|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 29, 2010 16:55:42 GMT -5
Rat, I don't mind being questioned...but you, sir, pick it apart word by word! As with any great construction, the foundation is very important. The details as it were. Many wish to build an argument founded on premises that they cannot support but upon which they still construct their conclusion. Applying private definitions is another way to present a premise that most people would not support if they question the meaning used. In a face to face conversation there are many clues for additional information. On this message board there are only the words used. For example, when I asked you which definition of "vindicated" you were using in an attempt to determine exactly what you meant you were piqued. On the other hand I also expect people to challenge errors/ambiguities in my posts. But then - if no one is reading...! Not reading is always an option. Using the ignore button is an option as well. Seems if most people ignore your lengthy questioning, RAt, why bother? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 30, 2010 1:46:01 GMT -5
As with any great construction, the foundation is very important. The details as it were. Many wish to build an argument founded on premises that they cannot support but upon which they still construct their conclusion. Applying private definitions is another way to present a premise that most people would not support if they question the meaning used. In a face to face conversation there are many clues for additional information. On this message board there are only the words used. For example, when I asked you which definition of "vindicated" you were using in an attempt to determine exactly what you meant you were piqued. On the other hand I also expect people to challenge errors/ambiguities in my posts. But then - if no one is reading...! Not reading is always an option. Using the ignore button is an option as well. Seems if most people ignore your lengthy questioning, RAt, why bother? Who knows - maybe there is still a single reader! Maybe they are just waiting for you to finish chastising me for asking you questions so you can take time to explain what you meant by rightful dues that you claim are due to victims. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 30, 2010 20:53:16 GMT -5
still reading! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 31, 2010 7:28:59 GMT -5
Emy, I think you'll remember about the scriptures that brought about the "cities of refuge"....the family of someone murdered or gravely hurt could seek revenge, but God made it possible for the offender to flee to a city of refuge....but in the long run, He actually was "imprisoning" those offenders....they could not remove themselves from those cities of refuge until the present presiding Chief priest passed away....so that would be like an imprisoning someone because in those days the Jews pretty well felt free to travel all around the Jewish country because hospitality was every direction they'd go from their brethren. Wouldn't be a very hospitable refuge, IMO The offended got a sense of their just dues in that, wouldn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 31, 2010 14:09:22 GMT -5
Emy, I think you'll remember about the scriptures that brought about the "cities of refuge"....the family of someone murdered or gravely hurt could seek revenge, but God made it possible for the offender to flee to a city of refuge....but in the long run, He actually was "imprisoning" those offenders....they could not remove themselves from those cities of refuge until the present presiding Chief priest passed away....so that would be like an imprisoning someone because in those days the Jews pretty well felt free to travel all around the Jewish country because hospitality was every direction they'd go from their brethren. Wouldn't be a very hospitable refuge, IMO The offended got a sense of their just dues in that, wouldn't they? This seems like a bit of a tangent, but here goes. The cities were still cities of REFUGE intended to protect the offender from those who would take justified vengeance upon him. Is it this protection (jail, banishment) that makes a CSA victim feel vindicated? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 13, 2010 10:05:52 GMT -5
This seems like a bit of a tangent, but here goes. Seems?!? Still no explanation of what Sharon meant by rightful dues that she claims are due to victims. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 13, 2010 19:03:12 GMT -5
Do hysterical statements have an explanation?
|
|
|
|
Post by re Berts remarks on Dec 20, 2010 6:23:50 GMT -5
Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity
|
|
|
|
Post by Re Bert on Dec 20, 2010 6:31:55 GMT -5
Bert may be very vocal but he is held in very low regard amongst my fellow workers. He is the last kind of person that God's only truth needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Dec 20, 2010 10:20:10 GMT -5
Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity While that information would of course be of interest to many readers here, we try to respect the confidentiality of the posters that wish to remain anonymous. Of course you could email me with the information just to satisfy my curiosity! ;D just kidding....Scott  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 10:44:12 GMT -5
Bert publishes his name here. It's "Bert !"
|
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Dec 20, 2010 20:44:10 GMT -5
Are you a NSW worker Re Bert?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Blow on Dec 22, 2010 7:30:06 GMT -5
Yes do it. Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2010 8:18:16 GMT -5
Yes do it. Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity I suggest that if you have any doubts whatsoever about posting Bert's true identity, then you should PM me with the information. I can assure you that I will not disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone......... That way we can keep it a closely guarded secret. In fact we can found, no we can find, a sect around his secret identity. We can call it the Secret Sect ? Looking forward to your PM. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Blow on Dec 22, 2010 10:02:45 GMT -5
As you can see I am not registered so a PM is out. But still, was it not you who posted the name Roger Tishing (spelling) some time back on the TMB? So is it Roger or not? I suggest that if you have any doubts whatsoever about posting Bert's true identity, then you should PM me with the information. I can assure you that I will not disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone who does not promise to disclose his identity to anyone......... That way we can keep it a closely guarded secret. In fact we can found, no we can find, a sect around his secret identity. We can call it the Secret Sect ? Looking forward to your PM. |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 27, 2011 8:03:39 GMT -5
Why was it acceptable for William Carroll and his wife to preach in the early days of the Australian church? Sending out single celibate preachers is to deny the fact that homosapiens are programmmed to procreate & is therefore the fundamental problem behind the heinous crime of paedophilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by chocolatte on May 29, 2011 2:08:22 GMT -5
Joanna, can't tell you why it was acceptable for W. Carroll to be a married preacher in the early days.
However the flip side to the last part of your statement would be to suggest that married human preachers would mean a vast reduction in paedophilia.
Sadly, it probably would make little difference. The media has shown us many many cases of married men convicted of this crime.
One man I personally know, convicted by the courts of CSA, commited the ugly crimes whilst a worker and continued his disgusting ways as a married man.
|
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69 
|
Post by cooee on May 29, 2011 4:24:52 GMT -5
joanna,
I don't have the answer to your question, but additional questions could be raised about Bill Carroll's life style.
Why, when he was still actively the overseer, was he living full time in his own house at Rosebud? why did he have a car at his personal disposal full time? why did he have a fishing boat and a pet dog?
There was always another brother worker living at the house with him. There was always two sister workers living at the house full time with Bill and the other brother, presumably to keep house, cooking, washing, ironing and cleaning.
The overseers job must have been a cinch in those early days!
Each year there would be 4 workers not in engaged in mission work.
Perhaps it was the case then as it is now, "don't do what I do, do what I say".
|
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on May 29, 2011 15:38:32 GMT -5
joanna, I don't have the answer to your question, but additional questions could be raised about Bill Carroll's life style. Why, when he was still actively the overseer, was he living full time in his own house at Rosebud? why did he have a car at his personal disposal full time? why did he have a fishing boat and a pet dog? There was always another brother worker living at the house with him. There was always two sister workers living at the house full time with Bill and the other brother, presumably to keep house, cooking, washing, ironing and cleaning. The overseers job must have been a cinch in those early days! Each year there would be 4 workers not in engaged in mission work. Perhaps it was the case then as it is now, "don't do what I do, do what I say". Perhaps BC's lifestyle and situation would be a good example for future ministerial practices for the F&W. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 29, 2011 17:02:42 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Rosebud was owned by Bill's daughter and SIL. Perhaps the car and boat were also owned by them? Can you provide the address at Rosebud so someone can look it up and see who the owner really was? I have heard that BC had diabetes - the photo of him in the Secret Sect showed him in a wheelchair. So I'm not sure how "active" he was. I've heard of many workers refusing to relinquish their position to someone more physically capable; and its probably difficult for the workers under him to oust their overseer and take over. joanna, I don't have the answer to your question, but additional questions could be raised about Bill Carroll's life style. Why, when he was still actively the overseer, was he living full time in his own house at Rosebud? why did he have a car at his personal disposal full time? why did he have a fishing boat and a pet dog? There was always another brother worker living at the house with him. There was always two sister workers living at the house full time with Bill and the other brother, presumably to keep house, cooking, washing, ironing and cleaning. The overseers job must have been a cinch in those early days! Each year there would be 4 workers not in engaged in mission work. Perhaps it was the case then as it is now, "don't do what I do, do what I say". |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 30, 2011 0:51:17 GMT -5
Thank you for your responses. I am also aware there appeared to be a different standard applied to Mr Carroll than to the other preachers at that time, including the supply of women to assist with household chores.
Certainly paedophiliacs can be people in heterosexual relationships however the sexual frustration associated with the celibate lifestyles of church ministers/priests has been implicated. If sending out married couples to preach was good enough for the early days of this church then why can it not be re-introduced? Surely a person with the tendency to abuse children would be curtailed if they were in a married relationship.
Paedophilia is documented as being complex disorder but there is a link between low self-esteem & poor social skills, thus paedophiliacs find the company of children less threatening.
"A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile; however, there may be other motivations for the crime (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner)" Ref. Cutler & Howells.
|
|
|
|
Post by We Know on Jun 3, 2011 9:19:20 GMT -5
Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity The Paroo guy |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 4, 2011 6:24:11 GMT -5
Would anyone like me to publish Bert's name? I know his identity The Paroo guy " On the outer Paroo where workers are few, and men of religion are scanty........." .....apologies to A B Paterson  |
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by cooee on Jun 5, 2011 3:20:31 GMT -5
Cherie,
I don't know the address of the Rosebud house. The number of people who would know is dwindling. It was a lot of years ago now.
The ownership the house, the fishing boat and the car is somewhat academic as far as I am concerned. The fact is that Bill Carroll had unfettered access to those things for about a decade.
My point is that Mr. Carroll experienced "the poor and homeless preacher" life in a vastly different manner to the rest of his staff. Vastly different also from most, if not every other, overseer and every other worker.
Mr. Carroll's lifestyle made a mockery of "the poor and homeless preacher" line.
|
|
jay
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by jay on Jun 6, 2011 3:42:08 GMT -5
Cooee
I knew Bill Carroll and had the great privilege of staying at the Rosebud address for a number of weeks one January while he was on Convention rounds.
I have the utmost respect for him and of the Word of God that he zealously preached.
The house and boat and car did belong to his Son in law and daughter and there is no reason to condemn or judge a person who has access to these things.
Even today there are many workers that are being cared for in homes of those that would call it a privilege to help a person in need and even quote "unfettered" use of home and car.
It was once said that God in all his wisdom will not judge men till the end of time : Why should we:
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
I have looked on Google Earth to try and locate the home as I remember it but to no avail, perhaps it has been sold for re delevopment, this I cannot confirm now.
|
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Jun 6, 2011 7:24:54 GMT -5
Was the name of the Rosebud property Greenhaven?
The issues raised here only become a problem when we judge them by our human standards, in this case a doctrine that those who preach can only effectively do so when divested of wife (or husband) and essentially all earthly goods including the pet dog. Where is the scripture that makes these things essentials for God's blessing on one's ministry?
I am aware that Mr & Mrs Bill Carroll with their little daughter May, suffered greatly as a homeless family serving Christ and preaching the gospel.
Can a person's ministry be effective and blessed if they have a wife or husband? What does scripture say on this? Must all preachers have no earthly possessions? The scripture?
Do we not constrain God by such humanly imposed rules?
Perhaps God chooses and uses some married and some unmarried. And what if some who preach also enjoy some of the good things in life that God has given for enjoyment? Quelle horreur, say all the puritans!
Perhaps Mr Carroll thanked and praised God for sparing his family in those tough early years, while out catching a fish.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2011 7:56:28 GMT -5
landdownunder wrote:
landdownunder: I do not doubt your statement above, as I know that many of the early workers suffered, and I have read accounts telling about their suffering. I respectfully ask you this question: Could you share more details about what the Carroll's suffered?
I have discussed sufferings of early workers in Chapter 8 of my book:
HOW WELL DID WM. IRVINE'S METHOD WORK?
In the early days, some workers pioneering countries where there were no friends to help support them suffered terrible hardships. According to various accounts, it was not uncommon at all for the workers to lack the bare necessities. They were often hungry, wet, cold and often slept outdoors in all kinds of weather. Hymns written by Edward Cooney in the Go-Preacher's Hymn Book mention workers being hungry three times. Some were frostbit, suffered malnutrition, had mental breakdowns, illness, early deaths or retained lasting handicaps from being unable to afford urgently needed medical or dental help. Harry Cross died in 1908 from a spider bite received when sleeping overnight in a barn in Washington. Eldon Tenniswood wrote in his account titled "Early Days in Michigan:"
"Charlie and Jack weren't home when Dad arrived, but he found their little bach. He looked around the place and there was nothing to eat...Mother and Dad often told us about the reproach that the workers suffered, and often with very little to eat and the only transportation they had was to walk. Usually, when they reached our home, they were dead tired from long walks."
They often went hungry. Fannie Carroll went into the work in 1904 and wrote of her pioneering experiences: "...we were tested sore. We had nothing to eat. We went out one afternoon to visit, though we weren't able for it. We were weak but it didn't bother us..."
"Around 1904-05, John Hardy and another worker went to Australia. They lived in a tent where they used one half of the tent for their living quarters and the other half for meetings. One day a big storm came and totally ripped their tent to shreds. They then spread newspapers on the ground and slept on them. One day the elder worker woke to find his companion gone with all their money. He never knew where his companion went. Alone in a strange place, he decided to keep spreading the gospel. A man from another city came to listen...The man paid his train fare and asked him to come on the following Friday. So on Friday, the worker arrived. They had quite a gathering waiting, and they had a meal prepared for his arrival. Sitting down to eat, the first time in a long time, John was ravenous. He was able to maintain good manners, and take appropriate portions of food even though he was starving--until dessert. When he was passed the apple pie, he couldn't keep composed anymore and proceeded to eat the whole pie. The children around the table watched in awe and in despair as they saw him devour the whole pie!" (The First Two Workers to go to Australia)
In Elizabeth Jamieson's Reminisces, she mentions once receiving a letter from Willie, her brother in the work. He and Walter Slater were at Pismo Beach, "a grand training ground for preachers," he wrote..."we're living on bread and water." Elizabeth said, "We paid 25 cents a night for a room, and lived on bread and canned milk. I was young and always hungry! Once...we found an apple a child had bitten into. We cut out the bitten part and divided it, and that was our supper....If we'd had seen ahead, it would have been easier to tramp through snow and over muddy roads."
Alfred Magowan wrote: "I recall one occasion when our audience went home and left us to shift for ourselves with empty bellies under the stars. John remarks, 'I think they take us for angels.' When I seemed puzzled, he explained, 'They give us credit for having wings, but no stomachs.' There was always the sky, if others roofs failed." (Alfred Magowan, The Secret Sect by Doug & Helen Parker, page 33)
"Tramp preachers did everything but sweat blood in the days of their going forth in strange lands, and without visible means of support. They knew what it was to live on raw turnips in Scotland, and on oranges in California. They also knew what it was to go for days without anything to eat; and I can speak with authority about it, seeing that I was one of them. We slept under the stars, in schools and churches and halls and empty store buildings--with neither bed nor bed covering. We tramped through snow from morning to night in more than 40 degrees of frost. And, speaking for myself, I know what it is to have my tramp-preaching companion rub the frost out of a frost-bitten ear with snow." (Testimony of a Witness for the Defence by Alfred Magowan)
The Secret Sect reports that a sister worker in Canada lost her fingers as a result of a severe frostbite suffered because she removed her gloves to untangle her horse's harness when the temperature was well below freezing.
In Australia: "Sam (Jones), not a strong person, often suffered from ill health, and at this time, after spending several nights sleeping in the open in a dry river bed with no comforts, fell ill and may well have perished had he not been found by some gypsies who nursed him back to health." (The Bethel Mission)
ARTHUR MCCOY was described as well educated and intelligent. He was from South Australia and he went in the work in1914. From 1914 to 1921, he labored in Tasmania under Adam Hutchison. In 1922, he went to New South Wales (NSW) and was under John Hardie. In1927, he returned to labor in his home state of South Australia (S.A.) and was under Willie Hughes until 1939, when he left both the work and the church.
Arthur McCoy did much to make the Australian friends and workers aware of the pitiful, deplorable conditions the workers were labouring under in Australia. After some terrible experiences, Arthur didn’t believe the Matthew 10 concept “worked,” and didn’t believe that Jesus ever intended for future preachers to follow the Matthew 10 method forever. His conclusion was based on his personal experiences when the Matthew 10 concept had not “worked” for him or many other junior workers. He wound up in the hospital starving and with serious health issues which afflicted him for the rest of his life.
Arthur believed that it was largely due to the unnecessary hardships and poverty he suffered while in the work in northern New South Wales under John Hardie’s oversight, that his health had broken down which resulted in his hip being crippled permanently. After his hip injury, he was unable to ride a bicycle, and he and his companion travelled on a Harley Davidsonmotorcycle with a sidecar furnished by his brother Keith (See photograph).
Arthur explained that the commands of Matthew 10 were given against the background of Jewish social customs at the time of Christ. He said that the law, customs and traditions of Israel provided for the needs of messengers and prophets who were to go empty handed and were to be treated as guests of the people...no such assurance was the lot of modern preachers who followed Wm Irvine's idea that Matthew 10 should be followed literally in the centuries that followed. It was Arthur’s opinion that the overseers were not competent to interpret the scriptures.
Arthur wrote that “No properly organized and effective attempt was made to stop short, overhaul and examine fully the whole matter and the reason for the views held and laid down by the one who started this ‘way’ in 1900 and by the group of early leaders following him, including John Hardie, J. and W. Carroll, G. Walker, Sam Lang, W. Gill, E. Cooney...”
"Preachers were forbidden to carry a change of clothes so Adam Hutchison got round the difficulty of having only one pair of trousers by his ingenious method of having a double seat; he sewed on an extra piece of cloth so that when it wore through from the continuous cycling he was able to take it off and sew on another patch. So strict was he that during a cycling trip of 160 miles in northwestern Tasmania, we did not spend a penny for refreshments, then to be had for sixpence--we got water from creeks and roadside tanks". For three years in Tasmania, he and his "companions lived in poorest rough huts and were often wet with no possibility of changing clothes."
"I would go about a whole year without buying a cup of tea or a meal by the roadside and by managing frugally avoided that expense which seemed somewhat indulgent. Others and I felt impelled by the current teaching and admonition not to accept more than 'a couple of pounds' as the total amount when we set off once more about the year's work. We were so short for two years that most of the time we lived on about three shillings and sixpence a week for both of us for food. In an old bucket we found we made thin apple jam from windfall apples and a little sugar, and we were so thin that our clothes hung on us. Weeks behind with rent for our empty cottage we cut twenty-two tons of boiler wood at three shillings and sixpence a ton, and packed loads of blue-gum leaves into containers for a friendly old Congregational church man who ran a eucalyptus distillery.
continued below...
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2011 7:56:46 GMT -5
continued from above... At that time, John Hardie was the Elder or Overseer of New South Wales (NSW). “John's practice was, just after each convention, to ask each worker in turn, ‘How much have you got?’ and hold out his hand for it, acting as controller (i.e. John Hardie). We saw and had part in his doing this after the 1923 convention, handing each worker back two pounds and in some cases also a train or coach fare to go to his or her new field.” “Because we were reduced to severe straits there, we repaired and erected an old windmill to help pay our way, mended cartwheels, and dried our one set of wet clothes as best we might…When our rent was six shillings a week we worked as builders' labourers, but when they heard that McMurray, Helms and I worked to earn a little during missions, Edward Cooney and Adam Hutchison found fault. Edward Cooney said it was a 'travesty of Matthew 10', and Adam asked me not to go to work again. I replied that Paul worked in necessity, and wrote of it, but Adam made no reply to this." "At the end of 1922...I cycled 109 miles up to Glen Innes and took the opportunity of finding Jim Gordon, whom I met briefly. He noticed my boots, worn into holes, and even wanted to buy me a new pair. I declined this kind offer, not seeing the fairness of it. "We went on to Bellingen, Repton and Uranga on the Bellinger River. We found an old empty cottage near the river; our water supply was from part of an iron tank which contained a foot of water, and there were mosquitoes in swarms so we bought a quarter yard of mosquito netting to make two face covers; otherwise rest was impossible. Fleas were on the floor by our two rugs like Caesar's legions so Harry and I poured hot water on them but more came up out of the cracks. A dentist in Bellingen told me he would charge ten shillings to fix up a damaged tooth which cost was beyond us-so I filed it off with a small file and had to leave it. An abscess came later. The journey to Dumaresq on the tablelands where we were due to prepare for the convention was about 210 miles, so we cycled off again northwards…I felt pain in the right leg, and after a little work decided to visit the Armidale doctor, Dr. Austin who examined me. He required me to go into hospital at once and that evening he opened the leg from hip to knee to the bone. Other operations followed, eight in all, which finally made the hip rigid. Arthur was unable to put out of his mind the indifference shown by his Overseers to the shocking living conditions and medical needs of junior workers who had and still were suffering needless poverty and health challenges. At several conventions, Arthur urged the Overseers John Hardie and Willie Hughes to review the policy of sending men and women out to preach under conditions that seemed to him to be contrary to the mind of Christ. Arthur wrote: “In any case the set of commandments given to the apostles at first should not have been taken out of its proper time and situation…This 'way', as it was popularly called, can be seen to be in effect a parody, a travesty, a clumsy and poor imitation of the work into which Christ Jesus called the twelve apostles. It should be admitted honestly that many suffered needlessly for not discerning the true time, situation, circumstances and reasons for the set of instructions Christ gave to the apostles.” In 1939 when he was about 50 years old, Arthur said, "After I protested to the overseer face to face, I left the fellowship and preached no more. I regret at least some of my own venture and have the crippled hip as a result of it.'' Arthur's mother, brother and sister also left the church when Arthur did. From that time on until his death in the 1970’s, he openly criticized the method used by the church in handling funds and the workers’ method of following Matthew 10. Some time after he left the work, Arthur married. It is not known whether or not Arthur’s pleas to Overseers on behalf of other young workers fell on deaf ears...hopefully, his outcry to this great injustice made a difference and the workers reviewed their methods and made changes to alleviate the needless suffering. God respects those who take up for the oppressed. Regardless his good intentions to alleviate suffering on behalf of others, Arthur was considered by many of his fellow friends and co-workers to be bitter, obsessed, eccentric and fanatical. His reputation was maligned, he bore much reproach, as he valiantly attempted to, “make his paths straight.” (Matt. 3:3) Some also suffered great mental anguish when they were physically unable to endure the standards of Matthew 10. Rarely was financial assistance provided for those who suffered hardship in the work, nor when sickness and urgent personal needs arose. Yes, their 2x2 method "worked" but how WELL did it work? When they went entirely on faith at first, it did not work very well, it would seem. Some reason that IF their experimental method was NOT according to God's will, then, it would not "work;" i.e. would either come to nothing; God would hinder its progress; no one would profess; their needs would not be met, etc. If the early workers were using this line of faulty reasoning, willing converts would have been viewed as "proof" to them that their 2x2 method "worked." Therefore, some likely concluded then, as some do today. that their 2x2 method must be God's Only True Way. Man's acceptance or rejection isn't and never has been a true gauge of what is right in God's eyes. Whether or not something appears to "work" or feels right is not a measure of God's favor or truth. Communism, slavery and satanism all "work." Also, if the workers needs being met or gaining converts proved that God endorsed Irvine's 2x2 method of ministry, then the converse would also be true: when their needs weren't met, and only a few accepted their message, it would prove that God wasn't necessarily behind Irvine's 2x2 method. It would also prove that preachers of other denominations found favor with God when their needs were met and people converted to Christianity through their invitation. Read more here: www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/08wmibook.php |
|
