Forreal, WTK, GM, TR May 31 2008, 8:24 PM
Calledout asks:
"Why don't you get serious instead of joking about changing the things? calledoutPTL"

I decided to start a new thread with this topic. Any H is welcome to share your thoughts. I will not speak for others, just myself.
For the most part I have decided to keep my mouth zipped as far as response on this forum, however some topics do deeply intrigue me and this is a topic that I feel I should respond to, probably as much for my sake in hope of better understanding my thought process. I do think this is a very valid topic and should be considered.

1. If a change was instituted, who would dictate the level and type of change? Would we change to TR's way, WTK's, Zepcoh, Herbie, GM and heaven forbid, "shudder" Forreal's way?
2. Have you ever tried to change your spouse? Didn't work very well did it?
Let's say for instance your spouse has a real problem with alcohol, and you detest it. Do you think the habit will change just because you kindly ask your partner to do so? Nope! Won't happen! If you as a spouse want to see any results, there will need to be much patience and love, subtle gestures that make the spouse want to change. May work, but many times not feasible. Really the only thing we can change is our response and those things within our circle of control. We all know how hard it is to make a small change in our own personal lives, much harder yet on a society level I believe.
3. Majority of people within the H realm will need to desire change. The H church is a long way from that point at this time. There are many cradle H that love the status quo and have never even dreamed that the Emperor may not be fully clothed.
4. If a change is to be made, it will be made by consensus, not by a few random airheads with internet access that can type 60wpm with limited powers of persuasion. (Sorry my H friends, I'm talking to me)!
5. What we see and experience on this forum of some of the H frustration in my experience is not widely felt or experienced. What I say, or what GM, Herbie, Zepcoh, TR etc. is not necessarily the pulse of the H kingdom.
6. Now for my own personal excuse. Please let me show you my certified airhead credentials. I talk too much to be taken very seriously quite often.
The change if it comes will not come from people like me, it will be by steady, reliable, solid people, of which I can impersonate sporadically, but not for very long without some glitch in the programming.
7. Now for my own defense, I have worked quite hard for the last 15-20 years trying to change some small things about the H culture and I personally know the rocks and bumps associated with change. Some things I have managed to change at least temporarily, however with another wrinkle added to the face. It's tough, buddy, and the only way I can handle it is with some humor at times. A lot more can be said, but I'm running out of air at this time, even an airhead doesn't have a inexhaustible supply of air!
I wrote this article in good fun, but the gist of it is really how I feel.
I also will close with this comment, I do love the H people (my people) and my relationship with them is somewhat like the relationship I have with my wife, I don't appreciate everything she always does, (bless her heart) but I love her. I'm sorry for the mangled outline, I typed this very quickly with not a great lot of thought, (surprise, surprise) so please bear with my word play. H, come out from your hiding places and weigh in on this topic.
Forreal BUT NOT FOR LONG

Forreal, I have to tell you, I would think you have been doin good with your explaining lately, I absolutely loved the Southern Baptist post or was that GM's. Were I still H, I think I would be somewhere in the realms of where you are coming from. Unfortunately I got the bad side of a staff before I knew what happened and ended up in an unresolvable situation on the wrong side of the fence.
Many people have asked for years why we did not just leave and I think my thinking was a lot in line with the SB post thinking. I have been around enough to know there is not perfect church, just like there is no perfect way to school and it seems to me that by leaving and running away from problems, you often jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Besides there are just too many H that I consider to be good friends and loved ones. Only problem I kept running into was that if I talk about an H problem, H friends often take it personal and think I am directly talking to them, a point of communication that I have yet to learn. as to leaving there, I have to agree with Steve's post that leaving is not something that weak people do. At least not in my case. I have to say it is about the single most hardest thing I have done in my life. without a push, I doubt I would have had the courage on my own. I miss so many people, my children, loved ones, friends, those that have been a part of my life for nearly 40 yrs.
But I do not miss setting in that table back in the corner watching every one else have a good time together and being unable to share with other women, feeling like I was walking into church in a spot light, the constant questioning of "why don't you just come back?""Just give it all to God and he will bring you back.""Don't you want to be part of us?""Why do you have to be so stubborn?""You're just offended.""No, you can't go to sewing, you just might sit with someone at the table to eat.""It really doesn't matter that this is your last child in our school, you can't go on the field trip because you are expelled.""When you are where you are supposed to be, we will just know""Well no, if no one has anything to do with you, I guess they really don't know you, but they can't with you expelled, you know."

If I had all the answers to those questions, do you really think I would have chosen to stay out, while I kept my family there all these years?
But now I am in a place where I can truly talk about what God is doing in my life and I can ask questions without being thought sinful. I can tell about talking to the couple at Walmart that just adopted a baby and giving them a copy of Broken Child, Grown up Pain, and having the guy hug me and tell me that today I was supposed to be at Walmart and have his wife softly say," You know maybe you aren't giving me this book for my baby but for me because that is my background."
And they are praying for me that God will continue to use me this way and rejoicing in the God moments, And praying that God will send a way to keep funding the books for me(I have given away approx 30 in the past 2 yrs) not looking at me strangely cause I'm out here hugging strange men.


I don't agree with your assessment that only a few H want change because I know too many that do, but I think Until there is a real desire for true spiritual change and the courage to face the fear of change I don't see it happening soon.

Love and prayers, Locklady

Thanks, Forreal, and TR who took the time to answer. GM, thanks for answering, but still waiting for that e-mail.smile. calledoutPTL

Calledout, I didn't know you hadn't got it. I sent it again on a different email.

"If a change was instituted, who would dictate the level and type of change?"

Or, to rephrase, what needs to be changed and how do we go about doing it?

"I have worked quite hard for the last 15-20 years trying to change some small things about the H culture and I personally know the rocks and bumps associated with change."

Again, what were you attempting to change and how did you go about it?

This is LockLady:
"I don't agree with your assessment that only a few H want change because I know too many that do, but I think Until there is a real desire for true spiritual change and the courage to face the fear of change I don't see it happening soon."

I reinterate; what, why, and how?

Okay, I demand it of others, so here is the thing I would like to see changed.

Cookie Cutter Christians! Let's face it. I am different than you are. If you don't like it, that is your problem, not mine. All I ask is that you love me, respect me, and accept me the way I am. In turn, I will do the same for you. If you want rings in your nose or tattoos on your _______, that is fine by me. Hallelujah! You are not boring!
So, I want to see God's church do away with this determined effort to erradicate our differences by whatever force neccessary. Let us embrace our differences and give each other the confidence that we are each following the Lord's leading to the best of our understanding. Let's leave the judging to God. That is His job. Who knows, we may actually see a real revival rather than warmed over emotional effluent.

What I find interesting about this thread is that we talk of change among the H. Yet the real change needs to take place among the churches you folks go to. For example the H expel for scriptural reasons and the churches you attend don't. Yet you say we need change. That whats funny. The Bibles real clear in avoiding for false doctrine, Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Also not hearing the Church, Matt, 18.

>>The Bibles real clear in avoiding for false doctrine, Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.<<

You mean like the divisions and offences that Johnny Holdeman caused when he 'held his light above that of his brethren'? Or the doctrinal errors in Holdeman Christology and ecclesiology which place it outside orthodox Christian belief? Or, maybe, the divisions and offences between spouses and family members when one falls afoul of the Holdegod?

John Holdeman and his spiritual progeny have caused a whole lot of divisions and offences and embraced more bad theology in its short 150 year history than anyone truly knows.

There is a saying that goes,"tradition is the enemy of progress". Tradition isn't all bad but there is no salvation in tradition. The Amish have driven horse and buggy for 100+ years and stayed with the traditions of yesteryear but that does nothing for the soul that is searching for truth. The same goes for a lot of H traditions. John Holdeman instituted the conference rule from the get-go. That's our tradition. And therein lies the problem. Change at the local church would not be a major problem when that particular congregation could vote in or out any changes to be made. But when you have congregations en masse controlled by the ruling body and might I even say the legalists could many times even have the upper hand, then you have a problem. To compound that, the ruling body gives very little room for dissent from the lay members. Dialogue is controlled to such an extent that fear of 'church work' is a motivating factor for not speaking out.
Forreal said that change will be made by consensus. That is generally true but in this case consensus is only arrived at by the ruling body for the most part. When dialogue between the two parties is stifled then you may not be representing the wishes of the people.

GM: I think you hit that one right on the money.

<What I find interesting about this thread is that we talk of change among the H. Yet the real change needs to take place among the churches you folks go to. For example the H expel for scriptural reasons and the churches you attend don't. Yet you say we need change>
sorry to burst your bubble here friend. The church we are presently attending does and has expelled for scriptural reasons. if I could figure out how to do it, I would gladly post the church doctrines here. as for the H expelling for scriptural reasons I would have to tell you that a minimum of 50% of those exed here during the time I was H were not really given a scriptural reason to be expelled, In fact only one person in my immediate family was ever given a scriptural reason and the first time he was exed, the reasons were all based on lies the minister made up. I have yet in 12 yrs been given a scriptural reason for what happened to me and since the minister was benched for lying several times, I really have to wonder about some other situations.

Sometimes WTK I get the feeling that you should get down on your knees and thank God for your blessed wife, I get the feeling that she has put up with a lot.

Maybe it is just that I have finally learned to stick up for myself, but I have come to the conclusion that I do not care who they are and what their position, I do not have to be stomped on by domineering men that think that everyone is beneath them and must be kept in line by threats, coercion, and comments about how unspiritual you are because you do not follow my every word and bow to me.
I am learning that God has made me a very gifted person and that even in the abuse that I have been subjected to he has given me an ability to be used to help other hurting people. H condesencion and criticism has lost its power to take my peace with God away from me.
there are so many hurting people in this world and amongst the H that we could start a ministry today just trying to meet the need and never in a lifetime make it.
Was visiting with a minister that is somewhat nondenominational and is working amongst mennonites and amish and he made the comment that one of the biggest downfalls he sees in the culture is the keeping of secrets. The secrets kept of abuse, the denial of wrongs done, the denial of beliefs so as not to offend others............All those things contribute to a society that is unable to truly serve God because they are kept in a box that is made for them by their own peers.

Get rid of the secrets and the fear of man and I think you would soon see a whole different kind of Christian, Ones that are truly alive.

Love and prayers, Locklady

So what does christian life really consist of? To darken the door of the church every Sunday morning and be a bench-warmer and participate in social exchanges after the meeting and go home and have roast and potatoes and then glance over the paper and take a nap? There's nothing wrong with that but I wonder if that isn't the extent of some people's christian life. Jesus and the apostles were many times out of their comfort zone. It mattered not if Paul was in prison, all the more reason to praise God and continue His work. The work of the great commission can be facilitated right in our back yard. There are lonely, hurting people all around us. In our earlier married years(and even some now) we spent countless hours lending a listening ear to the down and out, the lonely and the confused and tried to comfort them and give them direction. Occasionally they were even the expelled. Recently we talked a lady out of committing suicide. Are we as clay in the potter's hand where He can use us to His good pleasure?

By Forreal,
>5. What we see and experience on this forum of some of the H frustration in my experience is not widely felt or experienced.<

On the surface, one may draw that conclusion. But try getting deep into the mind of a lot of H people and you will see a lot of frustration and confusion. That's the #1 problem, people are not free to expose and discuss their innermost thoughts and feelings for fear of what people(H) will think. We have to maintain the image that all is well and that we are staunch supporters of the H belief system whether right or wrong. I call that bondage.

Yet the real change needs to take place among the churches you folks go to

We, the church, go to a building and yeah it needs change. It's been there quite a few years from the looks of things and there are some items that need attention. It would look like a slum next to Homeland Church there in Montezuma.

Projector works good though.

OS: I believe we have visited via phone a few years ago. Remember? Don't know how to initiate this, do you have my email?

LL said, Sometimes WTK I get the feeling that you should get down on your knees and thank God for your blessed wife, I get the feeling that she has put up with a lot.


Actually I think you been on the forum long enough you also have learned to have a accusing spirit. Sad really how you folks can point out error in people. Yet, when someone points out your error you have to resort to saying mean things. I guess that just shows were you have ended up.

Do you really read the whole posts or just pick out what you want to?

Love and prayers, Locklady

Actually I think you been on the forum long enough you also have learned to have a accusing spirit. Said really how you folks can point out error in people. Yet, when someone points out your error you have to resort to saying mean things. I guess that just show were you have ended up.

Can't you feel the love shown to the poor lost sheep. This is a shining example of the "true scriptural" exing and shunning that draws the poor lost souls back to the "true scriptural church".

Peter doesnt it make you long to be back in the church? They are so concerned for your lost condition its overwhelming.

Dale, about as much as I long for my next root canal.

this one thing is bothering me, that is the thought that so many people are looking for something true and better. What are we really looking for? I do not believe for a minute that all those folks that are H are truly satisfied with their life and not looking for something more. Everywhere I go there are people that are looking for something. Even those that have the peace of God in their hearts are often wandering around looking for something special. It matters not what denomination, religion or whatever, there is a constant striving for something more of life, more of the spirit of God, more love, more of a realization of wholeness, more of a feeling of belonging, more feeling like they are whole, more satisfaction with the music, the sermons,............................
Some are trying to fill it with having perfect houses, farms, businesses, looks, clothes................
others are trying to fill it looking for the perfect church, the perfect fellowship, the place where they feel like they belong,
the feeling of being free............
I know too many H to believe that you are all truly satisfied with what you have, I have heard and seen too much. I really wonder what is happening, what are we looking for? Or is it that we are realising that here is not our final destination and there is just something missing here that cannot be found here on earth. I watch so many people go from place to place looking for a place of peace, What is the missing link that keeps us from recognising that Christ is the only link to God? and no I do not believe that finding the H church is the panacea to all that ails you, I know too many of you and know you are searching just as much as anyone else.

Love and prayers, Locklady

We can't speak for others, but for us we have an unsatisfied appetite for more and more of the things of God, more annointing, and more of the Holy Spirit. The more we have the more we want. When Jesus said, Go and do likewise"is what we want. Paul spoke of God's glory, that is what we want. And your right, no denomination, fellowship, things can take the place of this. calledoutPTL

>>Actually I think you been on the forum long enough you also have learned to have a accusing spirit. Said really how you folks can point out error in people. Yet, when someone points out your error you have to resort to saying mean things. I guess that just show were you have ended up.<<

Ding, ding, ding! The Spurit-o-meter just went off the charts. A new spurit has been discovered - a (sic) accusing spurit. WTK, what would we ever do without you?

But, on a more serious note, Peter and Dale raise some very good points: Do you consider your attitude towards LL to be one of 'true love' and concern for her soul? If that's what Holdeman love and concern look like, then I have once again confirmed (for oh, maybe the millionth time) that I did the right thing by not joining that freakshow.

Forreal; I do not recall. What was the context?
esb4762@neo.rr.com

I have noticed WTK diss Locklady in other threads. Apparently he is in need of some loving "church work."

>>I have noticed WTK diss Locklady in other threads. Apparently he is in need of some loving "church work."<<

He disses me,too,OS,and I'm even a "sista in da faith"! I think he has a problem with women being out of their places,maybe? Even,gasp!,voicing an opinion instead of keeping silence!



>>What I find interesting about this thread is that we talk of change among the H. Yet the real change needs to take place among the churches you folks go to. For example the H expel for scriptural reasons and the churches you attend don't. Yet you say we need change. That whats funny. The Bibles real clear in avoiding for false doctrine, Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Also not hearing the Church, Matt, 18.<<

Whooboy. It looks like I'm gonna have to copy over last Sunday's lesson after all...it sounds like some people missed Sunday School that morning.

WTK wrote on 6-3-0942.-----didn't copy it for space priority.
Well now, I think I'd rather err on a church having too much forgiveness, love and mercy then being known for expelling for man-made dcotrines.---- Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.--- Very little expelling is done for scriptural reasons my friend WTK. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone hung around a person's neck then to offend a little one. An immature christian is a new born or little one.

Thank you WTK, you have given valid reasons again, that does away with the OTVC doctrine. Because no church can say they have it all put to-gether, they do everything right, or need of church. (Should be change instead of church.) That means the church of Christ is all the believers in all denominations because that is the only way the bride of Christ can be pure without spot or wrinkle. calledoutPTL

I haven't been keeping up very well, but went back and found my response in a different post concerning "changing the church".

I'm not sure I communicated this very well, but I don't see error in the basic foundation of the CGCM. Without seeing error in that particular area, then I would need something deeper than my personal whims and wishes for substance of "change".

In all honesty, I realize that there are congregations that would cause me some stress more so than where I live now. But what to do, since I moved to where I'm at now, and the congregations that I think are so concerned with "status quo" that it detracts from their effective witness of the love of God to the world about them hold no attraction for me to move there. That is the only real apparent thing to me that "needs change". But does it actually "need change"? I don't know. I think my b-i-l fits that bill to a perfect T myself, but I'm not making any determined attempts to change him. There are some good qualities in him that I can learn from, and I am more interested in that for now. He has been a reproof to me in some areas, and that's not all bad. I need that.

Cupcake, from your post I see you more of a sister on the fringes of the faith. So if I disk you, its only because your more one with the spirit of the forum than of the faith. As per rest of you and your accusations about my point to LL. I consider a joke coming from a group that obviously does not understand Gods grace. I was only making a honest evaluation of the facts. I meant no ill will. You folks only like to make accusing comments about the H. Yet, when your own faults are pointed out you have to turn to a spirit of accusation in order to win your argument. So carry on.

>>the spirit of the forum<<

The Spurit-o-meter pegged off the charts again. Seems our hero, WTK, just discerned yet another 'spurit'.

Steve, you show your ignorance of Scripture by your little one liners. If you don't understand that there are many spirits in this world which we have to do with. Than that only shows that you over traditional church has blinded you to truth.

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

So to use the word spirits to make a point of a false teaching in someone is a very scriptural.

Well, fine then, WTK. If we're going to start throwing spirits around like it's going out of style every time we disagree with someone, then let me just say that I discern in you, a holier-than-thou spirit. Time for you to go hang a millstone around your neck - you're being rather offensive.

Time for you to go hang a millstone around your neck - you're being rather offensive.

Steve, just because a true Christian is offensive does not mean that the implied reference applies... Think about 1 Peter 2, especially verse 8, and with that, consider Luke 13:23-28. These verses are what speaks to me, not the twist of scriptures you attempted there.

Cupcake, let's have that Sunday School lesson now please????????????
Too many spurits to try......

GM, she's kinda busy right now, but maybe she'll get time for it later. That is if she doesn't get DISKED under before that.... Sorry WTK, couldn't resist...

TR: Oh, so we can't take the Bible literally now? Maybe the you Holdies should stop applying the Bible so literally when it come to shunning people.

BTW, what exactly is a 'true' Christian? Either a person is a Christian or is not. It's a bit like pregnancy, you know.

That's okay needleman, on second thought I wouldn't want her to get disked again because she has the spirit of the forum. I was looking at my list of spirits and I couldn't find that one. Lets see, where did I put that list....sigh....it's got to be here somewhere.....

WTK identified 3 verses for judging spirits, can we look at the context of these verses? I'll start with 1 Tim 4:1-3. Does verse 3 not identify traits of those with the seducing spirits being discussed. I don't see verse 1 as a free-for-all for nailing people with spirit accusations.

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

"Cupcake, from your post I see you more of a sister on the fringes of the faith. So if I disk you, its only because your more one with the spirit of the forum than of the faith."

WTK, please retract your attack on Cupcake, she is obviously in a struggle and prayers for her would likely be more useful.

OB999, poor choice of words. I was just quoting her response about how I treated her. I in no way disked anybody. Her or LL.

>>Cupcake, from your post I see you more of a sister on the fringes of the faith. So if I disk you, its only because your more one with the spirit of the forum than of the faith. As per rest of you and your accusations about my point to LL. I consider a joke coming from a group that obviously does not understand Gods grace. I was only making a honest evaluation of the facts. I meant no ill will. You folks only like to make accusing comments about the H. Yet, when your own faults are pointed out you have to turn to a spirit of accusation in order to win your argument. So carry on.<<


wtk,I find your post interesting. It's fine if you think I'm on the fringes-would that be fringes of the church or fringes of the faith?
And you feel that since you have concluded that I'm on the fringes,then it's okay to be disrespectful? It really doesn't matter to me if you do dis me,I just find the discrimination in someone proclaiming to be a true follower in the one "true" church to feel you may treat people differently based on what you decide on their spiritual status. Although I have observed this trait way too much in our circles and I think it's a shame. It leads to a form filled Christian life when among ourselves we judge according to what we think we see and we judge ourselves according to our good intentions.
Saying that this group on here does not understand God's grace is making a pretty broad,risky statement there,my friend. God works in ways we have no idea of sometimes and when we stop having tunnel vision, grace appears at times when you least think it will.

GM, one question I have for you. Do you open your heart to your brethren about how you feel about the Church? Or do you live a double life? I mean one on the forum and one in the Church? I would have to believe your are not being open. I would put a challenge to you. Let your brethren and your staff know your heart. Let them know that you post here. Let them read your articles. Then you will be a upright man. Until then you are two faced and unstable in all your ways.

Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Foamhead, anyone that thinks you can degrade people the way these people do dont understand Gods grace. Its no lite thing to make fun of people even if they are deceived. Yet, I dont see you point this out to them. You only go along with it. Even if its by being silent about it. So if you can honestly tell me its OK. Then I would have to wonder about your discernment. It don't matter what church you go to. Its not about H Or XH. Its about they way Christ would would have us to be. The folks (some)on here think its funny to degrade people in the name of Jesus. So anyone who lends the support to that is wrong..............

One question. In what way was I disrespectful to you or anyone else? Just because I said what I think? Or is because you think I defending the H? Or what? People have been disrespectful to me many a time. In a real clear way. Yet, I dont see you pointing that out. I have never degrade anyone on the forum that I know of. If I have I will be the first to apologize for it. The problem with the forum is that its so lopsided that people become deceived in the perspective of basic truths.

Calledout, another thought on the subject... I think if I attempted to "change the church", I think I would be guilty of the (percieved) thing I was out to change... i.e. trying to change the outside instead of the inside. In other words, I have found that when I actually sit down with someone I "disagree" with, I end up not disagreeing with them, instead I find that our foundations are built on the same rock. Many of my "issues" are imaginary ones I arrive at through my own musings rather than anything real. I would definitely agree with Forreal, that there is little call for change in the respect of what would be identified on this forum as change.

However, one thing that I would see as needing to continue to be fought against is a cooling off and less fervency in obedience to God. For example, if one makes moves because of a desire to be noticed (which may involve, but is not limited to, vehicles, clothes, etc) then that person is struggling with the very thing that caused Lucifer to be cast from Heaven. Self wanted it's own honor and glory, and the Scriptures tell us that we do not serve both God and man, but it is one or the other. That view is a serious check for my own life, and continually reminds me of my inability to live perfectly before God on my own.



OB999,

You said: Does verse 3 not identify traits of those with the seducing spirits being discussed.

Yes, I believe so. I thought it was a very accurate reference.

Seduce: To lead or draw away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance.

TR
You are one of the few Holdemans apologists here who seem to approach this forum with a level head, and maybe even a loving heart.
WTK has a spirit that is not warm and loving like the Holy Spirit, but cold, arrogant, and critical.
I understand you brethern have a mandate (permission) from the church leadership to monitor this forum. Maybe WTK's permission needs to be withdrawn until such a time as he is able to find a love in his heart for the lost soul.
As for the rest, it is a real pleasure to read your posts and ponder your points.

Orignal said, WTK has a spirit that is not warm and loving like the Holy Spirit, but cold, arrogant, and critical

Interesting observation you have come up with. All I did was state my opinion about the matter. LL came on and insulted my integrity by saying she feels sorry for my wife. Steve, Peter and other make fun of me. So I respond not making fun of anybody. You say I dont have a loving spirit and you dont point out how the others degraded my person without me saying anything to them. And I am the one with a bad spirit. And your not blinded? UMMM, funny isn't it how we see so one sided. Like I said, point out to me were I said anything to hurt someone And I will apologize to them. I have no ill will towards no one.

WTK, maybe I can help you. What you need to do is get a couple people to come on here and say, "Oh no, I know wtk and he is nothing like that at all. he's not cold, arrogant and critical. Why, he's the most loving, kind and thoughtful person you could ever hope to meet. Meekness and goodness simply ooze from every pore of his selfless body." The, my friend, you will be free to carry on just as you have; and further, you will then have the liberty to verbally body slam anyone you please (should you ever want to do so) because your character will have been established beyond reasonable question. Works for everyone else, should work for you too.

Axel: What makes you think you'd even be able to find anyone to say those kinds of things about your compadre WTK?

Hey, Steve!

Long time no "e" ! How's the family doing?

Axel, one thing I will concede. I am not real good with words. I say it how I see it. I wish I could have more finesse in my wording. Yet, its just me. I don't mean to be offensive to anybody. I just cant pander with people. Not saying other H do. You folks raised in the Church have a much better way with words than me. So if I am offensive in my speech its not because I have ill will. There have been post I have deleted because I was upset. You know how it is out here. If your H then you got to a line. If you not you can say anything. Sad really so many have lost the fact that we need to be Christan no matter what church we go to. If they did they would judge a righteous judgment and hold everyone one equally. That's Gods way.

A few quick comments on this subject/thread.

Change for the sake of change is of no use. Unless there is genuine conviction on any changes in doctrine/practice it makes no sense. I do think that the church ( all believers) is a living progressive organism and it does change in appearance and in response to the times. What does NOT change is the basic gospel and our response of faith to it. A Christian will always show forth the fruit of the Spirit, in whatever era he/she may have lived... year 2008 or year 1508. (When I say always I realize that we do not always, but that it is our heartfelt desire.)

Some observations of outward changes in the last 150 years support the above. If one looks at photos of church leaders of the 1800'; take say D.S. Warner, he could not be distinguished from H folks of his day. Photos of my maternal grandpa, an H believer... 1930, show that he used a tie when dressing up to go to Winnipeg and grandma used a stylish hat. My step-mother (now 94 years old) first married an H widowed preacher in about 1945, and I have viewed a dressed up photo of her at age 30... wow, knee high laced shoes, fitted dress and a hat. My dad's father was an H bishop in Manitoba in the 1920's and he sent my dad off the boarding school to get an education. Picture of dad at Gretna, shows him with a tie. And, my wife's dad, family photo taken about 1930 shows him with a tie, fully in tune with the family culture. And one more... my wife a teenager in the late 1950's enjoyed going to her paternal grandparents place as a youngster and listen to music on his gramophone. All these folks were dedicated H believers and... understood the heart of the gospel. Just thought some reading here might find this interesting. We should ask, has change taken place ?

On the subject of change, it is clear to me from older publications that CGCM has changed in understanding of certain subjects/doctrine, and maybe in practice to a lessor extent. I have come to a greater appreciation of the "33 Articles of Faith" (not all of its content) and if one looks seriously at them these changes are glaringly apparent. I believe change in beliefs took place at CGCM in 1960-80 and on.

It has been interesting reading the different persons who have posted here. I guess we cannot but help to form certain opinions of each other by what we/they write. We must realize that some may express themselves differently then others, but may have the same or similar views on the subject. WKT through the year has opened some good discussions, including critique of H practices. If one is not allowed to fully express their convictions (regardless how it may come across or if in disagreement with another poster) this site will not probe to any depth. I'm not suggesting that one cannot be called for an attitude or language... but I believe those posting here as a whole, are sincere persons, including those who do not profess faith or belief in God.

By Hank,
Some observations of outward changes in the last 150 years support the above. If one looks at photos of church leaders of the 1800'; take say D.S. Warner, he could not be distinguished from H folks of his day. Photos of my maternal grandpa, an H believer... 1930, show that he used a tie when dressing up to go to Winnipeg and grandma used a stylish hat. My step-mother (now 94 years old) first married an H widowed preacher in about 1945, and I have viewed a dressed up photo of her at age 30... wow, knee high laced shoes, fitted dress and a hat. My dad's father was an H bishop in Manitoba in the 1920's and he sent my dad off the boarding school to get an education. Picture of dad at Gretna, shows him with a tie. And, my wife's dad, family photo taken about 1930 shows him with a tie, fully in tune with the family culture. And one more... my wife a teenager in the late 1950's enjoyed going to her paternal grandparents place as a youngster and listen to music on his gramophone. All these folks were dedicated H believers and... understood the heart of the gospel. Just thought some reading here might find this interesting. We should ask, has change taken place ?


Very interesting. Hank, what would you say has caused the changes from the 1800,s and early 1900,s till now? Could it be that as time progressed that the legalists at certain times dominated the conference decisions? Evidently, if you and your wife's parents wore ties and listened to music, then that was okay with John Holdeman right? Pictures must have been okay too. It has been my observation that after JH died the H church has had followed a continual path toward more and more legalism. It's never enough.

So, if changes have been made in the last 70 years toward legalism then why can't changes be made in other areas, like following the Holy Spirit instead of all the man-made rules? I remember Scott saying a while back that I believe his mother talked to min. Rueben Koehn before he died and he was very concerned about the direction the H church was going but he said, what can you do about it?(meaning 'church work' if he said anything)

>>One question. In what way was I disrespectful to you or anyone else?<<

wtk,you weren't and it's okay anyway. The only reason I said that was because of your comment earlier that if you did "disk" me it would be because I had the spirit of the forum and I thought it interesting that you would differentiate in how you treated people. You don't need to reply to this-I just wanted to clarify what I meant since you asked.

Hank, in response to your 8:38am post. I think one thing that we are seeing today is not necessarily more legalism, but more consistency between congregations. In the era that you talk about, I believe there were congregations that were very conservative. I know we have discussed this before about the interview process in the 70's and I believe to a large extent that there was much effort put into unifying the believers into a consistent mode. My faint memories of that time, (geezer memory) was that the conference was basically spinning apart at it's core. It probably is no better today, however for some if they take satisfaction in believer's unity, they are probably satisfied. The H church was very threatened in the 60's and 70's with a large percentage of the young men in the US being drafted and placed in large cities to work. There was quite a falling away with a lot of young men and I think the elders were very aware of the potential of a total falling away of the entire conference. So perhaps the noose was tightened somewhat in response to this threat.
On the interview work in the 70's, I have the impression from previous posts from you that this was imported into Canada from the States in order to unify Canadian members with the USA contingent. I have asked about that and the response I get was it was started originally by the Canadian and eventually endorsed by the US. I know one local minister that was very involved in that work, but with a tremendous reluctance, at least according to his son. Hank as usual, I appreciate your responses on this forum.
As always, the glib, absent minded Forreal

I think my comments have been taken further then what I said in my above post, or at least what I meant to say. In respect to neck ties, likely my dad and my wife's dad in those photo's were not baptized church members,however, they were dressed as the culture of the day called for, and with the blessing of their parents. Now, Grandpa Toews, he was an adult and the culture called for him to be properly dressed to go to the big city and ties were part of such dress. I do not have that picture, but he may have worn his good "overalls", but a white shirt and tie was a must.

(My wife just looked over my shoulders and says it could well be that her dad and oldest uncle were baptized members in that photo.)

Also, it was suggested that my wife's paternal grandparents listened to music... that is not what I said. Grandpa had a gramophone in his house without any qualms about it. And, it was used to play music. And his brother-in-law, F. Hiebert was the leading minister in his congregation.

But to the point... ties are not the issue here; the issue is why should the church meddle in dictating specific dress. 70 years ago people were decently dressed and did not go outside of the normal culture to be different. (Some probably did.) To be a Christian is to "repent and believe" and then live with love and kindness towards others. It shows in the character of individuals... and should not be worn on our sleeves. Anyone can be different and dress a certain way... but that does not show that he/she is a Christian. A Christian is one who lives a biblical (NT) example and testifies of God in their life.

A question long on my mind... Did Jesus come to change or freeze the culture of His day ? No, He came to bring love, peace, model righteous living and to complete God's plan of salvation set in place from the beginning.

My friends, H folks do not need to change their dress, beards, cars or houses. But, where wrong emphasis is evident in their preaching/teaching/witness... that is what needs to be changed.

>>But to the point... ties are not the issue here; the issue is why should the church meddle in dictating specific dress. 70 years ago people were decently dressed and did not go outside of the normal culture to be different. (Some probably did.) To be a Christian is to "repent and believe" and then live with love and kindness towards others. It shows in the character of individuals... and should not be worn on our sleeves. Anyone can be different and dress a certain way... but that does not show that he/she is a Christian. A Christian is one who lives a biblical (NT) example and testifies of God in their life.<<

Hank,I read your post with interest. I always appreciate your way of looking at things. The comment you made concerning how 70 years ago people were decently dressed and did not go outside the normal culture to be different caught my eye. This is something I have wondered about alot. Why do the H women have to dress so different? It isn't really a witness like so many like to believe--we just look "different". It doesn't necessarily shout that we are Christians. Our men dress pretty much the same-sometimes a little more neatly or whatever,but blend in for the most part. It is true that the normal culture's way of dressing now would be much less modest than 70 years ago so maybe it isn't really comparable but there's plenty of decent options of dress around that would befit a Christian and wouldn't stick out so much. Just wondering....again.

Hank, I'm sorry I misinterpreted some of what you wrote. I also want to say that I always find your posts interesting.

By Hank,
>>My friends, H folks do not need to change their dress, beards, cars or houses. But, where wrong emphasis is evident in their preaching/teaching/witness... that is what needs to be changed.<<

What I would like to see changed is the teaching and articles written that when talking about God's 'church', they are only and always referring to the H church. In the 3/12/08 MOT the article by min. Staven Schmidt, The Church And Her Purpose,the underlying tone in the whole writing is that the H church is His chosen people, A quote,

"God gives a more complete direction of His will to His church, which are His united people here on earth, than He does to His scattered children throughout the earth. This is just like He did in the Old Testament times with the children of Israel. They were God's people, and the world knew this by the order and power that was manifested as they were obedient to the law God gave them. Today the church of God is not under the law but under the gospel of Jesus Christ. We serve Him out of deep love and reverence we have for Him due to what He has done for us".

Another quote,
"So also at this time God has children scattered throughout the earth. They serve Him also. Nevertheless, God has taken great delight in His organized and visible people and requires of them that they represent Him and His Word to the world in a more perfect way. They do this through the purity of their lives and their love to the Heavenly Father and to one another.(John 13:35)God requires of His people that they live and profess the entire Word of God.
God's organized people are to be like an embassy in the world about them. They are a visible representation of that Heavenly kingdom, an extension of God's love to the human race".

These quotes bring out an issue that Holdemans seem to have a hard time answering. They would acknowledge that God has children scattered throughout the world that are not H church members, however, these other children are not brothers and sisters in the Lord. I'm not sure how a parent(God, the father) can have children that are not brothers and sisters to each other. Some might stay at home(be a member of a church)and the others scattered around the world, but if a group of people are recognized to be children of a particular parent are they not to be also recognized as brother and sister to each other.

If some of the Holdeman folks that post here have a comment, I'd be interested to hear it.

Andrew
I am an ex too. But I do know some families are much more complicated than others.

Ro 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Ro 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Ro 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; {covenants: or, testaments}
Ga 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(KJV)

I do know I have a FATHER in Heaven for which I am thankful for.
I have four lovely children, But two of them have only seen each other once.
I came from a close family that even the oldest and youngest had plenty of sharing time together.
I strongly believe to be part of God's family he wants our Time, which is study of his word, prayer, and worship.
I like to respect my relatives beliefs and but after I became willing to rejoin the H system God spoke plainly to me that this was not what he wanted of me. However God did not tell me they were all evil or opposing his will. However personally I wonder about whether God will hold some of the leaders responsible for dividing his Church and many of the families in that church.
I know what I was excommunicated for was truly against the Bible and my sin was just as much not being close to God as it was my lustful behaviour. My behavior was a result just like in the old Testament when his people fell away from following him and his commands.
Howeveer I too would like to hear from someone in the Holdeman Church on this. I find things have changed there a lot in the last 40 or so years that I have not kept up with. However
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Howie7

Howie,

I can identify with the scriptures that refer to the adoption of sons and daughters. My parents adopted me as an infant. They had three biological children and adopted 3 children. My parents did the adopting, and whether I like it or not, my siblings are my brothers and sisters, I cannot undo that(I wouldn't and I'm very glad to have them as brothers and sisters).
It doesn't matter how often, if ever one might see a brother/sister, the status remains.

If God has accepted someone as an adopted son/daughter, and I do not recognize them as a brother/sister in the Lord because of some differnce of interpretation, teaching, practice, I am placing myself above God. A pretty dangerous place to be.

These quotes bring out an issue that Holdemans seem to have a hard time answering. They would acknowledge that God has children scattered throughout the world that are not H church members, however, these other children are not brothers and sisters in the Lord. I'm not sure how a parent(God, the father) can have children that are not brothers and sisters to each other. Some might stay at home(be a member of a church)and the others scattered around the world, but if a group of people are recognized to be children of a particular parent are they not to be also recognized as brother and sister to each other.

If some of the Holdeman folks that post here have a comment, I'd be interested to hear it.

"hard time answering"? I guess that would depend a bit on one's perspective, but I had a discussion with Lark a few evenings back concerning some of this, and it rather amazes me that some refuse to see that I can acknowledge those that I know I am one with in the spirit of Christ (i.e. those that embrace the same mind & judgment as I concerning the scriptural teachings of non-resistance, home order, church, child-training, false and true doctrine, etc. etc.) but that I am not willing to judge those outside of that perimeter. This means neither affirming or denying another's actual salvation, however, we still have a responsibility to identify and reject false teachings that want to creep in among true believers. Those among us who have pledged to embrace these teachings, then want to question things until they have convinced themselves of another way are to be removed from fellowship, for they have chosen to believe a heretical doctrine. It is completely impossible to remove someone from fellowship because of a heretical doctrine if it isn't clear what truth is. Now that is something I would have a hard time getting around if I were to leave the CGCM.

I believe this is an honest and Biblical approach, and would be fine with reposting the reasons why I believe it to be Biblical. Further more, I am open to seeing another approach which is actually honest and Biblical, but to date have failed to see it, here or in other interactions I have had in life.

A perfect example of a Holdeman having a hard time answering this question. I know TR, that you feel that you are answering the question. And therin lies the problem, the answer makes sense to diehard Holdeman members, but leaves others wondering why you haven't reallyn answered the question, only responded with the old circular reasoning. "We are right because we are it, we are it because we are right............."

Thanks for trying.

T. R. said:
I can acknowledge those that I know I am one with in the spirit of Christ (i.e. those that embrace the same mind & judgment as I concerning the scriptural teachings of non-resistance, home order, church, child-training, false and true doctrine, etc. etc

TR do you think it possible that someone could have a wrong concept of the the things you listed and still be a child of God. If a person can be a child of God and have a wrong concept, then how can you not accept him as a brother. If they cannot, then dose that mean you can only accept those that have perfect understanding.
Dose it finally all boil down to they have to be a member of "the Church" before you can accept them.

In the wedding supper of the Lamb, will all these unacceptable "other sheep" be brides maids for the bride or will they be part of the bride?

TR do you think it possible that someone could have a wrong concept of the the things you listed and still be a child of God. If a person can be a child of God and have a wrong concept, then how can you not accept him as a brother.

What do you mean by "wrong concept"? If someone believes and teaches a heretical doctrine, I do in fact believe that they are endangering their soul. I do believe such a thing is a serious matter. I also believe that a "faith without works" is a false doctrine, and is essentially no faith at all.


If they cannot, then dose that mean you can only accept those that have perfect understanding.

I can accept those that teach the same doctrine, and are of the same mind & judgment as I concerning truth. Anything else appears to me to be disobedience to Scripture, including an eventual acceptance of false doctrine. I'm not sure exactly what you are attempting to say with the "perfect" understanding, but I do believe that we must be teachable and obedient to the Word. In other words, the spiritual part should be perfect in Christ.


Dose it finally all boil down to they have to be a member of "the Church" before you can accept them.

To the fullest extent (i.e. regarding communion, etc.) yes. Once again, if there was another Scriptural way, I would say you have a point. However, I haven't found it. I consider the "all spokes lead to the same hub" to be a heretical doctrine, and without foundation in the Scriptures.


In the wedding supper of the Lamb, will all these unacceptable "other sheep" be brides maids for the bride or will they be part of the bride?

If there are "totem poles" in heaven, I will surely be on the bottom of it.

>>I can accept those that teach the same doctrine<<

Exactly what is this 'same doctrine'?

"I can accept those that teach the same doctrine, and are of the same mind & judgment as I concerning truth."

wow.

c.o. that one kind of jumped out at me as well!!

To put it in concise terms:

"I don't judge anyone's salvation. There are many other true christians beyond my church. I will know who they are when they agree with me." --the doctrine of TR.

It's become clearer every day.

In a recent Messenger, there was an article by Richard Mininger. I wish someone would post it here. Anyway, he spoke of a spiritual "tripod" - God (or the Holy Spirit), the Word, and the church - meaning CGCM. His thought was that if one lined his life up with these three, they couldn't go wrong, but if they deviated from ANY ONE of these three, they would lose out spiritually.

To my way of thinking, the Holy Spirit and the Bible are the standard by which everything is measured. To introduce a corporate decision making body that is subject to the times and whims of man into the mix, as part and parcel of the gold standard, seems dangerous to me. Some pretty toxic Kool-Aid.

My question, specifically for TR, is do you not personally see the danger in this? Or if not, how would you explain this thinking in terms a reasonable seeking soul could grasp?

Exactly what is this 'same doctrine'?

Steve, I don't really think I need to tell you, as it is pretty obvious at times that some parts of this doctrine tend to irritate you.

But just one example of a part of the whole: Non-resistance.


"I don't judge anyone's salvation. There are many other true christians beyond my church. I will know who they are when they agree with me." --the doctrine of TR.

All I can do is be obedient, and let man think what they will... (1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 3:13-19)


To my way of thinking, the Holy Spirit and the Bible are the standard by which everything is measured. My question, specifically for TR, is do you not personally see the danger in this? Or if not, how would you explain this thinking in terms a reasonable seeking soul could grasp?


Same here. That is the precise reason I do not annul the teaching of the united undivided visible church. To say this said church does not exist is to me the same as saying God's plan for His people fell apart at the close of the New Testament era.

TR wrote on 6-5-8 at 5:32. "I have found that when I actually sit down with someone I "disagree" with, I end up not disagreeing with them, instead I find that our foundations are built on the same rock. Many of my "issues" are imaginary ones I arrive at through my own musings rather than anything real." ----- That is a very true statement. So now if the calledoutPTL's and the TR's would sit down together, and find our foundations built on the same rock, which is Jeus Christ, we are brother and sister in Christ. No avoidance anymore!! smile calledoutPTL

Foamwoman, in reply to your replay 6-5-08 at 5:32 on why h women dress different. I want to ask some questions, 1) When you see a Catholic nun dressed in the habit, do you think Christian or Catholic nun? 2) When you see an Amish woman, do you think Amish woman or Christian woman? 3)I asked some women in our church what they thought when they saw a h woman. Did they think H Mennonite or Christian? (Guess the answer!) You don't have to answer on the forum, but answer it to yourself. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just want to encourage you to think for yourself. calledoutPTL

"Nevertheless, God has taken great delight in His organized and visible people and requires of them that they represent Him and His Word to the world in a more perfect way. They do this through the purity of their lives and their love to the Heavenly Father and to one another.(John 13:35)God requires of His people that they live and profess the entire Word of God."





As some have already noted, this is quite a statement, especially when it is understood that Holdeman folk see this "visible people" to be themselves. The audacity of this statement almost leaves me speachless. But not quite, so I continue.

Do they(H) realize how small this makes their god? That even if God really did intend for there to be a particular, named, organized group to represent Him, that He would have to settle for the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite? This group whose "perfect way" is to have a large number of their members who don't care to follow the decisions and unwritten and written rules set by the group? The "purity" of their lives is expressed by the same level of lust, greed, selfishness, pride, etc. as many other groups out there(the form might be a little different, in a few cases), but because it is CGICM that same behavior is somehow above that of everyone else?

If the Holdeman church is the best that this god of theirs can do, is it no wonder that some have said "If God is really the God that the Holdeman's claim him to be, I want no part of that god."

Fortunately, the God of the bible is WAY bigger and better, and more gracious, etc, etc..... than the god of the Holdeman teaching.

What I have written above is not intended to encompass all Holdeman members, just those who believe the first quoted statement in this post. The others may want to wonder why they stand with a group that holds this "official" view.

Andrew, I was just thinking along those same lines. If God doesn't make any mistakes, what was His perfect plan the first 1800 years before John Holdeman? Again, what if JH would have never happened to come along? Where would the 'true church' be? What if the migration from Russia and Holland etc. would not have taken place? How would God have carried out his perfect plan then?

>>Steve, I don't really think I need to tell you, as it is pretty obvious at times that some parts of this doctrine tend to irritate you.

But just one example of a part of the whole: Non-resistance.<<

How is non-resistance defined? Simply as a refusal to use physical force to defend oneself? Think for a second about your brother, WTK. Do his writings sound like those of a non-resistant person? What about yourself? If someone were to physically attack you or your family, would you really not defend yourself?

However, non-resistance is not the exclusive domain of the Holdemans. There are other churches or religions that practise non-resistance. So far the Holdies are nothing special. You're going to 'have to go deeper'.

Steve said, Think for a second about your brother, WTK. Do his writings sound like those of a non-resistant person?


Interesting Steve, in what way are my writing resident? Speaking the truth is not resistant. Attacking a person because we have no other leg to stand on is. You folks have to resort to accusations and lies in order to prove your point. I have asked numerously for any of you to point out any of my post that degrade or humiliate anyone. Yet nothing. So you have to resort to comments that are unfounded in order to prove your point.

Kevin said, Cupcake, how do you feel about your son studying these types of Sunday School lessons.

>>Just think Kevin, if she let you teach them instead they could be lying naked on a sushi bar somewhere. Or you would be trying to make a monkey's uncle out of them.<<

http://www.network54.com/Forum/419882/thread/1209272002/last-1209445351/April+27+Sunday+School+Lesson



>>You folks have to resort to accusations and lies in order to prove your point. I have asked numerously for any of you to point out any of my post that degrade or humiliate anyone. <<

How about this, Wtk? Is this good enough? Weren’t you, in fact, trying to degrade or humiliate me? If you agree that you were trying too degrade or humiliate me, your above statement is false and you should delete it or at least admit that you, in fact, did do what you are saying you didn’t do.

Actually Kevin, it was joke. If you took it personal then I'm sorry. I will try in the future not to be funny on serious issue.

Well, Wtk, I didn’t take it personal. All I’m saying is, don’t go around saying you haven’t done things that you really have done.

I didn't say I never did. I joke with people then they call me on it. So if that bothers them then I wont. I was not trying to degrade you. Just joking around with you since you claim to be a atheist. I also said if I did I was open to say I sorry. I just don't think people should make accusations with out proof. If they have proof then I think we should the first to acknowledge it and apologise.

WTK
In the grand Holdeman tradition, we do not need to point out to you the exact sin you are guilty of. Suffice to say, you are mean spirited, proud, haughty, offensive, and simply not spiritual. Your personal attacks are dispicable, yet you become very defensive when your childish comments are challenged. Your attitude puts your repentance and conversion into serious question. Is the leadership of your California congregation really aware of what you are up to here? Are they aware of the coldness of your heart? Maybe your permission to abuse the computer in this manner should be subject to review, for you are not capable of debating these controversial issues in a comptent, loving, christian way.
I can already hear your retalitory remarks to this post and I'm totally indifferent to them.
You need to spend some quality time on your knees and find a true repentance for this aggressive, hard-hearted spirit that is in possession of your heart.
These words may sound harsh but please accept this reproof in a humble, child-like manner and examine your heart to see if there be any evil within.
Open your heart and your hard-drive to your brethern and allow them to shine the light of truth into its deepest recesses. Share with them all your posts and especially those that others have found to be offensive. Prove with them the wisdom of allowing you to monitor this forum.
If you do this, then I believe you will find peace, joy, and a new devotion in your heart and your christian life will attain new heights never known before and you will not feel the compulsion to point out others' faults anymore.

Os, one thing I find so interesting about you XH. Is that you are the splitting image of the ones you accuse. I guess that's why you THINK you see the H so well. My point was not to defend my self. It was to prove that you accuse the H of reproving for no reason and yet you do the same.

OS, As for my post. Anytime you would like my name. Feel free to ask. You have my permission to copy and mail to my ministers all my posts. Greg Dyck is one of them. I am not hiding anything. So feel right free to ask. Maybe that will make you feel better. If you chose to I will get back to you on what they say. So just let me know.

Steve, you said:

"There are other churches or religions that practise non-resistance."


You don't. If you readily accept others who do not practice non-resistance as your brothers and sisters in Christ, then you don't either. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what "other churches" do, your response is between me and thee, and we leave the others out of it. BTW, I have no problem with other religions practicing that, I think it's a good thing.

Pr 17:14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.
15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?
17 A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
18 A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend. {understanding: Heb. heart}
19 He loveth transgression that loveth strife: and he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction.
20 He that hath a froward heart findeth no good: and he that hath a perverse tongue falleth into mischief. {He that hath a froward...: Heb. The froward of heart}
(KJV)

>>You don't. If you readily accept others who do not practice non-resistance as your brothers and sisters in Christ, then you don't either. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what "other churches" do, your response is between me and thee, and we leave the others out of it. BTW, I have no problem with other religions practicing that, I think it's a good thing.<<

Actually, you're missing my point.

You stated that:

>>I can accept those that teach the same doctrine, and are of the same mind & judgment as I concerning truth. Anything else appears to me to be disobedience to Scripture, including an eventual acceptance of false doctrine. I'm not sure exactly what you are attempting to say with the "perfect" understanding, but I do believe that we must be teachable and obedient to the Word. In other words, the spiritual part should be perfect in Christ.<<

My question, in response to that statement was:

"Exactly what is this 'same doctrine'?"

Whether you agree with my beliefs or not is really not the point. What I am trying to establish is what, exactly, is this 'same' doctrine to which you referred previously?

Your response indicated that, in part, it included belief in (and presumably practise of) non-resistance (the key thing being that non-resistance on the part of many Holdemans is restricted to physical non-resistance only, but that's a whole other thread). What I did was point out that non-resistance or pacifism is not the exclusive domain of Holdemanism and that other churches and religions hold to this principle as well.

Since non-resistance appears in your mind to be a necessary but not sufficient criteria for your acceptance of others (i.e. non-Holdemans) as holding the 'same' doctrine, what I want to know is what other criteria are necessary and sufficient for you to accept another individual or denomination as being truly Christian. I really don't give a hoot whether or not you accept me as a fellow Christian. (To be truthful, I'd be disturbed if you did, since I don't consider docetic heretical fringe groups as my brothers and sisters in Christ).

So, all this blather about it being between 'me and thee' appears to be a smokescreen on your part. I am trying to determine exactly what this 'same' doctrine is and who might qualify in your oh-so-humble-opinion as being worthy of your consideration as being of the same faith.

The bottom line is that establishing that my doctrine does not agree with yours in no way proves that yours is the OTVDoctrine. All it establishes is that you and I disagree and that one, or both, of us might be wrong.

Bottom line: I am still waiting to hear what this 'same' doctrine is. It apparently includes non-resistance. Fine. It's clearly not only that. What else DOES it include?

Steve,

Why do you need to know? Or why do you ask? If you aren't willing to face up to that part of doctrine you and I aren't agreeing on, I just cannot find a good reason to continue discussion with you. If you can give me a solid reason, then I can go on.

First of all to WTK: I see you are touching some real sensitive nerve issues. What I find interesting but somewhat repulsive and disgusting is this, if you would've dissed the H church, you would be held up as a paragon of virtue and christian maturity, but as you well know, since you challenge this forum's political correctness and rock a few boats you receive your undue share of personal vendetta. I would try turning the rhetoric knob down 1 or 2 notches, however you will still be hated for telling people what you see because some of these people will not and cannot abide having their personal hypocrisies exposed and you will be disliked no matter how smooth you try to be. You are the person that some are focusing their hatred on right now, next time it will probably be me!!
TR: Keep Stevie's feet to the fire, I sense he his starting to froth at the mouth. Maybe we will get to see the real Steve without his Anglican robes. I believe Steve sings tenor in his choir but I would expect he will eventually switch to basso profundo with enough heat or would that be falsetto? Hmm

>>Why do you need to know? Or why do you ask?<<

Does it matter? Why is it so hard for you to delineate what this 'same' doctrine is? Keep in mind as well, that the scriptures your church claims to so faithfully follow, instructs believers to be prepared to give an answer for their faith at al times. Judging by your unwillingness/inability to answer what should be a fairly simple question (one would hope), it appears to me that perhaps you are not such a faithful adherent to the scriptures you claim to follow more faithfully than any other church.

>>If you aren't willing to face up to that part of doctrine you and I aren't agreeing on, I just cannot find a good reason to continue discussion with you. If you can give me a solid reason, then I can go on.<<

As I have said, what I believe is not the issue here. It shouldn't matter to you whether I am an atheist, agnostic, or Anglican (we're all the same in your oh-so-humble-opinion anyway, I am sure, and doomed to the big BBQ) - I asked you a straightforward question and instead, I've been getting this runaround. And now, apparently, in the true spirit of non-resistance, we have Forreal chiming in with:

>>Keep Stevie's feet to the fire, I sense he his starting to froth at the mouth. Maybe we will get to see the real Steve without his Anglican robes. I believe Steve sings tenor in his choir but I would expect he will eventually switch to basso profundo with enough heat or would that be falsetto? Hmm<<

Forreal is wrong about just about everything in that statement, and I would have thought that someone who is part of a non-resistant church would not be likely to make comments intended to be personally insulting and inflammatory. But, I suppose all of this posturing indicates that the feet that are starting to perspire are those of TR and his faithful sidekicks.

Bottom line: I am still wanting to know what this 'same' doctrine is. It includes non-resistance. Fine. What else?

"First of all to WTK: I see you are touching some real sensitive nerve issues."

As expected, the H rally behind one of their own when confronted by a despised outsider. You are right, Pianisimo, WTk is the epitome of what I dislike in humans, H or not. I do not like arrogant condecension in anyone. This spirit is simply wrong. It is not the Spirit of Christ.

"some of these people will not and cannot abide having their personal hypocrisies exposed"

I see that condecension of "these people" is not WTK's forte alone.

"You are the person that some are focusing their hatred on right now,"

Using this kind of inflammatory language is not exactly "turning the rhetoric knob down 1 or 2 notches." Why are you doing this, Forreal? Do you feel that supporting your brethern by lashing out at their accusers is something Christ would have done?
I find the defensivness of the H on this forum appalling. I have seen this spirit many times. When confronted with any of their many inconsistencies, the H become defensive. I've often questioned this. Do you have an answer?

Forreal wrote: I would try turning the rhetoric knob down 1 or 2 notches, however you will still be hated for telling people what you see because some of these people will not and cannot abide having their personal hypocrisies exposed and you will be disliked no matter how smooth you try to be. ---Or is the shoe on the foot in WTK's case????? Some of the other h don't get quite so, "shall we say upset?" "or look beyond the "shall we say differences that don't really matter?' smile calledoutPTL

>>"First of all to WTK: I see you are touching some real sensitive nerve issues."<<



I hesitate to respond to this but I do feel like I need to make a few comments. I just read OriginalSinnick's post late last night on my son's blackberry coming in from out of state so I couldn't respond till now. I would agree with most of what he said. But I do give a little room for wtk not coming from an H background. To finesse and dance around the sensitive H church issues is an aquired trait that you can have only if you grew up with it. The original intent of this forum was for the expelled to discuss the inconsistencies and problems with the H church for the most part, not vise versa, where the H would be invited on here to show the expelled their faults and that we would require them to change before we change.

.

deletd

OS said, Do you feel that supporting your brethern by lashing out at their accusers is something Christ would have done?

The truth of the matter is you are just that, a accuser. You made accusations with out proof. So why wouldn't my brethren defend me. If you got some proof I'm sure they will be more than happy to agree with you. But alas you don't. You want people to play patti cake with you. Well that's not me. If you have a legitimate accusation for me I am more than willing to discuss it with you. If not than that's all it is a accusation. We know who he is. I mean the accuser of the brethren. Most on the forum use strong language. Finally the disclaimer states if you cant take it don't join. But as we know that only means you and your buddies. Not the H, if they do it they are mean spirited. Oh well I guess that just part of posting you got to take the heat.

WTK: Do you believe in non-resistance?

Sure, why?

I detect a resistant spirit in your posts.

.

Yes, I did. So, if you don't lay down your resistant spirit, I will have to call Greg Dyck to express my concern about your spiritual condition.

'

Steve, email me I will give you His number. Hanselsbud@aol.com

Read my post again. In fact I said the others don't get upset like YOU do. I wrote---Or is the shoe on the foot in WTK's case????? Some of the other h don't get quite so, "shall we say upset?" "or look beyond the "shall we say differences that don't really matter?' smile. Now how is that attacking the h church??? But I'll be the first to admit I don't agree with your church. But I have always said your church is no different then any other church. Some are saved in it and some aren't like in any other church. Now how is that being a hyprocrite??? You say your not upset, but your words say otherwise. calledoutPTL

Calledout, I am sorry for my post to you. It was uncalled for.

Apology accepted. calledoutPTL

So who deleted most of wtk's posts...... Greg Dyck?

I know Greg well. Have had him as a guest in my home. Perhaps he should intervene, because WTK's temper will eventually get him in trouble. Apparently he is not aware that no proof is needed. His contentious spirit is all the proof they will need to deal with him.

OS: I also know Greg well. Shall we arrange a conference call? I woudn't be too surprised if he monitors this forum. I do believe the Tech Comm. does, however Greg isn't part of that illustrious group as far as I know.

Os, I would be intersed in you calling Greg. Then I could learn the truth about you.

WTK
I will address this issue of your spirit one more time , then I promise to ignore you and allow you to go your merry way. I will try to do so in a loving way.

The spirit controlling a person must be spiritually discerned. You cannot pick out items here and there and say, "there, that's it." No, it is the overall theme, your choice of words, your tone of voice (yes, even in the written word), and inflection and cadence of speech that reveal who you are. Only 20% of communication is in the actual words you speak. It is the other 80% that actually convey your message.
Someone guided by the Spirit of Christ projects a warm, loving demeanor with words soft and modulated in a way that draws the listner. Even when bringing a rebuke, this person is not harsh and accusatory, rather gentle and kind (I realize I condemn myself here). However, this spirit can never be faked. Either a person has it, or not. Ironically, a person possessed by the Spirit of Christ is not as aware of it as those around him/her. Rather, their own failures and short-comings are more real to themselves, than than those of others.
WTK, are you willing to go to your staff and open this issue to them. This is my only accusation. You do not have the Spirit of Christ. No, I will not gather together the posts that have this spirit in evidence and present it as "proof." No, I will not contact Greg Dyck and I will not participate in a conference call. All these suggestions are preposterous, for reasons you should know as well as I. You are the one blinded to your spirit. You, and you alone, need to humble yourself, open your heart and life and allow your brethern to prove you. Are you willing to do this? If your staff hasn't lost all spiritual discernment, they will point out this contentious spirit controlling you.
By the way, the truth needs no defense, just as an innocent person need not be defensive, for the Spirit of Christ is meek and defenseless. Therefore, your reply, or lack thereof, will prove who you really are.

Posted twice somehow. Thought once should be enough.

Os, One thing I find interesting about you XH. Is how you have left of the Word of God. Yet, you think you are still christians. I'm more than willing to be open and honest about your concern about my attitude. Matt.18 is clear on how to proceed. Yet, you refuse to follow Gods order. Why? If you really were a Christan wouldn't you be willing to if you really had a true concern for me like you say. Wouldn't you want to follow through with your concern? I think there is ample evidence to prove you arent what you say you are. Now like I said before. If you are really a Christan you will be willing to foll0w Gods order. His order is to take another. Now I am willing to go to the next step. Are you? If not then how can you claim to have a true concern? You cant. In here is were your deception lies. That you XH are not really willing to follow Gods order. You are the true accusers. Now lets keep the forum out of it. You call Greg tell Him your concern. We will have a conference call between us. If Greg thinks your right. I will first apoligise to you. Then post a apology on the forum. Now thats Gods way. Not this you have a bad spirit. If you were a H doing what your doing your forum buddies would be having a field day with it. Ye,t there silence proves there hypocrisie. Now I present you with evidence. Not just accusations. You should give it a try.

That you XH are not really willing to follow Gods order. ----I don't want to be accountable for making that kind of statement. It is not your or myNot my authority or job. You might want to start thinking through what you write. smile. calledoutPTL

Wtk, here is an example of what a non-resistant response might look like:

"Thanks for bringing up the concern you see in my life. I will reflect on how my attitude has affected the way I respond to my ex-brethren so that I might reflect the love of God toward them and draw them back to the church."

I would have to disagree with some of the comments made by the H on this thread. I think if you weighed them with the Bible(1 Cor. 13)they would be found wanting. It's not about hate or taking sides. If I would have made statements like that I would have been embarrassed and reproved and would have had to delete them. Maybe I'm just sensitive about judging others because I have been a recipient of it way too many times.

>I am willing to go to the next step. Are you? If not then how can you claim to have a true concern? You cant. In here is were your deception lies. That you XH are not really willing to follow Gods order. You are the true accusers. Now lets keep the forum out of it. You call Greg tell Him your concern. We will have a conference call between us. If Greg thinks your right. I will first apoligise to you.<<

Doesn't that look a little backwards? Do you really think Greg would agree with an expelled about the wrongs of a member?
Although I know sometimes God works through all kinds of people to accomplish His objective.

Maybe there is another way to look at this. Instead of bringing it to the ministers, if the Holy Spirit was really in the heart wouldn't He reprove and convict if we were wrong? Why does it have to go to the ministers to get resolved? How about prayer?

Gm, if my post are so harsh that is obviously that I'm not even converted like OS says. Then I think Greg would pick up on it. Plus its Gods order to take it to the next step if a person does not see what a another person sees. Also it was His idea for Me to go to my Ministers. I know I have had to apologize for being to hard at times. Anyone who doesn't need to correct themselves from time to time is blind. Yet, OS is obviously blinded by His own pride to see He is the Very substance of what He accuses me of. You can look at His post and see He degrades and mocks and makes strong judgments of people salvation when He doesn't agree with them. Unless there expelled of course. Then you can be as mean as you want.

Calledout, Your right. I have a problem with lumping everyone in the same bunch. I will try not to do that. I just not real good with explaining myself. Sometimes my writing dont express what I really think.

wtk, you are hilarious!

See, non resistance (as taught by conservative mennos including holdemans) is turning the other cheek even when being wrongfully accused.

wtk, do you agree with the doctrine of non-resistence as taught by the church of god in christ mennonite?

 

Wtk, I will not doubt your conversion. That is not for me to judge. I agree that OS's first post in regards to this matter may have been a little overbearing and judgemental but I believe he had good intentions.
But I will say one thing. If anyone would have wrote a post like that about me I would have been so humiliated and ashamed that I would have immediately went to work with it between me and God. I know I am far from perfect and catch myself judging others personally too, but I try hard not to.

Lets see, if I say yes. You say you sure don't sound like you do. If I say no. Then you say where is the unity of your church then. I'll leave it to you to figure out. Because I know you think you have already.

wtk.. HUH? "If Greg thinks your right. I will first apoligise to you. Then post a apology on the forum. Now thats Gods way." UMMMMM maybe I missed something here. I am under the impressions that a person apologizes and asks forgiveness when God convicts him/her of his/her sin. Wouldn't it be better to seek God and ask HIM of his opinion rather than worrying about what this Greg guy thinks? Is Greg now taking the place of the Holy Spirit in your life?

Lark, Matt 18 is real clear on what steps to take when two brothers don't see eye to eye on something. Its always the best to just let God show us are need without outside influence. Yet, God has established a order we are to take, when two cant agree. Take another. Its Gods way. SO if someone accuses you of something and you don't agree with them. You should find a non bias person to help prove whats write.