their hair. It may sound simplistic but they are both subject to at least the suggestion of vanity which as I understand it, it is not to be indulged.
|
|
Maggie
Senior Member
Posts: 347
|
Post by Maggie on Oct 23, 2007 13:44:10 GMT -5
homeless preachers, As far as we can tell, Paul, like Jesus and John the Baptist, was homeless - in the sense that he never owned his own home. Why, in heaven's name, would you ever define being homeless in this manner?? ?? ?? Being "homeless" is when you have no home (to live in).....and is NOT determined by who holds the ownership deed to the physical building. Being homeless is when you live without a home, on the street, in an alley, in a park, under a bridge. Workers do not own their own homes but it is not unusual in any way to find them in a situation where they have rented a house or apartment just like a major percentage of the general population whom you would never consider to be homeless. Sometimes these homes are rented for years and years....by the worker system, not by one of the "friends". It is a rare occurence and one I doubt has happened for many years where a worker has had to spend the night "homeless".
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Oct 23, 2007 13:53:41 GMT -5
All the workers I know live in homes, they are not homeless. Jesus had no where to lay his head. The workers have a nice clean warm bed at nights and know they know where their next meal and sleep is coming from.
They are far from homeless, wandering itinerant preachers. Satying a year or two on one area is not a wandering itinerant preacher. They look pretty well fed to me. Not like Jesus and the apostles who probably didn't know where their next meal was coming from.
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Oct 23, 2007 14:00:49 GMT -5
A believer wrote They are far from homeless, wandering itinerant preachers.
The fellowship has definitely evolved. I remember hearing stories from my grandfather who was in the work in the early part of the 1900s about having to sleep in some farmer's barn or even outside. They truely were homeless in most cases in those days.
It may be more accurate to say that "they have chosen to live unfettered by home ownership? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Oct 23, 2007 15:50:07 GMT -5
I can't vouch for countries other than the US, but "homeless" in our official terminology includes those sharing a home with someone else without paying. So as a sidebar.. remember that, when you see the statistics published by the Census Bureau about the "homeless."
Cherie, do you not accept the statement Jesus made about having "nowhere to lay his head" as indicative of being without a home?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2007 16:35:39 GMT -5
quote - "One cannot make a definite statement from silence and "rightly interpret... As far as we can tell, Paul, like Jesus and John the Baptist, was homeless - in the sense that he never owned his own home."
Our interpretation of the NT is that these men were itinerate and essentially homeless. John was in the desert; Jesus said he had nowhere to lay his head and Paul traveled extensively before his imprisonment. That said, it is obvious that these men, and many like them, were well cared for and possibly even supported with rental accommodation when no open home was available.
quote - "One cannot make a definite statement from silence and "rightly interpret."
That's true. But there is often subtle or indirect supporting text. Also, the doctrine by itself should guide as to what these men did. For instance, the bible never says that Jesus engaged in social activism - but our understanding of who Jesus was suggests that he didnt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2007 16:39:46 GMT -5
quote - "The fellowship has definitely evolved. I remember hearing stories from my grandfather who was in the work in the early part of the 1900s about having to sleep in some farmer's barn or even outside. They truely were homeless in most cases in those days."
This notion of an evolved fellowship is a common one amongst those who leave us. Back then the workers were incredibly poor. If I recall, that awful book The Secret Sect implied there was a doctrine of poverty. But most people were poor, and after 1929, got a lot poorer.
|
|
|
Post by Roy unlogged on Oct 23, 2007 16:41:41 GMT -5
Nathan,
Who do you believe: Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things (food, money, places to sleep, ect) will be given unto youl." (Matthew 6:25-33) was written to and about?
|
|
|
Post by Codswallop on Oct 23, 2007 17:09:36 GMT -5
[color=Green]quote - "... the workers have revelations from God... It seems to me to be odd that most of the revelations (if not all) are about long skirts/short skirts/splits in skirts or dyeing hair, cutting hair and general modesty of the women."
That's not a revelation. That's reading the admonitions in the New Testament, and understanding the nature of the spirit.[/color]
Oh, spare me! Where does it mention minis in the NT? If you ask me its the lust in their own eyes that causes them to speak like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2007 17:12:53 GMT -5
quote - "Oh, spare me! Where does it mention minis in the NT? If you ask me its the lust in their own eyes that causes them to speak like this."
Now, I don't mind minis, be they those little Morris' we used to drive, or those tiny skirts ;D But if we are told to have appropriate, moderate, modest and decent dress. If this doesn't repudiate sexualized clothing like mini skirts, then pray tell, what did Paul have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by guestbuddy on Oct 25, 2007 0:12:27 GMT -5
Many of the comments in this thread reflect persons who listen to the message(s) being given by Workers (and/or by friends in the Fellowship) and are busy sorting out the chaff from the wheat - a good thing to do. However, the chaff is being kept, reviewed and dwelt upon ad naseum while the wheat is discarded. My experience of 50 years in this fellowship is that the weightiness of the wheat far surpasses the chaff - of which I acknowledge that there has been no lack either. When I was a child of 5, I watched my father preparing grain for planting via a winnowing machine. The wind took the chaff and the weed seeds and my father kept the good seed. Why is it we cannot rest in understanding that we have a responsibility to obey the doctrine of Christ and to measure the teaching (and yes the direction) of men by the words AND the spirit of Jesus. Anything taught outside that realm and not supportable by it is merely custom and doctrine of man, which will not bring salvation but may bring a more comfortable place in a fellowship populated by men with imperfect understanding and spirits. Paul may have mentioned obeying those who have the rule over you and I am not sure what he was referring to (I will leave that to the best possible interpretation). Again, however, I will rely upon Jesus teaching on the subject and will give priority to him. That is, he assured us that the greatest among them was the one who would be servant to them. I ask you, does the servant exercise lordship over the master and over his peers. I asert, if we believe Jesus is the author of our faith, we can have much peace about these matters by giving priority to his teaching. Similarly, regarding hair and long hair - did Jesus ever address the configuration of the body (whether it be hair or circumcision) as a condition of salvation? Answer - No. Some may want to make it a condition of fellowhip, but they can make no claim of judgement regarding salvation on a topic Jesus most obviously did not. Consider the "dispute" about circumcision in the early Church. Paul did not accept the initial direction of the elders at Jerusalem because they had no basis to rely upon. Such matters should be discussed based on biblical sources, with Jesus teaching being the measure of authority. It would be difficult for anyone, whether worker or peer, to gainsay such a position. As Therold Sylvestor responded to me one day when I asked about something written by Paul that was "difficult to be understood" (as Peter himself stated). He said to me , "Well lets see what Jesus said about that." A wonderful answer and the only one we are bound by.
"Bessed is he who is not condemned in the thing which he alloweth." Lets add - When it is in concert with Jesus teaching.
|
|
matia
Senior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by matia on Oct 25, 2007 2:09:06 GMT -5
As for the main subject / What a lot of rubbish / who said the the workers are correct All I say is THINK ABOUT ALL AND GET REAL / why let others controll your mind!!!! Boy Oh Boy Have I seen A lot Thats all
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on Oct 25, 2007 6:15:35 GMT -5
Many of the comments in this thread reflect persons who listen to the message(s) being given by Workers (and/or by friends in the Fellowship) and are busy sorting out the chaff from the wheat - a good thing to do. However, the chaff is being kept, reviewed and dwelt upon ad naseum while the wheat is discarded. My experience of 50 years in this fellowship is that the weightiness of the wheat far surpasses the chaff - of which I acknowledge that there has been no lack either. When I was a child of 5, I watched my father preparing grain for planting via a winnowing machine. The wind took the chaff and the weed seeds and my father kept the good seed. Why is it we cannot rest in understanding that we have a responsibility to obey the doctrine of Christ and to measure the teaching (and yes the direction) of men by the words AND the spirit of Jesus. Anything taught outside that realm and not supportable by it is merely custom and doctrine of man, which will not bring salvation but may bring a more comfortable place in a fellowship populated by men with imperfect understanding and spirits. Paul may have mentioned obeying those who have the rule over you and I am not sure what he was referring to (I will leave that to the best possible interpretation). Again, however, I will rely upon Jesus teaching on the subject and will give priority to him. That is, he assured us that the greatest among them was the one who would be servant to them. I ask you, does the servant exercise lordship over the master and over his peers. I asert, if we believe Jesus is the author of our faith, we can have much peace about these matters by giving priority to his teaching. Similarly, regarding hair and long hair - did Jesus ever address the configuration of the body (whether it be hair or circumcision) as a condition of salvation? Answer - No. Some may want to make it a condition of fellowhip, but they can make no claim of judgement regarding salvation on a topic Jesus most obviously did not. Consider the "dispute" about circumcision in the early Church. Paul did not accept the initial direction of the elders at Jerusalem because they had no basis to rely upon. Such matters should be discussed based on biblical sources, with Jesus teaching being the measure of authority. It would be difficult for anyone, whether worker or peer, to gainsay such a position. As Therold Sylvestor responded to me one day when I asked about something written by Paul that was "difficult to be understood" (as Peter himself stated). He said to me , "Well lets see what Jesus said about that." A wonderful answer and the only one we are bound by. "Bessed is he who is not condemned in the thing which he alloweth." Lets add - When it is in concert with Jesus teaching. How about breaking up into paragraphs!
|
|