|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 29, 2010 13:41:13 GMT -5
It seems to me that IF something was ever wrong, IT still is wrong....however as it was said, since the founding fathers thought some things were wrong it seems that following workers do not want to admit that the founding fathers were wrong....however they do not take into thought that times proves all things. Here is a letter written by William Lewis, which explains why the workers had a softening in attitute. IMO, the reason the workers in the West take the position they do, is because of misinterpretation of words. Hoping that one day we'll see unity amongst the workers on this issue, as the division is hurtful and confusing to those who are involved in D & R situations. William Lewis On Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage INTRODUCTION: It has come into my heart to write some of the facts of my experience and some of the personal visits and conversations I have had with various of my brethren and companions over the years concerning the matter of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the light of the best understanding of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, that we arrived at prayerfully and out of great concern for ourselves and for those we were responsible to guide and counsel in the fear of the Lord. I have not held on to any interpretation that a good many of my closest brethren and companions did not agree with; just as all doctrine of the Lord is understood, so this was "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little," Is. 28:10. Concern in these matters for me goes back to my earliest years in the work of the Gospel and the beginning of my studies of the Bible with my companion; a concern that has intensified as my responsibilities to enter into judgments affecting the souls of others has increased. Let me say that I sought the counsel and aid of older brothers in deciding some cases that were in my field of responsibility, from the time I became responsible, nearly 30 years ago; and what some may look upon as being a change cannot appear so to me, due to that fact. Even then, we were considering cases, as we are now, and looking back have not been disappointed in the outcome of any of them, as there has been good evidence of the Lord's pleasure in them. There was a general feeling and desire among us that discussed this, that there would be some day a meeting of our elders to settle this question definitely and for all, and in the area of my responsibilities it has been. There never was, in my mind, nor even voiced by those with whom I discussed it, any criticism of those who went before us, for we did then as now..."weigh as one who dreads dissent and fears a doubt as wrong" to quote Whittier. It was just that we felt in our own souls that we were lacking. The decision (Par.3) was that every case be examined and decided upon its own merits and the circumstances peculiar to it. 1. Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Ps 56:5-6 Remarriage-exceptive clause of fornication. Attention is especially drawn to the exception Jesus made where fornication was concerned. It seems evident that remarriage was in question; if there had been no "marrying of another" involved, Jesus would have made no such exception, since no question of possible sin could arise if a union had been dissolved by death; but this was a case of putting away, questioning its legality. 2. Remarriage of the innocent party. (Ps 55:11-15) Jesus included the exceptive clause to make it clear that the remarriage of the innocent party was not a sinful action where fornication was involved. I Cor. 7:27-28. This is confirmed by Paul. A difference is made here between those who were "bound to" or "loosed from" a wife, and one who had never been married, virgins. In both cases marrying was not a sin, which could not have been referred to if the "loosing from" had been by death. Again no questions in that case. The questioning arose in my heart in view of the fact that we were treating all cases of abandonment and divorce of spouses amongst us more or less the same. 3. Job 31:9-12 Remarriage only where fornication has taken place. In a meeting of our elders it was decided that only cases where fornication was involved would the question of remarriage be included. It was also agreed that 3 overseers would consider and render judgment; not 1 or 2. This is very much in line with what Job said about it in his day before the law and in all probability before there was any written guidance. It was a matter for the Judges to decide; note the plural. 4. Meaning of fornication. As to the meaning of fornication, it has seemed to me that Jesus deliberately chose the word in order to cover all sexually related vice, forseeing our time and the perversion that would overspread the race. If He had said "except it be for adultery," He would have confined it to that particular form of fornication; fornication being a general term that did cover all as stated before. The man in I Cor. 5:1 was guilty of fornication because of an adulterous relationship with his father's wife and in both Old and New Testament, the word is used to describe the sins of married women. 5. Ezekiel 16:32-38, Jer. 3:1 Fornication dissolves the marriage bond, possibility of reconciliation. In one chapter in Ezekiel, ch. 16, the term harlotry, ladydom and adultery are referred to as being a multiplication of Israel's fornications, and she is called "a wife that committeth adultery" to be judges as women that break wedlock, from which we may rightly conclude that fornication dissolves the marriage bond. Not that it cannot be repaired, indeed that was the Lord's offer to Israel, contingent upon their repentance and return to Him. In Jer. He ____?? that is something the Law did not require a man to do, and it would be an act of great compassion and forgiveness for him to do it, an evidence of godliness in the man and testimony to a justice that only God could impart to him. The first attempt should be to effect such a reconciliation ______?? where there is ______?? pursuit of fornication and willful departure from one's faithful mate, that same justice demands that the guilty bear punishment and not the innocent. 6. II Kings 9:22, Hosea 2:2, Amos 7:7, I Cor. 5:1, Rev. 2:20-21. Fornication and adultery synonymous. It has been interesting to learn that the Greek word used in the Gospel for fornication is porn, which is employed in the Septuagint speaking of women (married) in the following cases, among others, (1st 3 above... the last 2 using the word to fornicate.) The same Greek word issued in I Cor. 5 and Rev. 2, in one verse to commit fornication and in the other to commit adultery. Happily a knowledge of Greek is not necessary to understand the Scriptures, but it's reassuring when the Greek and Hebrew texts confirm what the Holy Ghost has given to us from what is available in our own language. 7. Lev. 20:10, Gen. 20:3, John 8. Death the penalty for adultery in the law. There are commandments in the law concerning these matters, one given by God carried the death penalty for both parties proven guilty of a willful act of adultery, and such punishment must have preceded the law. It seems to me that the only time Jesus dealt with this was in John 8, and He did not impose the death penalty that the Scribes and Pharisees were urging by the law, because He had come to abolish the death penalty of the law and bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel, to forgive repentant sins, except one, which we are certain was not fornication. 8. Deut. 24:l-4 Moses commandment of divorce for restraint. The other commandment was written by Moses for hard hearted men, not to encourage or sanction divorce "for every cause," but to restrain and guide as much as possible a practice that was never pleasing or acceptable to God. Jesus confirmed this by His own words to those who questioned Him about it. If we are to understand His teaching on the subject, we must take this into account, for in all other places than John 8, He was dealing with Moses' commandment, explaining why He would say, "but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:12 and "I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." All the participants in this arrangement were held responsible, being the instigator. Is. 54:4-6. In those days it was not possible for a woman to readily support herself and her recourse was to find another man who would marry her. In Isaiah the Lord reveals His heart feelings for a woman so treated, according her the dignity and consolation of widowhood, when in reality she was a forsaken woman in youth. He was willing to take such to be His wife, to remove her shame and reproach, pleading with Israel in this vein. 9. I Cor. 7:25, 40 The innocent party divorcing. If a man or woman be put away for fornication, then they who put her away would not be the author of adultery in remarriage, since it was for that cause that he or she was put away. Doubtless the free and conscienceless use of Moses' precept; and the Pharisees instance that Jesus declare His interpretation of it was the reason for the Lord's words on the subject. He did not cover all the ground on it and the related circumstances that would arise, Thus Paul saying to the Corinthians, "I have no commandment of the Lord (concerning virgins) yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" and "after my judgment, I think also that I have the Spirit of the Lord." 10. John 14:26, 16:13, Matt. 18:18-20 The guidance of the Holy Ghost. Jesus made it very clear that the Holy Ghost would come and teach them all things and bring to remembrance "all things that I have said unto you" and "He will guide you into all truth." We cannot escape the responsibility that was laid on the early Apostles in this regard if we are to be true to our profession to be followers of them. It is most awesome being charged to obtain the guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that judgment we give would be equitable and merciful, acceptable to and binding in Heaven, following this with the answer to Peter's question about forgiveness. emphasizing compassions and reminding us all of our utter dependence on the merciful and forgiving God, so that we would not deny to another what we must have ourselves. 11. O.T. parallel teaching. Ps. 94:20-21 Again we have 2-3 involved in settling whatever controversy had arisen. A parallel teaching may be found in the O.T. showing that all matters were not covered by the law and had to be taken to Judges in that event. To attempt to settle questions that arise in our day by law would bring up the question that is asked in Ps. 94 and result in the answer in the following verse, I greatly fear. 12. I Cor. 7:8-11. Distinction between Classes. There are a number of classes, different classes, husbands and wives, married people, divorced people and widows. In two verses making a distinction between them, putting the woman who departed from her husband (not an adulterous mate) in the unmarried state and not responsible to remain so or to be reconciled to her husband. 13. I Cor. 7. Unbelieving partners. Paul also had advice for unbelieving mates, making it clear that their unbelief was not grounds for putting them away, if they were pleased to dwell with them, to do so would again, exercising Moses' precept, "for every cause." On the other hand if unbelieving depart, let him depart, a brother, a sister is not under bondage in such. 14. I Cor. 7:39 Wife bound by the law: The word bondage used here carries the same meaning as "bound by." The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. (Husband not an adulterous, departed mate.) It is significant that Paul uses the word bondage 6 times in the Galatian epistle in reference to the law and its bondage. Again I understand that the Greek words for "leave" and "put away" and "depart" are all correctly translated to mean separation by divorce, permissible for the Christian for only one cause, fornication. Gal. 2:4, 4:3, 9, 24, 25; 5:1. 15. Hosea 2:2 Innocent party free to marry. The clear intent of the teaching every place is that the innocent victim of divorce for that cause is free from the law of husband and wife because an adulterous mate is no longer husband or wife. It was never possible for me to accept that the law offered a more equitable solution to the problem than our Lord, in that the penalty for the guilty under the law was death; harsh, but just; leaving the innocent free and not in an untenable position through a compelling human desire and God-given inclination to seek the love and compassion of a true mate. 16. The celibate life is of free will. Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:9, 37. Our Creator saw it was not good for a man to be alone, and Jesus confessed that every man could not live a celibate life in connection with His teaching concerning divorce. One might inject the question of the power and grace of God to enable a man or woman to remain unmarried in such circumstances, and far be it from me to minimize that possibility, but Jesus put it upon the individual's own ability to do so and so did Paul, "but if they cannot contain, let them marry" and "nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his own heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." 17. I Cor. 7:37 Marriage is ordained of God and typifies Christ and the Church. This verse in I Cor., of course, was directed to ones who had never been married and by all understanding would find it easier to maintain a celibate life than those who had experienced the married state. It seems very clear that in all the Bible, God expected most men and women to seek a mate and enjoy the love and companionship that its union affords; the closest human tie as the most sacred. It is, in its purity, representing the relationship intended between Christ and His church. There is nothing in the Scripture to lead us to believe that any man or woman was expected to go through life alone, except by choice, and that, primarily, for the King of Heaven's sake. We have that example in Paul, Jesus and others, but not to the exclusivity of those who were married. 18. Adultery, an heinous crime. Job 31:11, Prov. 6:32-35 In conclusion, adultery is not unforgivable, but it is still what Job said it to be, an heinous crime, certain of punishment most damaging and dishonouring personally and with the longest lasting consequences for all those concerned. An offence that may not be purged by rewards and gifts, and we who have been called to try to mitigate these consequences know what a wounding it is, and we sadly conclude with Sol. "but whose committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding. I have not written this to rebut arguments to the contrary, not even to try to convince skeptics, but that my friends might know my firm convictions and from whence they came. Hey!!!! We have name (William Lewis) to go with this!! Scott
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 29, 2010 13:50:46 GMT -5
It sounds like according to W.L. that IF a spouse leaves or abandons a spouse, then that is to be judged like fornication...regardless of the reason they leave??? The spouse that is left behind or abandoned is not under bondage and would be free to marry again.
He didn't go into spousal abuse and I find that that is a major reason for divorces these days...and not always physical abuse but the mental, emotional abuses.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 29, 2010 13:52:39 GMT -5
Here is a letter written by William Lewis, which explains why the workers had a softening in attitute. IMO, the reason the workers in the West take the position they do, is because of misinterpretation of words. Hoping that one day we'll see unity amongst the workers on this issue, as the division is hurtful and confusing to those who are involved in D & R situations. William Lewis On Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage INTRODUCTION: It has come into my heart to write some of the facts of my experience and some of the personal visits and conversations I have had with various of my brethren and companions over the years concerning the matter of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the light of the best understanding of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, that we arrived at prayerfully and out of great concern for ourselves and for those we were responsible to guide and counsel in the fear of the Lord. I have not held on to any interpretation that a good many of my closest brethren and companions did not agree with; just as all doctrine of the Lord is understood, so this was "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little," Is. 28:10. Concern in these matters for me goes back to my earliest years in the work of the Gospel and the beginning of my studies of the Bible with my companion; a concern that has intensified as my responsibilities to enter into judgments affecting the souls of others has increased. Let me say that I sought the counsel and aid of older brothers in deciding some cases that were in my field of responsibility, from the time I became responsible, nearly 30 years ago; and what some may look upon as being a change cannot appear so to me, due to that fact. Even then, we were considering cases, as we are now, and looking back have not been disappointed in the outcome of any of them, as there has been good evidence of the Lord's pleasure in them. There was a general feeling and desire among us that discussed this, that there would be some day a meeting of our elders to settle this question definitely and for all, and in the area of my responsibilities it has been. There never was, in my mind, nor even voiced by those with whom I discussed it, any criticism of those who went before us, for we did then as now..."weigh as one who dreads dissent and fears a doubt as wrong" to quote Whittier. It was just that we felt in our own souls that we were lacking. The decision (Par.3) was that every case be examined and decided upon its own merits and the circumstances peculiar to it. 1. Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Ps 56:5-6 Remarriage-exceptive clause of fornication. Attention is especially drawn to the exception Jesus made where fornication was concerned. It seems evident that remarriage was in question; if there had been no "marrying of another" involved, Jesus would have made no such exception, since no question of possible sin could arise if a union had been dissolved by death; but this was a case of putting away, questioning its legality. 2. Remarriage of the innocent party. (Ps 55:11-15) Jesus included the exceptive clause to make it clear that the remarriage of the innocent party was not a sinful action where fornication was involved. I Cor. 7:27-28. This is confirmed by Paul. A difference is made here between those who were "bound to" or "loosed from" a wife, and one who had never been married, virgins. In both cases marrying was not a sin, which could not have been referred to if the "loosing from" had been by death. Again no questions in that case. The questioning arose in my heart in view of the fact that we were treating all cases of abandonment and divorce of spouses amongst us more or less the same. 3. Job 31:9-12 Remarriage only where fornication has taken place. In a meeting of our elders it was decided that only cases where fornication was involved would the question of remarriage be included. It was also agreed that 3 overseers would consider and render judgment; not 1 or 2. This is very much in line with what Job said about it in his day before the law and in all probability before there was any written guidance. It was a matter for the Judges to decide; note the plural. 4. Meaning of fornication. As to the meaning of fornication, it has seemed to me that Jesus deliberately chose the word in order to cover all sexually related vice, forseeing our time and the perversion that would overspread the race. If He had said "except it be for adultery," He would have confined it to that particular form of fornication; fornication being a general term that did cover all as stated before. The man in I Cor. 5:1 was guilty of fornication because of an adulterous relationship with his father's wife and in both Old and New Testament, the word is used to describe the sins of married women. 5. Ezekiel 16:32-38, Jer. 3:1 Fornication dissolves the marriage bond, possibility of reconciliation. In one chapter in Ezekiel, ch. 16, the term harlotry, ladydom and adultery are referred to as being a multiplication of Israel's fornications, and she is called "a wife that committeth adultery" to be judges as women that break wedlock, from which we may rightly conclude that fornication dissolves the marriage bond. Not that it cannot be repaired, indeed that was the Lord's offer to Israel, contingent upon their repentance and return to Him. In Jer. He ____?? that is something the Law did not require a man to do, and it would be an act of great compassion and forgiveness for him to do it, an evidence of godliness in the man and testimony to a justice that only God could impart to him. The first attempt should be to effect such a reconciliation ______?? where there is ______?? pursuit of fornication and willful departure from one's faithful mate, that same justice demands that the guilty bear punishment and not the innocent. 6. II Kings 9:22, Hosea 2:2, Amos 7:7, I Cor. 5:1, Rev. 2:20-21. Fornication and adultery synonymous. It has been interesting to learn that the Greek word used in the Gospel for fornication is porn, which is employed in the Septuagint speaking of women (married) in the following cases, among others, (1st 3 above... the last 2 using the word to fornicate.) The same Greek word issued in I Cor. 5 and Rev. 2, in one verse to commit fornication and in the other to commit adultery. Happily a knowledge of Greek is not necessary to understand the Scriptures, but it's reassuring when the Greek and Hebrew texts confirm what the Holy Ghost has given to us from what is available in our own language. 7. Lev. 20:10, Gen. 20:3, John 8. Death the penalty for adultery in the law. There are commandments in the law concerning these matters, one given by God carried the death penalty for both parties proven guilty of a willful act of adultery, and such punishment must have preceded the law. It seems to me that the only time Jesus dealt with this was in John 8, and He did not impose the death penalty that the Scribes and Pharisees were urging by the law, because He had come to abolish the death penalty of the law and bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel, to forgive repentant sins, except one, which we are certain was not fornication. 8. Deut. 24:l-4 Moses commandment of divorce for restraint. The other commandment was written by Moses for hard hearted men, not to encourage or sanction divorce "for every cause," but to restrain and guide as much as possible a practice that was never pleasing or acceptable to God. Jesus confirmed this by His own words to those who questioned Him about it. If we are to understand His teaching on the subject, we must take this into account, for in all other places than John 8, He was dealing with Moses' commandment, explaining why He would say, "but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:12 and "I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." All the participants in this arrangement were held responsible, being the instigator. Is. 54:4-6. In those days it was not possible for a woman to readily support herself and her recourse was to find another man who would marry her. In Isaiah the Lord reveals His heart feelings for a woman so treated, according her the dignity and consolation of widowhood, when in reality she was a forsaken woman in youth. He was willing to take such to be His wife, to remove her shame and reproach, pleading with Israel in this vein. 9. I Cor. 7:25, 40 The innocent party divorcing. If a man or woman be put away for fornication, then they who put her away would not be the author of adultery in remarriage, since it was for that cause that he or she was put away. Doubtless the free and conscienceless use of Moses' precept; and the Pharisees instance that Jesus declare His interpretation of it was the reason for the Lord's words on the subject. He did not cover all the ground on it and the related circumstances that would arise, Thus Paul saying to the Corinthians, "I have no commandment of the Lord (concerning virgins) yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" and "after my judgment, I think also that I have the Spirit of the Lord." 10. John 14:26, 16:13, Matt. 18:18-20 The guidance of the Holy Ghost. Jesus made it very clear that the Holy Ghost would come and teach them all things and bring to remembrance "all things that I have said unto you" and "He will guide you into all truth." We cannot escape the responsibility that was laid on the early Apostles in this regard if we are to be true to our profession to be followers of them. It is most awesome being charged to obtain the guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that judgment we give would be equitable and merciful, acceptable to and binding in Heaven, following this with the answer to Peter's question about forgiveness. emphasizing compassions and reminding us all of our utter dependence on the merciful and forgiving God, so that we would not deny to another what we must have ourselves. 11. O.T. parallel teaching. Ps. 94:20-21 Again we have 2-3 involved in settling whatever controversy had arisen. A parallel teaching may be found in the O.T. showing that all matters were not covered by the law and had to be taken to Judges in that event. To attempt to settle questions that arise in our day by law would bring up the question that is asked in Ps. 94 and result in the answer in the following verse, I greatly fear. 12. I Cor. 7:8-11. Distinction between Classes. There are a number of classes, different classes, husbands and wives, married people, divorced people and widows. In two verses making a distinction between them, putting the woman who departed from her husband (not an adulterous mate) in the unmarried state and not responsible to remain so or to be reconciled to her husband. 13. I Cor. 7. Unbelieving partners. Paul also had advice for unbelieving mates, making it clear that their unbelief was not grounds for putting them away, if they were pleased to dwell with them, to do so would again, exercising Moses' precept, "for every cause." On the other hand if unbelieving depart, let him depart, a brother, a sister is not under bondage in such. 14. I Cor. 7:39 Wife bound by the law: The word bondage used here carries the same meaning as "bound by." The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. (Husband not an adulterous, departed mate.) It is significant that Paul uses the word bondage 6 times in the Galatian epistle in reference to the law and its bondage. Again I understand that the Greek words for "leave" and "put away" and "depart" are all correctly translated to mean separation by divorce, permissible for the Christian for only one cause, fornication. Gal. 2:4, 4:3, 9, 24, 25; 5:1. 15. Hosea 2:2 Innocent party free to marry. The clear intent of the teaching every place is that the innocent victim of divorce for that cause is free from the law of husband and wife because an adulterous mate is no longer husband or wife. It was never possible for me to accept that the law offered a more equitable solution to the problem than our Lord, in that the penalty for the guilty under the law was death; harsh, but just; leaving the innocent free and not in an untenable position through a compelling human desire and God-given inclination to seek the love and compassion of a true mate. 16. The celibate life is of free will. Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:9, 37. Our Creator saw it was not good for a man to be alone, and Jesus confessed that every man could not live a celibate life in connection with His teaching concerning divorce. One might inject the question of the power and grace of God to enable a man or woman to remain unmarried in such circumstances, and far be it from me to minimize that possibility, but Jesus put it upon the individual's own ability to do so and so did Paul, "but if they cannot contain, let them marry" and "nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his own heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." 17. I Cor. 7:37 Marriage is ordained of God and typifies Christ and the Church. This verse in I Cor., of course, was directed to ones who had never been married and by all understanding would find it easier to maintain a celibate life than those who had experienced the married state. It seems very clear that in all the Bible, God expected most men and women to seek a mate and enjoy the love and companionship that its union affords; the closest human tie as the most sacred. It is, in its purity, representing the relationship intended between Christ and His church. There is nothing in the Scripture to lead us to believe that any man or woman was expected to go through life alone, except by choice, and that, primarily, for the King of Heaven's sake. We have that example in Paul, Jesus and others, but not to the exclusivity of those who were married. 18. Adultery, an heinous crime. Job 31:11, Prov. 6:32-35 In conclusion, adultery is not unforgivable, but it is still what Job said it to be, an heinous crime, certain of punishment most damaging and dishonouring personally and with the longest lasting consequences for all those concerned. An offence that may not be purged by rewards and gifts, and we who have been called to try to mitigate these consequences know what a wounding it is, and we sadly conclude with Sol. "but whose committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding. I have not written this to rebut arguments to the contrary, not even to try to convince skeptics, but that my friends might know my firm convictions and from whence they came. Hey!!!! We have name (William Lewis) to go with this!! Scott Yes, WM. was a very compassionate man! We miss him! BTW, I think he even went to another country to try and help on the D&R issues!
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 29, 2010 14:46:55 GMT -5
What I see in the letter is the standard key words and tricky phrases, which is just fine -- but -- the author then obviously shows his bias by presenting the eastern interpretative argument.
So, soon there will be a follow-up letter, flush with all the standard key words and tricky phrases, which is just fine -- but -- followed by the western interpretative argument.
This looks like something is being done regarding the issue to the casual observer, but it is little more than an exchange of arrows. The best it can do is buy time.
Until the tone of the letter is, "though I have opinions on the matter, in the spirit of unity I will forgo my opinion and fully support whatever decision is made.", there will be no unified agreement.
Other than stuffing all the overseers in a smoke filled room, locking the door and not letting anyone leave until a real decision is made, there is another possible solution -- term limits for all overseers and maximum rotation from east to west.
Just an idea from an old professing guy who spent a good chunk of his career in management of a large organization. Looks like the old days in my prior life before retirement.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Apr 29, 2010 15:03:47 GMT -5
Other than stuffing all the overseers in a smoke filled room, locking the door and not letting anyone leave until a real decision is made, there is another possible solution -- term limits for all overseers and maximum rotation from east to west. What's next, performance reviews?? ;D If William Lewis wrote that letter, it's been around for a while. He passed away 10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 29, 2010 16:12:07 GMT -5
Other than stuffing all the overseers in a smoke filled room, locking the door and not letting anyone leave until a real decision is made, there is another possible solution -- term limits for all overseers and maximum rotation from east to west. What's next, performance reviews?? ;D If William Lewis wrote that letter, it's been around for a while. He passed away 10 years ago.[/quote Performance reviews are to occur in the next life. The point of my previous comment is that Bible thumping (Nathan9 just presented a snippet from the western point of view) isn't likely to convince anyone. When someone, such as the author of the letter, gets into diverse and obscure interpretations of scriptural passages to add validity to his argument, the red flags go up immediately that this guy probably has a motive that is self-serving. I believe negotiation will be completely ineffective in an instance such as this because the currency is pride. Someone pays (or loses) pride, the other is paid (or gains) pride. What really has to occur is to first determine the basic direction the overseers want to promote within the fellowship. Unity? Mercy? Control? Increase? Profit? One could go anywhere with such a list. Then the list needs to be prioritized. Which is more important, unity or mercy. Do we even care about profit? How much control do we want. Should be be concerned about declining convention attendance. And so on. Once the priorities are established and agreed upon, then the job is to determine how to implement them. Of course, this sounds boring, tedious and extremely clinical, but it is something that leaders must do well to remain leaders -- it's their job! If it is not done, chaos results until a strong man rises up to rule with an iron whip. If it is not done well, there is discontent among the troops. If done well, there is contentment and growth. If I could vote, I'd vote for the eastern idea, even though I have lived in the west most of my days. But I am happy as a clam with the western approach. So it makes little difference to me which way it ultimately goes. And besides I'm not registered to vote, though I can comment. :>)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 29, 2010 17:34:48 GMT -5
Ron... How about this. ;D
1) Marriage is for life. Until death we part. However, sometimes thing can enter in a marriage such as an abusive husband, cheating husband/wife= Adultery then the wife can separate but she must REMAIN single so the husband have time to repent so they can be ONE flesh again.
2) Allow the wife to remarry while the husband is ALIVE that's scary! like encouraging and telling others Adultery is alright in God's eyes.
Jesus said, " And I say unto you whosoever shall put away, except it be for fornication, and shall MARRY another, committeth Adultery: And whosoever marry her who is put away does commit adultery."
I Cor. 6:9 Know ye NOT that the unrighteouness shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? neither fornicators, neither idolaters, nor Adultery!.... shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Once we understand and KNOW marriage is a lifetime committment until death do we part then we must learn to forgive each others, don't hold grudges, and find ways to SAVE the marriage. Jesus said, " And I say unto you whosoever shall put away, except it be for fornication, and shall MARRY another, committeth Adultery: And whosoever marry her who is put away does commit adultery." You need to read up on what 'put away' means Nathan. It is different than divorce. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2010 19:19:28 GMT -5
Ron... How about this. ;D
1) Marriage is for life. Until death we part. However, sometimes thing can enter in a marriage such as an abusive husband, cheating husband/wife= Adultery then the wife can separate but she must REMAIN single so the husband have time to repent so they can be ONE flesh again.
2) Allow the wife to remarry while the husband is ALIVE that's scary! like encouraging and telling others Adultery is alright in God's eyes.
Jesus said, " And I say unto you whosoever shall put away, except it be for fornication, and shall MARRY another, committeth Adultery: And whosoever marry her who is put away does commit adultery."
I Cor. 6:9 Know ye NOT that the unrighteouness shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? neither fornicators, neither idolaters, nor Adultery!.... shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Once we understand and KNOW marriage is a lifetime committment until death do we part then we must learn to forgive each others, don't hold grudges, and find ways to SAVE the marriage. How about this Nathan? Workers get out of the marriage business altogether. Their shallow views and policies have damaged and destroyed enough people already and they have done little to promote healthy marriages and relationships. Perhaps if some workers were to obtain some professional education and training in marriage and relationships, those particular workers could be helpful. Otherwise, they are mostly a disaster in that field.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 29, 2010 20:19:22 GMT -5
How about this Nathan? Workers get out of the marriage business altogether. Their shallow views and policies have damaged and destroyed enough people already and they have done little to promote healthy marriages and relationships. Perhaps if some workers were to obtain some professional education and training in marriage and relationships, those particular workers could be helpful. Otherwise, they are mostly a disaster in that field. ~~ I agree the workers are not professionally trained in marriage and relationships to really untangle the BIG Mess sometimes people get themselves into.... I believe the friends or the church elders in our fellowship should get into marriage counselling field. I know there a few of the friends are marriage/abusive counselors where the friends and workers go for help in Montana, USA.That would be nice and probably more and more friends will become counselors as there seems to be a driving demand. However it isn't against any kind of religious laws that I know of that married people having difficulty can find reputable marriage counselors that are not necessarily church based....though many pastors in large churches do have marriage counseling licenses.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 30, 2010 7:06:25 GMT -5
~~ I agree the workers are not professionally trained in marriage and relationships to really untangle the BIG Mess sometimes people get themselves into.... uuuuuuuuh... the workers aren't professionally trained in anything. fs
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 30, 2010 7:13:29 GMT -5
~~ I agree the workers are not professionally trained in marriage and relationships to really untangle the BIG Mess sometimes people get themselves into.... uuuuuuuuh... the workers aren't professionally trained in anything. fs shhh....they're not even trained by the Great Master, anymore then we are, or at least like the 12 Apostles were.....and people called those men uneducated, but they were not realizing that those 12 men went to the best seminary training ever known!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 30, 2010 7:14:50 GMT -5
~~ I agree the workers are not professionally trained in marriage and relationships to really untangle the BIG Mess sometimes people get themselves into.... uuuuuuuuh... the workers aren't professionally trained in anything. fs Hey! I was a professional lawn mower boy from the time I was 12 until I was 18!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 30, 2010 7:28:18 GMT -5
uuuuuuuuh... the workers aren't professionally trained in anything. fs Hey! I was a professional lawn mower boy from the time I was 12 until I was 18! Hey! Professional lawn mowers are few and far between in this berg! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 30, 2010 9:13:32 GMT -5
~~ Yes, they are not because they are called of God to be fishers of men=preachers, pastors, evangelists, teachers of the gospel not to be marriage counselors.I once counted well over 20 registered members of the TMB who were ex-workers, and since then others have registered here. If these people were called of God to be fishers of men=preachers, pastors, evangelists, teachers of the gospel not to be marriage counselorsDo you also feel that they were called of God to leave that position, or do you feel that they were mistaken in being called of God to begin with? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 30, 2010 9:39:18 GMT -5
~~ Yes, they are not because they are called of God to be fishers of men=preachers, pastors, evangelists, teachers of the gospel not to be marriage counselors.I once counted well over 20 registered members of the TMB who were ex-workers, and since then others have registered here. If these people were called of God to be fishers of men=preachers, pastors, evangelists, teachers of the gospel not to be marriage counselorsDo you also feel that they were called of God to leave that position, or do you feel that they were mistaken in being called of God to begin with? Scott ~~ If they were truly called of God to be fisher of men... They still be fisher of men after they leave the ministry. It doesn't matter where they go they are still His fisher of men. God has put love for souls in their hearts and it will stay with them and will do all they can to help others until the day they die.How do you determine if they were truly called of God to be fisher of men...? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 30, 2010 9:45:10 GMT -5
If they leave the truth fellowship and attend another church that shouldn't be a determining factor should it? I know that you believe that it is our personal relationship with Jesus/God that really matters, and not our position in any church that determines our salvation. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 30, 2010 10:35:13 GMT -5
How do you determine if they were truly called of God to be fisher of men...? Scott ~~ We have discussed this before. ;D According to Jesus words, " Ye shall KNOW them by their fruit." (actions, behaviors, manner of life) A good tree can not bear bad fruit, neither a corrupt tree bears good fruit. Every tree that bringeth NOT forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their Fruits ye shall KNOW them." (Matt. 7:15-20)
John the apostle wrote in I John 4:1 Beloved, believe NOT every spirit, but TEST the spirits whether they are FROM God, many false prophets have gone into the world.
Again, I totally agree with you Nathan. We can trust scripture on this can't we? I see the fruits of the Spirit in many of the ex-workers that no longer attend the truth fellowship, and likewise I see fruits of the Spirit in some of the ex-workers that remain in the fellowship. What is interesting is reading emails and PM's about how many of the active workers do NOT show the fruits of the Spirit in their lives and in their preaching. These are the ones who are seeing gospel meeting attendance dropping in their field, and people seeing them on the speaking lists at conventions and special meetings tend to skip those meetings where they are scheduled to speak. Also interesting is that this is also starting to pertain to those overseers that are not dealing with issues that come up in their areas of responsibilities. When people hear of problems in an overseers field, and then those problems do not get dealt with by senior workers, they begin to lose the confidence and trust that the friends once had in them. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 30, 2010 12:27:32 GMT -5
Ron... How about this. ;D
1) Marriage is for life. Until death we part. However, sometimes thing can enter in a marriage such as an abusive husband, cheating husband/wife= Adultery then the wife can separate but she must REMAIN single so the husband have time to repent so they can be ONE flesh again.
2) Allow the wife to remarry while the husband is ALIVE that's scary! like encouraging and telling others Adultery is alright in God's eyes.
Jesus said, " And I say unto you whosoever shall put away, except it be for fornication, and shall MARRY another, committeth Adultery: And whosoever marry her who is put away does commit adultery."
I Cor. 6:9 Know ye NOT that the unrighteouness shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? neither fornicators, neither idolaters, nor Adultery!.... shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Once we understand and KNOW marriage is a lifetime committment until death do we part then we must learn to forgive each others, don't hold grudges, and find ways to SAVE the marriage. Nathan and others, I only want to be a help, where I can be a help. In the position life has placed me I have only authority to impose my interpretation of the scriptures upon myself, no more. So while I have an understanding of what those passages mean to my wife and I, I would prefer to just be an example in living that understanding. No offense intended. It is just that my old hammer headed Norwegian personality can easily get control of my words in an interchange such as this. You know the joke -- "You can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much?" So I respectfully decline.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 30, 2010 13:51:51 GMT -5
You can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much?"That is a joke? I thought that was simply a true fact...... ;D Scott
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 30, 2010 17:09:11 GMT -5
You can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much?"That is a joke? I thought that was simply a true fact...... ;D Scott Shhhhh! It is, but not everyone needs to know it! :>)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 30, 2010 18:52:41 GMT -5
You can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much?"That is a joke? I thought that was simply a true fact...... ;D Scott Shhhhh! It is, but not everyone needs to know it! :>) Ah, I knew there was something I liked about you -- uff da!
|
|
|
Post by friendly67 on Jun 6, 2018 1:06:24 GMT -5
I think an assertion like this should be supported with facts. The facts...according to who? Doubtful that you would accept it from me, but clearday is bang on. Walter Burkinshaw in BC barred 2 different couples from even entering a fellowship meeting now that they are D&R. A D&R couple in Queensland came to a mission and wanted to profess..the wife had previously professed...they were not allowed to profess or attend Sunday a.m. meetings unless they divorced. i find this even more extreme than not being permitted to take part.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2018 7:50:48 GMT -5
The facts...according to who? Doubtful that you would accept it from me, but clearday is bang on. Walter Burkinshaw in BC barred 2 different couples from even entering a fellowship meeting now that they are D&R. A D&R couple in Queensland came to a mission and wanted to profess..the wife had previously professed...they were not allowed to profess or attend Sunday a.m. meetings unless they divorced. i find this even more extreme than not being permitted to take part. About what year did this happen?
|
|
|
Post by friendly67 on Jun 6, 2018 18:26:23 GMT -5
A D&R couple in Queensland came to a mission and wanted to profess..the wife had previously professed...they were not allowed to profess or attend Sunday a.m. meetings unless they divorced. i find this even more extreme than not being permitted to take part. About what year did this happen? Within the last five years, think about three years ago. they were told that things (rules?) might change in the future!
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Jun 7, 2018 19:04:36 GMT -5
William Lewis was too intelligent for most of the other workers. When I heard him preach from Ezekiel once, I remember thinking that this was going right over the heads of some.
He was a nice guy to talk to, and empathetic. I suspect though, that if he'd lived long enough, he'd have been frozen out by those who saw his intelligence as a threat.
|
|
|
Post by themaninthemirror on Jun 14, 2023 12:28:06 GMT -5
Do the overseers in western USA still uphold and promote the harsh remarriage policy of the late Eldon Tenniswood? One cannot take part until their ex-spouse is dead? How does Mark Huddle, Harold Bennett, Dale Shultz, Dean Bruer, and company feel about divorce remarriage in 2010? Look at those names - all have accusations bar one I believe.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2023 18:54:42 GMT -5
Do the overseers in western USA still uphold and promote the harsh remarriage policy of the late Eldon Tenniswood? One cannot take part until their ex-spouse is dead? How does Mark Huddle, Harold Bennett, Dale Shultz, Dean Bruer, and company feel about divorce remarriage in 2010? Look at those names - all have accusations bar one I believe. Wow all of them except Dale Shultz have been accused of sexual misconduct, Harold Bennett just recently from Parma convention. And Dale Shultz moved workers around. And they excommunicated people for remarriage! One more reason to understand just how horrific their reign has been.
|
|