|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2010 10:31:04 GMT -5
While I understand and agree with what you have said, in theory, how can it not be said the true spirit must be able to overcome the carnal? If it can't be said, should one even consider that a true spirit is working and not a false one? And if several men are all being led by the same spirit, wouldn't they all be seen taking the same direction? The point at which the carnal is completely overcome is when this earthly tabernacle passes and we receive the new incorruptible spiritual resurrection body. Until then there's provision in the blood to cleanse sin, and cover what can't be cleansed - repenting of our sin, and not holding our fellow man in unforgivness means all of sin's scars and wounds on the carnal body disappear in God's eyes - and should in ours too. Strife and divisions are born of what's carnal. Looking at it from all sides for quite a few years I just can't see it any other way. If there is strife or division there is carnally based reasoning in it somewhere. Bridging strife and division needs gentle wisdom like Jesus demonstrated so often - example the woman taken in adultery. Acting like a bull in a china shop drives the Spirit away. You are not a bull in a china shop.  |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 11:58:47 GMT -5
So you don't have children - and you know exactly what I was getting at. Good!  I and most I know have always viewed workers as human, glad for those who didn't but do now. I'm pretty sure most workers themselves would be very uncomfortable with people viewing them as super human and infailable. As for those who didn't but do now, I am one of those. After considering how this notion might have come about, I'd have to say that it was directly from the workers themselves in their preaching that they are, as the early apostles were, led by the spirit. For if they were truly led by the spirit, they would be, by default, super human and infallible. I no longer believe that this is generally true and am amazed at my foolish trust for not coming to this realization long ago. At this point I seriously wonder which ones, if any, might be actually spirit led. When I read here about the two directions that the spirit presumably leads them concerning D&R, how can it be ever said they are under the same spirit? This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 27, 2010 13:09:04 GMT -5
This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? Are you saying what we consider one fellowship is actually two separate, diverse fellowships in the United States? I cannot accept that, since I have been privileged to live on both sides (only briefly on the east in the mid-70's), and presently have a daughter and son-in-law living on the east side. I find the rank and file friends the same. So to me it is pretty obvious that at the overseer-leadership level some are led by the spirit and others must be led by something else. But as others have already mentioned, all through history God's people have been led by carnal men -- in fact in one passage they are described as the "basest of men". Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. So am I in error to think that I shouldn't expect much from anyone in a leadership position? |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 13:33:22 GMT -5
As for those who didn't but do now, I am one of those. After considering how this notion might have come about, I'd have to say that it was directly from the workers themselves in their preaching that they are, as the early apostles were, led by the spirit. For if they were truly led by the spirit, they would be, by default, super human and infallible. I no longer believe that this is generally true and am amazed at my foolish trust for not coming to this realization long ago. At this point I seriously wonder which ones, if any, might be actually spirit led. When I read here about the two directions that the spirit presumably leads them concerning D&R, how can it be ever said they are under the same spirit? This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. Oh. What. This is not a great example of your typically excellent reasoning ability. Jn 16:13 ...the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. Haydock commentaryVer. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth. For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. (Witham) --- If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2010 13:40:56 GMT -5
I too wonder how real the alleged east/west divide is. I wonder if it's turned into a tilted windmill Don Quixote would be proud of. I've been on both coasts and a few places in between and haven't noticed these alleged Rocky Mountains. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? I don't believe the Spirit leads people to disagree, I believe that carnal reasoning does. The key is being able to seperate what's carnal from what's of the Spirit. Paul wasn't 100% Spirit, he had a carnal thorn in his side, and even though Paul asked God didn't remove it. I don't think we are much different. We worship in Spirit and in truth, fellowship is simply sharing the fruits of that Spirit focused (not carnally focused) worship. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 13:42:21 GMT -5
This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? Are you saying what we consider one fellowship is actually two separate, diverse fellowships in the United States? I cannot accept that, since I have been privileged to live on both sides (only briefly on the east in the mid-70's), and presently have a daughter and son-in-law living on the east side. I find the rank and file friends the same. So to me it is pretty obvious that at the overseer-leadership level some are led by the spirit and others must be led by something else. But as others have already mentioned, all through history God's people have been led by carnal men -- in fact in one passage they are described as the "basest of men". Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. So am I in error to think that I shouldn't expect much from anyone in a leadership position? No. You are not in error. 1 Tim 3:15 Jn 16:13 |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2010 13:46:04 GMT -5
One difference between then and now is that then there wasn't a lot of moral clarity on the issue of CSA. They knew it was wrong but believed it was a minor infraction where the victim was only temporarily hurt ("he/she will get over it"), hence the coverup didn't seem so wrong. The law itself lacked clarity and teeth. Today, if anyone lacks moral clarity on the severity of this violation, they should not be in any position of moral leadership.....or any other leadership for that matter. If people in leadership today are too lazy to learn about the issue and its damaging effects on victims, then they should at least follow the law which has made good strides in recent decades to guide those who need to be controlled by law. I don't buy into that of old excuse, clearday! The bible alone teaches it is NOT right....men were supposed to be stoned to death in the OT days.....it is worse then Adultery when one reads about it....Jesus also gave the whole matter of oppression of Children a big sweep of attention...He said what it would be like for any that offended one of these little ones! No, I don't buy into ministers from any sect of religion that uses the Bible having ANY excuse at all, for looking at it as a "minor infraction"! No way! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2010 13:50:16 GMT -5
I too wonder how real the alleged east/west divide is. I wonder if it's turned into a tilted windmill Don Quixote would be proud of. I've been on both coasts and a few places in between and haven't noticed these alleged Rocky Mountains. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? I don't believe the Spirit leads people to disagree, I believe that carnal reasoning does. The key is being able to seperate what's carnal from what's of the Spirit. Paul wasn't 100% Spirit, he had a carnal thorn in his side, and even though Paul asked God didn't remove it. I don't think we are much different. We worship in Spirit and in truth, fellowship is simply sharing the fruits of that Spirit focused (not carnally focused) worship. As long as the powers that be, put any kind of stress on the outward appearance of the membership, i.e. someone needing to have their hair up in a bun, and skirts below the knee before baptism and then partaking of the bread and wine....the fellowship is STILL CARNAL! Feeding only on the milk of the word...that is my firmist conviction! |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2010 13:53:07 GMT -5
You and Scott are exactly right Julie. Instead of our church reacting this way: "Stop broad brush bashing us." We should be reacting this way: "Bash us all you like.....you deserve it and so do we." It's the Jesus Way to be willing to carry the load of sin. Christians who do so, repent from their own errors, and turn the other cheek will always be better for it. Depends what and who the criticism is about, especially when it's in a letter disclosing CSA on a site that's supposed to be about CSA. When a CSA disclosure letter wanders off into a large percentage of counter advocacy colored paint broad brushed on with common catch phrases like "workers don't pay tax", "cult group", "salvation by Grace through faith is not taught among the group", etc. etc. it looks a little bit like CSA isn't the main reason for writing. When it looks like general and subjective criticism is the main reason there is high potential the reader might turn away. If the reader turns away the educational and positive change potential of the letter is lost. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 14:04:50 GMT -5
But Ron surely you believe you are led by the Spirit don't you? Does that make you perfect and infallible? Of course not - not in the carnal sense! Remember the Spirit is willing but the flesh (carnal) is weak, remember that about yourself - and others - even workers. After all it's Paul that said that. Even though our carnal is not perfect the Spirit work God does in all of us is perfect - it cannot be otherwise! The blood of the final sin offering covers the repented of failures of our carnal flesh in a way God doesn't remember they happened - should we? Jesse, that is a terribly searching question. How could I know? Not too long ago I would have answered yes -- because it led me to a belief consistent with what others of the fellowship within my circle of acquaintances believed. Within the past year or so this seems to have been reversed. While I understand and agree with what you have said, in theory, how can it not be said the true spirit must be able to overcome the carnal? If it can't be said, should one even consider that a true spirit is working and not a false one? And if several men are all being led by the same spirit, wouldn't they all be seen taking the same direction? I don't mean to sound so discouraged, but how can I believe in the power of the spirit when it takes an internet Wings site staffed by some who profess, some who don't and some who once did to force the right response to a CSA issue? Who is being led by the spirit? And who is not, as evidenced by the fact that Wings has to spread each individual issue around the world for all to see, before the doing the right thing is even considered. How can anyone trust that such a leadership might be led by the spirit? So do I feel I am led by the spirit? I dunno, any more. Sorry to be so negative on this issue. I hope there's a lot that I don't understand presently, but will understand differently in the future. I hope my reply is not seen as trite, as I struggle with the same kinds of questions. But I see them in a slightly different context. It seems to me that we should first ensure or seek the Spirit's guiding within ourselves and that fellowship then comes after. As opposed to finding it in the fellowship or a fellowship and then following that. Well, it isn't quite that easy, for many come to know the Spirit through the teaching of others. But even there the teaching should put the primacy on a personal relationship with the Spirit. But that doesn't answer the question, it just changes it from "Who is being led by the Spirit"? to can I, where the Spirit is taking me, yoke together with so-and-so in fellowship or not. Well you can work with any sinner, who in humility does strive to find the kingdom of God within. But it is difficult to yoke with someone who does not possess that humility because doing so may create insurmountable obstacles and expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 14:05:52 GMT -5
As for those who didn't but do now, I am one of those. After considering how this notion might have come about, I'd have to say that it was directly from the workers themselves in their preaching that they are, as the early apostles were, led by the spirit. For if they were truly led by the spirit, they would be, by default, super human and infallible. I no longer believe that this is generally true and am amazed at my foolish trust for not coming to this realization long ago. At this point I seriously wonder which ones, if any, might be actually spirit led. When I read here about the two directions that the spirit presumably leads them concerning D&R, how can it be ever said they are under the same spirit? But Ron surely you believe you are led by the Spirit don't you? Does that make you perfect and infallible? Of course not - not in the carnal sense! Remember the Spirit is willing but the flesh (carnal) is weak, remember that about yourself - and others - even workers. After all it's Paul that said that. Even though our carnal is not perfect the Spirit work God does in all of us is perfect - it cannot be otherwise! The blood of the final sin offering covers the repented of failures of our carnal flesh in a way God doesn't remember they happened - should we? We see alike, but to your last question "should we?", I think we should remember. "Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future." Louis B. Smedes |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2010 14:14:27 GMT -5
This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? Are you saying what we consider one fellowship is actually two separate, diverse fellowships in the United States? I cannot accept that, since I have been privileged to live on both sides (only briefly on the east in the mid-70's), and presently have a daughter and son-in-law living on the east side. I find the rank and file friends the same. So to me it is pretty obvious that at the overseer-leadership level some are led by the spirit and others must be led by something else. But as others have already mentioned, all through history God's people have been led by carnal men -- in fact in one passage they are described as the "basest of men". Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. So am I in error to think that I shouldn't expect much from anyone in a leadership position? Ronhall, I thought of these words.... Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Tts 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence. Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2010 14:17:58 GMT -5
[quote author=what board=general thread=16272 post=353092 time=1280257552 " Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future." Louis B. Smedes[/quote] I like that quote!  |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 14:30:51 GMT -5
That's cool, sharon, but what does your opinion about religion or workers or God have to do with CSA? Look, there are three types of people who will be reading this letter: 1. f&w's, who will be offended by the insinuation that God has abandoned them, 2. exes, who are happy to gloat (whether true or not, that's how it is perceived) that the f&w's screwed up, and 3. guys like me who get really irritated that an issue as important as CSA is suddenly being demeaned by mixing it in with religious squabblings like whether some all-powerful invisible friend approves or disapproves. In all cases, supernatural speculation does more harm than good. CSA issues should be kept on a higher level than religion. I only come to that conclusion because of what the workers themselves have preached in gone-by days and what the bible itself says about "knowing". Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ' I do not consider multiple accountings of CSA crimes and rapes to be "good fruit", do you? And THAT alone is a testimony of God not blessing the workership. It IS sad for it does paint ALL the workership black as Ed A. put it, but the workers who have NOT dealt with the known CSA perps in the legal and correct manner have brought this all down on the whole workership and we cannot deny that. I DO NOT like thinking of some of the workers now long gone who were part of this coverup, it hurts me greatly because these were workers I knew and loved, but to find out they were part of the coverup? That increases my grief! I'm sorry but that's how I see it. Couple of flaws there. An individual worker committing CSA does not make all workers guilty of it. So thus you cannot indict the workers en masse for the sins of a few. I'm sure those verses you quote apply to the individual. Workers could be indicted though for believing that such things are impossible within the workership and that they are above certain sins. From that pride would flow things like cover-ups, denial ... things we're not seeing to the same extent, so there's much to be hopeful for. You know you don't have to justify yourself to anyone for leaving the fellowship, Sharon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 14:37:28 GMT -5
[quote author=what board=general thread=16272 post=353092 time=1280257552 " Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future." Louis B. SmedesI like that quote! [/quote] I read an interesting quote the other day. Supposedly it is an African proverb: He who forgives ends the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 14:46:25 GMT -5
This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. How can there be fellowship if the spirit leads men and women to disagree? Are you saying what we consider one fellowship is actually two separate, diverse fellowships in the United States? I cannot accept that, since I have been privileged to live on both sides (only briefly on the east in the mid-70's), and presently have a daughter and son-in-law living on the east side. I find the rank and file friends the same. So to me it is pretty obvious that at the overseer-leadership level some are led by the spirit and others must be led by something else. But as others have already mentioned, all through history God's people have been led by carnal men -- in fact in one passage they are described as the "basest of men". Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. So am I in error to think that I shouldn't expect much from anyone in a leadership position? I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. I did not say that the Spirit would lead men and women to disagree. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. I'm just commenting that we shouldn't expect the leadership to be in agreement at all times. The fault lies in not conceding that the human or base component has invaded the process. The Spirit would lift us up above that base aspect; we cannot do this ourselves. The Spirit can only do that if we admit ourselves as base, and also if we see ourselves as having limited what the Spirit can do. In the case of the D&R issue what might prevent agreement is the thought that one's side is in true and complete possession of the Spirit. When what would bring agreement is repenting and sitting in sackcloth and ashes. What I would be looking for in any spiritual leadership is not uniformity of action between workers, or of consistency of action over the years. These are superficial aspects which are man-induced to give the appearance of the Spirit working. What I would look for in spiritual leadership is willingness to bend, to change, to yield, to adapt. To the knowledge of our own base nature and to the leading and guiding of the Spirit from our baser nature to goodness and truth. To Christ-centred principles as they would speak to men and women in our present day and age. I would look above all for movement and change in the apparent form of things. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 14:56:11 GMT -5
This is interesting, ronhall, and comes up quite a lot. How can the Spirit lead to contradiction in outcome? Personally, I believe that the Spirit is primarily a motivator .. to Light, Truth, the things that are honest and pure, and so on. But we're the ones that have to bring those ideals into reality in a dying and sinful world. And we're not very good at it. I personally have no problem with the idea that workers will have the wrong idea sometimes, but still be led by the Spirit. However, in the instance of D&R you describe, the two directions cannot both be in the Light. But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. The fault we have is to begin to think otherwise ... that somehow the ministry's judgements and our beliefs and practices are not themselves corruptible. This fault if not checked could be catastrophic; it leads to trust in man not in God. Oh. What. This is not a great example of your typically excellent reasoning ability. Jn 16:13 ...the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. Haydock commentaryVer. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth. For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. (Witham) --- If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth? I hope my post to Ron clarifies my feeling on this. As much as the Spirit leads us to all truth, we ourselves will continue to prevent and inhibit its workings. And so it's good to examine ourselves, and if we don't then we're bound to fail all the more. I think you would agree now that I've expanded that a little. But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement. If he means the body of all true believers, then certainly "the Church" has erred. How else could there be fundamentally contradictory points of view? If he means the RCC, well I don't hold to the infallibility of that Church's record in establishing doctrine as I'm sure you must. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2010 15:06:26 GMT -5
I too wonder how real the alleged east/west divide is. I wonder if it's turned into a tilted windmill Don Quixote would be proud of. I've been on both coasts and a few places in between and haven't noticed these alleged Rocky Mountains. I don't believe the Spirit leads people to disagree, I believe that carnal reasoning does. The key is being able to seperate what's carnal from what's of the Spirit. Paul wasn't 100% Spirit, he had a carnal thorn in his side, and even though Paul asked God didn't remove it. I don't think we are much different. We worship in Spirit and in truth, fellowship is simply sharing the fruits of that Spirit focused (not carnally focused) worship. As long as the powers that be, put any kind of stress on the outward appearance of the membership, i.e. someone needing to have their hair up in a bun, and skirts below the knee before baptism and then partaking of the bread and wine....the fellowship is STILL CARNAL! Feeding only on the milk of the word...that is my firmist conviction! It's the kooky side of the fellowship in some cases. How do you get around some people thinking that "hair up in a bun" is so important? We've recently been visiting with a person from a foreign country who has some very strange ways of interpreting our culture. She is using her culture as a background to interpret what she sees around her. How do you cultivate that graciousness of spirit that allows us to see the world without judging everyone and everything. That's the only way to reach out and communicate the Christ, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 16:03:07 GMT -5
You and Scott are exactly right Julie. Instead of our church reacting this way: "Stop broad brush bashing us." We should be reacting this way: "Bash us all you like.....you deserve it and so do we." It's the Jesus Way to be willing to carry the load of sin. Christians who do so, repent from their own errors, and turn the other cheek will always be better for it. Depends what and who the criticism is about, especially when it's in a letter disclosing CSA on a site that's supposed to be about CSA. When a CSA disclosure letter wanders off into a large percentage of counter advocacy colored paint broad brushed on with common catch phrases like "workers don't pay tax", "cult group", "salvation by Grace through faith is not taught among the group", etc. etc. it looks a little bit like CSA isn't the main reason for writing. When it looks like general and subjective criticism is the main reason there is high potential the reader might turn away. If the reader turns away the educational and positive change potential of the letter is lost. We were specifically discussing known CSA victims, but victims of other abuse would fit too. Personally, I think Sherie and other victims have earned the right to blow off steam at representatives of the fellowship. It doesn't matter if they use VOT catch words like "cult" etc, it's their choice, let them have at it. What's more important is our reaction, and it's ugly when we try to position ourselves as victims of our victims. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Jul 27, 2010 16:40:18 GMT -5
We currently have three threads running discussing CSA issues. The elephant has been sprayed with bright pink luminous lacquer.
But it is a seriously serious issue.
For many older folk the elephant was never there. It was impossible, incomprehensible to believe it could possibly exist.
There is a charming, endearing innocence to this that if we all had, such abominations would never have occurred.
But as Jess often points out we're vile creatures. Our innocence destroyed when Adam's fig leaf dropped off and revealed his shortcomings.
With each new revelation of CSA we react with shock and revulsion and are forced to contemplate the depravity of the human condition.
We also take on an uneasy consciousness of well, just how much of this stuff is there really out there. Speculation can run riot, innocent people, and faiths wrongly condemned and speculated on.
I agree with Jess again, that education is the key. Both for us and our kids, and for those contemplating entering a ministry or any calling where interaction with children occurs, but also to enable all involved to deal with incidences in the past yet to be brought into the light.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2010 16:57:30 GMT -5
I agree, education is very important and not only with regard to CSA. We need to become educated to learn that alcoholism is akin to a disease, that mental illness does not equate with evil, that remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravity, and that not all non-2x2s will be dispatched immediately to hell upon expiration.
Lots to learn beyond CSA.
|
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 17:27:41 GMT -5
But it will always be the case that Spirit-led men and women will disagree.Oh. What. This is not a great example of your typically excellent reasoning ability. Jn 16:13 ...the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. Haydock commentaryVer. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth. For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. (Witham) --- If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth? I hope my post to Ron clarifies my feeling on this. As much as the Spirit leads us to all truth, we ourselves will continue to prevent and inhibit its workings. And so it's good to examine ourselves, and if we don't then we're bound to fail all the more. I think you would agree now that I've expanded that a little. But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement. If he means the body of all true believers, then certainly "the Church" has erred. How else could there be fundamentally contradictory points of view? If he means the RCC, well I don't hold to the infallibility of that Church's record in establishing doctrine as I'm sure you must. Agree that you have expanded it. To ronhall you wrote: I just said that Spirit-led men and women will disagree. That is the misnomer. I (now) believe you are saying that men and women who are desirous of being led by the Holy Spirit will eventually be so led and will come to agreement. If both truly submit to the Spirit then of course they will, in time, agree. The question that remains is, how much time is an acceptable amount of time? If truly led by the Spirit, why has the church of the 2x2 not been able to come to doctrinal agreement on the very important issue of D&R (for instance). It has been quite a long time. When should it be said it is indicative that they are not led by the Spirit? But on the quote of Witham I cannot agree. I am not sure what is meant by "the Church" in his statement.Jesus said he would build a church. He said that the Holy Spirit would protect it from teaching error. We read that that church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Somewhere...that church exists. And that is the church to which Witham refers. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2010 17:31:19 GMT -5
As long as the powers that be, put any kind of stress on the outward appearance of the membership, i.e. someone needing to have their hair up in a bun, and skirts below the knee before baptism and then partaking of the bread and wine....the fellowship is STILL CARNAL! Feeding only on the milk of the word...that is my firmist conviction! Which meaning of "carnal" are you using? |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 17:36:50 GMT -5
I agree, education is very important and not only with regard to CSA. We need to become educated to learn that alcoholism is akin to a disease, that mental illness does not equate with evil, that remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravity, and that not all non-2x2s will be dispatched immediately to hell upon expiration. Lots to learn beyond CSA. Clearday, are your beliefs in doctrinal agreement with your church on these matters? It may be one thing for you to believe them (in opposition to Scripture and God's natural law), but to sanction them for others--suggesting it's merely a matter of not being educated about them is pretty weighty. You tend to have outstanding insight into so many matters of importance. Your stance on these two issues directly affecting family and morals abolutely blows me away. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 27, 2010 17:48:55 GMT -5
I agree, education is very important and not only with regard to CSA. We need to become educated to learn that alcoholism is akin to a disease, that mental illness does not equate with evil, that remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravity, and that not all non-2x2s will be dispatched immediately to hell upon expiration. Lots to learn beyond CSA. Clearday, are your beliefs in doctrinal agreement with your church on these matters? It may be one thing for you to believe them (in opposition to Scripture and God's natural law), but to sanction them for others--suggesting it's merely a matter of not being educated about them is pretty weighty. You tend to have outstanding insight into so many matters of importance. Your stance on these two moral issues abolutely blows me away. Only because (in the eyes of some) you need to be educated to the gospel message of Christ. There are some of us that see your views the same as we see the views of 'hardcore 2x2's'. You are simply giving the views of your relationship with your church, and not from the personal relationship with Christ. I have studied on these issues and do NOT equate remarriage with adultery, nor do I feel that homosexuality equates with depravity. These are my PERSONAL convictions which I have based on the leading of the Holy Spirit and my understanding of the message Jesus gave us. There is no need to quote verses or get into a discussion about those issues, I am simply trying to make an observation as to how I (personally) view some poster's views here. Scott  |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2010 17:54:09 GMT -5
Depends what and who the criticism is about, especially when it's in a letter disclosing CSA on a site that's supposed to be about CSA. When a CSA disclosure letter wanders off into a large percentage of counter advocacy colored paint broad brushed on with common catch phrases like "workers don't pay tax", "cult group", "salvation by Grace through faith is not taught among the group", etc. etc. it looks a little bit like CSA isn't the main reason for writing. When it looks like general and subjective criticism is the main reason there is high potential the reader might turn away. If the reader turns away the educational and positive change potential of the letter is lost. We were specifically discussing known CSA victims, but victims of other abuse would fit too. Personally, I think Sherie and other victims have earned the right to blow off steam at representatives of the fellowship. It doesn't matter if they use VOT catch words like "cult" etc, it's their choice, let them have at it. What's more important is our reaction, and it's ugly when we try to position ourselves as victims of our victims. I don't have any CSA victims, when someone pretends I do I am a victim. And of course CSA victims have the right to choose to write a CSA letter however they want but they can't choose the consequences when they broad brush an ambiguous collective. Remember collective guilt is a fallacy. Much more logical and rational to deal with the specific individuals involved. Why broad brush and risk offending those that didn't wrong you?? If you don't do that you will have the them on your side. Would that be preferrable? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 27, 2010 18:01:30 GMT -5
Depends what and who the criticism is about, especially when it's in a letter disclosing CSA on a site that's supposed to be about CSA. When a CSA disclosure letter wanders off into a large percentage of counter advocacy colored paint broad brushed on with common catch phrases like "workers don't pay tax", "cult group", "salvation by Grace through faith is not taught among the group", etc. etc. it looks a little bit like CSA isn't the main reason for writing. When it looks like general and subjective criticism is the main reason there is high potential the reader might turn away. If the reader turns away the educational and positive change potential of the letter is lost. We were specifically discussing known CSA victims, but victims of other abuse would fit too. Personally, I think Sherie and other victims have earned the right to blow off steam at representatives of the fellowship. It doesn't matter if they use VOT catch words like "cult" etc, it's their choice, let them have at it. What's more important is our reaction, and it's ugly when we try to position ourselves as victims of our victims. Jesse isn't the only one to give WINGS a hard time about the letters that are posted there. Many people in the truth fellowship see the letters as more of a tirade against the church rather than the personal story of abuse. As always, I point out that these are the experiences and emotions of the ones abused, and when it comes at the hands of a worker then it is pretty natural to get out the brush and paint other workers with it and to see all the warts and boils of the church and want to point them out as well. If a person has been abused, and other workers have covered it up and minimized that abuse then nope..... you aren't going to have a very high regard or much respect for the workers in general now are you? I have seen some of the overseers lose a whole lotta respect and trust because of how they have handled abuse situations. I have also seen some of the overseers GAIN a whole lot of respect and trust for how they handled these issues also. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who wrote those letters could also write about really good memories they had about conventions and gospel meetings and special professing folks that were in their lives. However, it is pretty much human nature that when you've taken a beating from a group you aren't going to talk about their good points when you get the chance to vent. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 27, 2010 18:15:23 GMT -5
We need to become educated to learn that... remarriage is not adultery, that homosexuality is not depravityClearday, are your beliefs in doctrinal agreement with your church on these matters? It may be one thing for you to believe them (in opposition to Scripture and God's natural law), but to sanction them for others--suggesting it's merely a matter of not being educated about them is pretty weighty. You tend to have outstanding insight into so many matters of importance. Your stance on these two moral issues abolutely blows me away. Only because (in the eyes of some) you need to be educated to the gospel message of Christ. There are some of us that see your views the same as we see the views of 'hardcore 2x2's'. You are simply giving the views of your relationship with your church, and not from the personal relationship with Christ. I have studied on these issues and do NOT equate remarriage with adultery, nor do I feel that homosexuality equates with depravity. These are my PERSONAL convictions which I have based on the leading of the Holy Spirit and my understanding of the message Jesus gave us. There is no need to quote verses or get into a discussion about those issues, I am simply trying to make an observation as to how I (personally) view some poster's views here. Scott
There is no need to quote verses At least you express that it is your opinion... Even if it contradicts God's natural law, Sctipture, OT & NT, and the recorded verses of what Jesus said. If your view differs from that of others, how do you determine which view is Holy Spirit led, as the Holy Spirit will teach only truth. 'hardcore 2x2's'Is this group in doctrinal unity with the softcore 2x2s? Apparently not? |
|
Prayers for all who have requested prayer, or for whom prayer has been requested.
