THE HEARTBEAT OF GOD AND THE MAINSTREAM OF THE CHURCH
The chorus of the song, "The Heartbeat of God," by Mrs. Rita Schmidt, says: "The heartbeat of God means life and love to me: I don't want to be in doubt and troubled misery. So draw me closer, Father up above, That I may always feel your heartbeat of love" (Precious Promises In Song, No. 25).
A steady and strong heartbeat is assuring. It symbolizes hope and strength. It is also used to indicate the real essence of something, or the dominant mission and will. The characteristics of a group or organization can be said to be their heartbeat.
One can readily see that being close to God and feeling His heartbeat of love is a Christian's comfort and refuge. Unborn children lie close to their mothers' hearts in the womb, and the steady throb of Mother's heart is always there. When the miracle of birth takes place, it's a brand new world for the baby-and a frightening one. But when that newborn is placed in his mother's bosom, he hears and feels something familiar. One wonders at the marvel of life, and the power of the speaking heartbeat is amazing. Applying this to one's walk with God, His heartbeat means everything to the child of God in a troubled world. The Lord says, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (John 14:27).
Nowhere is the heartbeat of God felt or heard as readily as in the context of the brotherhood of saints. This is not to say that believers cannot feel that pulsing of life individually; indeed, they must. But when such disciples of the Lord are melded into one body by the Spirit (Eph. 4:1-6), there is a dimension of knowing God and His love, wisdom, and direction that surpasses that of one alone. There is something about being united in the faith of Jesus that puts us close to the heart of God. Meeting together in the Lord's presence and there inquiring of His will, or sharing our burdens, one soon feels and hears that resonating throb of life and love.
We sometimes speak of the "old time gospel." The "old fashioned prayer meeting" may be mentioned in the same way. What is implied by "old time" and "old fashioned"? Hopefully these expressions are not just a reference to bygone lore and tradition but are a longing to feel the heartbeat of God like Christians of former times did.
When members of the church know the heartbeat of God, they desire the "old time gospel," and the preachers preach it. The heartbeat of the "old time gospel" is not in eloquent words or flowery themes or catchy sermon titles. Far more than this, the old time gospel is convicting power, and the listeners sense that the Spirit is obviously giving the message. That witness of God's presence is the heartbeat of God. It is a message in itself.
True believers feel the need of brotherhood sharring meetings from time to time to care for the purity of the church and to pray. The "old fashioned prayer meeting" is not out of style-it is needed as much as ever. Congregations find that they are blessed as they meet specifically to share concerns for themselves, for the weak ones, and for the prodigals. The spirit of prayer falls upon them. Each expression and reequest for prayer, in essence, becomes a prayer in itself, offered with the incense of Jesus' merit (Rev. 8:3,4). Hearts are made soft and knit more closely together; tears are shed. Oh, the heartbeat of God!
Reference is made at times to the "mainstream" of the church of God. It is hoped that this means, and will always relate to, the heartbeat of God throbbing in the church. In this stream is the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3), a common concern for the preservation of faithful practice, and solicitous care for one another's welfare. Thank God that there is still today a mainstream of faith and conviction in the church concerning the doctrine and application thereof. Here the throb of the "old time religion" pulsates and the "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" prevails (Rom. 2:29).
It may happen that individuals become confused and perplexed regarding what is proper or improper in the conduct of Christian living. They hear many voices speaking. Some say this while others say that. The confusion may well relate to man -consciousness when the answer is in being God-conscious. Nevertheless, in this setting, considering the mainstream practice of the church will give direction. The "wisdom of the just" (Luke 1:17) is related to the heartbeat of God. When one honestly and sincerely wants direction, he or she will find a safe indicator in the generally held conviction of the church. Sometimes finding one's pulse takes quietness, concentration, and diligently "feeling" for it.
However, it is recognized that the "mainstream" does not make the heartbeat of God. It's the other way around. Living close to God and being familiar with His heartbeat, which produces obedience to the Word and the Spirit, constitutes the mainstream that holds the candlestick of God's grace and favor. Should worldliness and casualness become predomminant in the church's membership, that prevailing condition would then be the mainstream, but it would be without the heartbeat of God. There would be a resulting loss of true faith and convicction. There would be compromise in keeping the doctrine of the Word. Given the spirit of laxity and looseness pervading the world, it behooves us to be sound in faith so that the mainstream will always be true.
This periodical is charged to be a true reflection of the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). It is sincerely hoped that its pages give the reader a sense of the heartbeat of God. Together with that, what is published here should provide a sense of the church's life and practice. The material that brothers and sisters offer for publication affords a distinct "feel" for what the brotherhood is thinking and saying. Taken as a whole, the articles contributed, as well as the correspondence the editor receives, indicate that there is a substantial stream of conviction and concern. This is the heartbeat of the church, and hopefully, it is fairly represented in these pages.
Some Messenger material carries a strong and valid concern about pertinent issues. But they may be too pointed for publication. This is regrettable. These articles have been returned to the writer with an explanation. At times the editor has deleted some things that are better discussed only in the brotherhood. The general concern of the article was on course. It is a challenge to not squelch the spirit of concern and divide between what may be personal thinking and the mainstream of the church.
However, it is undeniable that eddies on the margins of the mainstream are growing with the years. Spirits on both fringes are more and more agitated. The Scriptures have not left us in the dark as to this development. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1). "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves" (2 Tim. 3:1,2). It should be of concern to every true disciple of the Lord that these marginal elements do not detract the mainstream from the simplicity of faith in Christ Jesus.
But when such disciples of the Lord are melded into one body by the Spirit (Eph. 4:1-6), there is a dimension of knowing God and His love, wisdom, and direction that surpasses that of one alone.
1Jo 2: 26* These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27* But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Seems to me this writer is certainly not reading his bible. The whole object of the conference is to seduce the individual to become "one" in the vision of the conference delegates.
To assume that the Living God who is revealed in Christ Jesus does group love and group revelation is a false pretense out from which flows cultish christianity.
There is one deception worse than individual deception and that is that a group would be deceived and moved away from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus! A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
The old leaven is always centered around a preoccupation whith good and evil and then how God-pleasing we can be to avoid what is perceived to be evil. That's the seduction of Eden. To agree within the confines of a certain leaven and the good feelings we derive from this is simply group-deception.
The pharisees and scribes had this particular deception going. Jesus called it the old leaven. This leaven needs to be purged out by the blood of the Lamb! The Sadducees were on a different level of deceptive leaven and these as well had comfort from one another in this leaven thinking that what they shared was God himself. These leavens and their warm fuzzy feelings were thought of as God-pleasing or now in the New Covenant time are thought of as being Christ-pleasing.
How do we know if what we enjoy is actually the risen Christ or a warm fuzzy feeling that we call Christ? His gospel is not only one of words but one of Power! He is still today what He was in a past age in all fullness!
Nothing will keep us going in a circle as do these group leavens and the cozy feelings we enjoy from them.
Canaan land becomes altogether elusive and thus we put the idea of Canaan land off for some future age! There is nothing else to do once we are in any one of these circles because our actual so-journ has actually ended. A circle is not a so-journ. The discovery and adventure of the journey has died and we settle for the cozy feelings of a circular brotherhood. The house of Israel did this same thing until Joshua and Calib broke free from the cozy and circular mold. A new generation of faith was birthed! Can you imagine the gossip about these men back in the circle?
God continues with us in this circular realm of things but our actual journey is over. The energy of the leaven simply stops the descovery and adventure of the journey! The old leaven can be purged out by the power of His Blood and His cross! Only individuals can experience the power of His blood and His cross, out of which groups now form and rub shoulders in Love or in the unity of Spirit!
The spirit of unity is a dead give-away that the old leaven is mightily at work.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 28, 2008 12:21 PM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 28, 2008 12:12 PM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 28, 2008 12:01 PM
"Some Messenger material carries a strong and valid concern about pertinent issues. But they may be too pointed for publication. This is regrettable. These articles have been returned to the writer with an explanation. At times the editor has deleted some things that are better discussed only in the brotherhood. The general concern of the article was on course. It is a challenge to not squelch the spirit of concern and divide between what may be personal thinking and the mainstream of the church."
>>"Some Messenger material carries a strong and valid concern about pertinent issues. But they may be too pointed for publication. This is regrettable. These articles have been returned to the writer with an explanation. At times the editor has deleted some things that are better discussed only in the brotherhood. The general concern of the article was on course. It is a challenge to not squelch the spirit of concern and divide between what may be personal thinking and the mainstream of the church."<<
Hmmm. Vine, I agree. That paragraph is very revealing.
>>divide between what may be personal thinking and the mainstream of the church<<
Let me see. If the 'brathren' are so united in the 'same' doctrine, should there be any difference between 'personal' thinking and 'mainstream of the church' thinking? I thought it was those 'so-called Christian' churches that had differences of opinion...
Besides, just because the thinking is in the mainstream does not make it correct. Mainstream thinking in the medical field before the scientific age included some really bizarre and deadly practises. Mainstream thinking used to hold that slavery was ok. Mainstream thinking held that the earth was flat. Mainstream thinking... well you get my point.
Plus, if mainstream thinking is the way to go, then how come horny little Johnny Holdeman didn't hold to the mainstream thinking of his brethren and rather 'went so far as to [start] a [new] church' and 'hold his light above that of the brethren' 'moving the ancient landmarks' in doing so.
Steven, you're thinking outside the tribe or village now and that's not allowed because in so doing the warm fuzzies get challenged from the chair in which you are seen sitting. The cool spot is easy to identify by the heat-seeking machine and thus the perceived cool spot is written off as simply not being our way. A heat seeking machine is not the same as a Christ seeking people!
This can be heard; why you could just feel the coolness radiating from your chair toward our warmth. His warmth in us is much different than (our warmth)! Therefore why would cultish christianity not feel that if it's not our way then it is the way of deception. Warmth is no sign of Christ Jesus although Christ Jesus does bring great love and fellowship!
Reading between the lines this can be seen; His way [i.e. Christ's real way] is one thing but [our way] somehow superceeds His way because we are more in numbers than He! This reveals the term cultish christianity, for we are more in numbers than He. There is not safety in numbers of themselves, there is safety in God's unconditional Love.
Cultish christianity can never be seriously challenged no matter what name is over the door. What remains is that cultish christianity be judged in a refining and redemptive way.
Listen fellows; you are quick to judge an article because you prejudge the motives. There are good points made here that you overlook. One such is, 4th paragraph:
"This is not to say that believers cannot feel that pulsing of life individually; indeed, they must."
Can you not accept that they teach ("they must") that salvation is an individual thing, and that each must find their faith in Jesus.
Another is: "It may happen that individuals become confused and perplexed regarding what is proper or improper in the conduct of Christian living." Do you disagree with this statement ? More actual unity, caring, fellowship and "oneness" is a good admonition for the church at large.
Another; some strong points of view need to be edited. It is the editors responsibility and prerogative to edit... and he must. However, it is my personal opinion, that allowing more diverse dialogue could really create lively discussion for the benefit of the church.
Another; the article could be read as a general admonition to the church at large (all believers); no church is identified, although I suppose it is clear it is written for CGCM congregations.
Granted, we see the article based on our experience and our views, but we do not need to throw out the baby with the bath water!
I must say that the editorials used to make more sense than they do now. I don't know if the editor is getting bored or what but we could use some new blood.
It's important that the whole body learns from the other portions of the body. If a man or a woman can add to me, I personally want to be totally open and I make the effort to be this.
The body of Christ is divided into local churches but all are of the same body provided these men and women are born of His Spirit! I suspect that the names of the various local churches across the landscape are completely meaningless to God.
Christ Jesus is our savior, restorer, and revealer, our fellows merely help us in our walk.
In the natural sense what would occur if the foot declared that it alone was involved in how we walk? How exclusive. The head along with the whole body is involved in the rhyme and rhythm of our walk when it's proper.
A challenge to the baby was evident in the posts but I did not see that the baby was thrown out with the bath. Hank, do you see how harmful cultish christianity is and that to itself? Immediately these become unteachable from other portions of the body that is beyond their ranks. I will certainly take this time to sincerely thank you for much of what you add Hank. You have added to me, I am grateful.
It was evident in the initial post that no [adding to] is important from other portions of the body of Christ. That speaks of exclusivity and this then spirals downward toward cultish christianity, this ought to be challenged.
All men and women do well to learn from the greater parts of the body. The chief apostle said this; some of you say you are of Appolos, others say you are of Peter, and still others of you say that you are of Paul: this apostle made some great effort to correct this.
We need each other! Ordinary people need each other!
OK, this baby-and-bathwater analogy thing has to go. It's constantly misused. It doesn't apply here. It doesn't apply to willful decievers. Hank, think of it rather as poisoned water. PLEW! You blow it all out just like that. Its just not worth the effort and risk for a couple measly drops of stale water.
<<< "This is not to say that believers cannot feel that pulsing of life individually; indeed, they must.">>>
Hank, what if I wrote this: "This is not to say that husbands should never love there wives; indeed, they must".
Hank, answer one question here with no slithering political bullcrap. How is that statement biased, or where is the preponderance of momentum towards; for, or against husbands loving their wives? Do you even get what I'm saying here?
This message has been edited by oldmanrip on Jun 28, 2008 10:23 PM
When Jesus hung there on the cross He wasn't thinking "mainstream" anything. He was thinking of a personal relationship with you and me. This collective 'group thinking' has got to go.
Cupcake, this type of whimsical thinking is so entrenched it would take fire from Heaven to change it. EVERY MOT is filled with it, and for a lot of H, that is basically all they read for inspiration and to 'feel' the pulse of the church. What do you think the 'mainstream' thinking was 50 years ago?
Jesus nor the apostles were not looking around to find a group of people that they they could apply for membership.
>>Some Messenger material carries a strong and valid concern about pertinent issues. But they may be too pointed for publication. This is regrettable. These articles have been returned to the writer with an explanation<<
So?? Let's hear it!! Definition of 'pertinent' "having precise or logical relevance to the matter at hand; "a list of articles pertinent to the discussion"; "remarks that were to the point".
That's what we're looking for!
This message has been edited by GMman1 on Jun 28, 2008 10:51 PM
<<< >>Some Messenger material carries a strong and valid concern about pertinent issues. But they may be too pointed for publication. This is regrettable. These articles have been returned to the writer with an explanation<<
Here is what he is saying with all the bullcrap stripped away.
There are some issues we would really like to ream the people on, and we would really like to add tons more legalism, and we would like to increase and strengthen ministerial power, and we would like to increase love for the Church, but if we write that stuff straight out in the MOT, then we catch hell and get quoted on COG.
>>Nowhere is the heartbeat of God felt or heard as readily as in the context of the brotherhood of saints.<<
Tell that to the guy out behind the barn crying his heart out to God at midnight because he is at the end of his rope and God has just forgiven him of his sins.
Well fellows; I understand what you are saying, however, I see positive points... If we leave go of our prejudices and prejudging.
Look, here is what I saw when reading it. After the writer introduced the subject he rightfully applied it to all believers with this sentence.
"One can readily see that being close to God and feeling His heartbeat of love is a Christian's comfort and refuge."
He identified the application for "Christians" (I understand it to mean all who believe) then he went on to apply it to a brotherhood of saints. But, I do not insist that you agree with me... I have my opinions too.
>>There are some issues we would really like to ream the people on, and we would really like to add tons more legalism, and we would like to increase and strengthen ministerial power, and we would like to increase love for the Church, but if we write that stuff straight out in the MOT, then we catch hell and get quoted on COG.<<
Scott: You are an interpreter par excellence of Holdespeak and Holdemanese.
To Pope Gladwin (assuming it was you that wrote the editorial): Why don't you 'just lay it all down' cut out this conference worship, the arrogance that is implicit in the OTVC doctrine, the legalism and truly follow 'the faith once delivered to the saints' and put your trust in Christ and Christ alone - and start preaching Him Incarnate, Crucified, Risen and Ascended rather than warm and fuzzy 'mainstream' thinking, OTVC doctrine and legalism? (Oh, I guess you'd lose your power and exalted position. Well, then, do what you must. But don't expect people to continue to buy into that sham of Christianity that you and your brethren preach).
ETA:
>>He identified the application for "Christians" (I understand it to mean all who believe) then he went on to apply it to a brotherhood of saints.<<
Hank: You believe whatever you will. But, in all the years of HS and COG, for all of your platitudes and sucking up to the H and calling them your brethren, I don't believe even one of them has ever accepted you publicly as a fellow brother. That's because they don't. You were cast out of their fellowship 30+ years ago and were, and are, deemed anathema by them. You're like the orphan kid looking through the diningroom window, watching what (to your eyes) looks like a happy family eating their Christmas dinner. You wish they would come to the door and invite you in. But they don't.
This message has been edited by StevenThiessen on Jun 29, 2008 6:16 AM
" But, I do not insist that you agree with me... I have my opinions too."
Hank, with all do respect, and I say that because I sometimes see where you are coming from with what you say. You have been in a Holdeman church and an Mennonite Brethren church You say you don't like to see (or was it to acknowledge?) the political side of the church, the yielding of the power, the squashing of the opposition. What is it that you still don't understand about church membership?
In case I forget, thanks for posting the editorial. It would be nice if each one gets posted! (nice isn't the right word, perhaps "appropriate" is more fitting?)
Aside from Gm, (because He obviously thinks His church is wrong) do the rest of you think your Churches are in Gods will? If so, why do you have a problem if the H think there Church is. I guess its OK for you yet not for them. Or maybe you think your churches are off to?
WTK, you are forgetting one thing, they take their wrong that they refuse to fix, but eternally punish people that simply can't abide their wrong.
If the H allowed people to leave of their own freewill, and didn't spiritually stone them with the 'avoidance' doctrine wherein they abuse people for the rest of their life and cause them a loss of family relation, that God gave them by birth then the wrong of the h is easy to stomach, and accept.
But their wrong is found in naming them self the "only true" you can't leave us and be saved, and yet harboring falsehood, and yet punishing people for pointing it out and or leaving.
So yes my church is wrong in areas, but I can leave unmolested. But your church is wrong but will punish you if you leave.
SO the wrong my church practices is fixable and you vote by attending of the freewill.
But the wrong yours has is strengthened by your attendance, for you aren't allowed to leave.
The Holdeman creed If you love something let it go, it it doesn't come back hunt it down and kill it
wtk... ALL churches have things wrong in them. There is NO perfect church denomination. The ONLY perfect church is one that is made up of ALL who believe and accept Jesus's death and resurrection and rely on that for their salvation. THIS perfect church includes MANY people from ALL denominations.
<<<
WTK, you are forgetting one thing, they take their wrong that they refuse to fix, but eternally punish people that simply can't abide their wrong.>>>
Whoa Fred, hold it right there! Are you saying you have a problem with "eternal punishment"?
This message has been edited by oldmanrip on Jun 29, 2008 9:34 AM
Fred said, So yes my church is wrong in areas, but I can leave unmolested. But your church is wrong but will punish you if you leave. Fred, shouldn't Gods Church discipline for false doctrine? Is it Gods love to know someone is leaving deceived and not admonish them?
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.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
This message has been edited by wtk1 on Jun 29, 2008 9:56 AM
"Christians"... Steven, I really believe that the writer meant all believers; thats the way it is writen and I take it at face value. As to looking through the window, I don't think you understand me. Of course, all of us need acceptance in society, but when it comes to "spiritual life", Christ Himself said we would face rejection. So be it.
Vine; I'll try to explain my beliefs/position
1. We are part of a church that does not have a "membership roll". We believe that all who have their trust in Jesus Christ are in "the church", the body of Christ. Membership rolls blur true allegiance to Christ, and one reason is as you put it. Man's organizations exist with politics, influence and often power seeking.
So, you might say that we lack in "brotherhood of saints" because there is no allegiance to our church and since no official membership, then no holding one's to a set of beliefs. This does take place with those who serve. However, I would say that the preaching we highlight, is to trust/commit lives to Jesus Christ and to LIVE after Him.
2. SInce I see the church more as taught by D.S. Warner (circa 1850), as one people of God and not necessarily part of man's organizations, I can worship God in an H church or any other church I may happen to find when away. In a service, I see God as the object of our worship, regardless how the next person in the pew may feel. Of course, an acquainted assembly, with believers one knows, feels good and is good, but the important thing is to worship the God of the Bible, wherever we may be.
Whoa Fred, hold it right there! Are you saying you have a problem with "eternal punishment"?
Scott, I trust God, but not men, I assume all men to be liars and abide by business with little faith in them unless that faith has been built up over time and trial, by proving.
I personally could care less who thinks I am lost or "found" in my opinion people need to get a life and start looking in their own back yard.
So when I left their 'avoidance' is a joke, a silly tantrum being thrown by silly women that have been seduced by their leaders.
But their avoidance has hurt people that have lesser stomachs than me, and when I said "eternal punishment' I have no thought at all that anyone kicked out by their evil system of ministerial oppression held by lies conjured up through conference laws that are not found in scripture, I have no thought at all that those victims are actually lost, (though it is at least theoretically possible to accidentally expel an actual sinner) however my first impression is that anyone found to be a victim of their expulsion lies is probably saved through that baptism!
It was refreshing to hear what type of church you attend, Hank.
I wonder when in history and why it was that men found it good to think in terms of being true to one's church along with the carnal type memberships with the political trappings and control in them? [I know more than I am letting on here] but I still ask those questions from a quality basis. The early church enjoyed no such luxery or indeed such confusion, if you will. Jesus did not look for a church to join and never hinted that those that followed Him should do so. He said there was one fold and that He would add the lost of the tribes of Israel to this fold. This fold are those who are born of His Spirit! One thing was altogether different about Jesus than those in a circle, Jesus was not not trying to control men and women by carnal discipline. His issue was the worship of the Father by being full of Spirit and Glory!
I have never related to any of the trappings, not even when I was affiliated with the Mennonites. The leadership in the local church was on me all through my teens saying I was [weak on the church]. My reply was this; I thought this was about being strong on God! I was either asking the wrong questions or I was making the wrong assertions, yet they would say that my attitude was good.
Well, no one can join the Church of Jesus, one can only be added to his body by Spiritual baptism. For by one Spirit are we baptized into one body, it says! No amount of water [well or cistern] can do this unless the water be the Spirit Himself! If water cannot perform this then how could water and a linage of water have been established as having any credence?
Indeed there are [brethren] in church organizations who enjoy such trappings but I must say that a circle is created much as the circle in the wilderness with the house of Israel. The same issues and truths come around every year or so. There is no adventure or discovery in that circle no matter where that circle is or who is in it. The Joshua and Calib order of Faith finally put a remnant of Israel into Canaan land on their way to the heights of Mt. Hebron and Jerusalem itself! What an adventure and discovery they had.
The New Covenant Church is Mt. Sion i.e. Mt. Hebron, even the city of the New Jerusalem! We are not that circle in the wilderness and yet many times we subscribe to it!
Keep on keeping on Hank, we'll grow together.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 29, 2008 4:32 PM
Are we in complete agreement with our church? I have learned in the last few months or half year that some of the things that I concluded was right and the only interpretation of the Bible are not necessarily that. Sometimes we read the Bible to prove our point. With a preconcieved Idea. I do not believe that infant Baptism is what Christ and the Church taught. However I do believe that there are some and maybe many who have been saved and are working very hard for Christs church. (some might call it kingdom) Unless the lord draws them and shows them that it may not be that important. We are not to Judge. If he asks me what I think about baptism it is then my duty to go over the scriptures and we can review them. And yes I sometimes here something at the church I attend and have attended for 17 or so years that I question. But then I am not afraid to question them on why they believe or preach that - And if I have an argument against the once saved always saved idea for example I can listen to people argue or discuss both sides for some time. And after I get baptised by immersion I do not have to worry about being expelled for herisy over such an interpretation. I strongly believe many and I would like to think most of the Holdemans will make it to the eternal destination we all want to reach. However I certainly can not judge what is in the heart cause I am sure I would make some mistakes.
WKT asked: "Aside from Gm, (because He obviously thinks His church is wrong) do the rest of you think your Churches are in Gods will? If so, why do you have a problem if the H think there Church is. I guess its OK for you yet not for them. Or maybe you think your churches are off to?" --and--
"Lark, what false doctrine does your Church hold to that you personally would like to see changed?
Wkt; I'll try to answer this from my perspective, although not from where I think my church is off base. Our church IS true to what it believes about "the church", but we hold to a different view of the church then CGCM. So in that sense, we both believe that we are doing what God requires of us in our community. Here, I believe, briefly is the difference:
(A) CGCM believes that the church here on earth should represent and reflect the "true church" which one day will be reality in heaven. You attempt to maintain biblical doctrine as you understand it, maintain membership free of un-confessed sin in their life, and living up to standards that you see the Bible to teach. You limit the church to those you have baptized, and make an honest attempt to reflect and be the heavenly "true church", believing that the parables of the kingdom, the wheat and the tares and the good and bad fishes, do not apply to you.
What Dutch Anabaptist church leader Dirk Phillips describes spiritually, you more or less see as reality here and now; page 401 "This is the description or lifelike portrait of the Christian church, as she exists here in Spirit, and hereafter in the perfection of heavenly existence." ... and this by close ministerial leadership oversight.
(B) The church we are part of teaches that ALL who are renewed by Jesus Christ are in His kingdom and church, and our weekend assemblies are like the parables mentioned above. We would view these assemblies as "teaching by the seaside" with no pretense that we necessarily reflect the biblical "true church"; but all present are invited to faith in Jesus Christ; to worship the God of the Bible, and to learn of the teachings of Jesus.
Further, we would view us as a closer refection of the "true church", at our monthly midweek celebration of the Lord's supper, where the bread and cup are offered to those with NO un-confessed sin in their life, and are walking according to the teaching of the scriptures. Those who cannot with a clear conscience believe this, are asked to refrain from participation; so as to honor the sanctity of the symbolic meaning of the bread and the cup.
Our view of the church, compared to CGCM, would be that we believe that the Spirit of God convicts and brings believers in line to biblical conduct and this with limited leadership oversight and without spelling out that conduct in detail. We have traditional doctrinal understanding of the NT church, but keep our teaching more or less, to the central theme of salvation by Jesus Christ, the change that Christ brings to a believer, and of daily living out that faith, conduct and example of Jesus Christ.
This is a general and brief view of differences I see, in response to your question to Lark. And clearly, there are similarities.
This message has been edited by Aaronsboy on Jun 30, 2008 5:44 AM
In case I forget, thanks for posting the editorial. It would be nice if each one gets posted! (nice isn't the right word, perhaps "appropriate" is more fitting?)"
So much of what is presented at CGCM, whether it be the MOT, sermons, SS Lessons, etc, is presented as unquestionable truth. It is discussed mostly from that angle. Rarely, if ever, is the underlying premise examined - it is just accepted as truth beyond question. I believe it is good to have a venue where these things can be discussed from all angles, where dissenting opinions can be voiced.
Rebel
it is gonna be different there.
Different then the OTVC. Different than the Mennonites or Baptists or Catholics.
It is really gonna be different.
Herman
Dear Hank, with all due respect for your efforts to be convivial with these fellows, let me point a few things out. First off, the entire thing is an utter load of bat droppings. He makes it quite clear what his premise is; one must be careful what one presents publicly, because one can say words that can be held against one and for which there is no defense. He states this clearly. So, if he were to say openly what he is really saying secretly behind his hand, he would run the risk of the rank and file rising up. So he couches it in many disclaimers and subtle denials. But the message is the same. Life within the bosom of the church, with the heartbeat drumming soundly in one's ears is the only life that is safe. What if he forgot to put in the line about "This is not to say that believers cannot feel that pulsing of life individually; indeed, they must."
What if he hadn't put that line in? It would appear, and quite shockingly so, that he was saying that salvation is a group thing which can only be found by agreement with the brethern. This is what he is actually saying, in his subtle mishmash of a way, this is the message that actually comes through, even though there is a surface awareness in the minds of the readers that he strongly believes that believers must feel that pulsing of life individually. Tell me this; how does a believer feel that pulsing of life individually, while yet relying on the fellowship of the brotherhood to tell him where he stands and what to do next. The two ideas are incompatible and mutually exclusive. So if you were to challenge a member that he must be a part of the fellowship in order to know what is right or wrong, he would point to this article and similar writings and claim that the church teaches an individual understanding and pulsing of life. But if he were to actually exercise the right to live in this liberty he would soon become a church concern and see plain minivans appearing in his driveway spilling forth suited and bearded men. So he lives with this dual understanding, believing he has leeway to understand and know God for himself, but yet he taps into the group think and nestles into the bosom for safety and salvation. Major head games!
"It may happen that individuals become confused and perplexed regarding what is proper or improper in the conduct of Christian living."
Look at this one; what is proper or improper conduct in Christian living is something that a church should not need to teach. These things are so elementary to Christian living that only a brand new born baby or perhaps even a fetus would need such instruction. The larger picture should concern us these days...love and mercy and truth and peace and nurturing the kingdom. Not headcoverings and cellphone rings and home decor and higher (or lower) education, or automobiles, or how to expel more effectively, or what kind of fabric to choose for dresses. These things are remind one of the statement Jesus made to the Pharisees; "You pay tithes of mint and cumin but neglect the weightier things of the law." In perilous times needing to teach the flock how to conduct themselves in daily living is sad and pathetic. If they can't run with the horsemen, what will they do in the swelling of Jordan? Confused and perplexed? Thankyou Gladwin for that apt description of a group of mindcontrolled followers. A Christian who becomes confused and perplexed at the simple issues of daily living is inconsequential in the large scope of things, don't you think? They should have graduated to strong meat by now, a hundred and fifty some years into Johnny's reign. So tho this statement may appear to be docile and conciliatory, in fact is is a red herring that leads one completely away from any relevant truth! How like them!
"some strong points of view need to be edited."
How cult-like. Reserving the most esoteric information for the secret meetings and the truly initiated. What part of the gospel is it that needs to be hidden from the weak and uninformed, pray tell!
This is the message going out to the members of the CGCM: You are in the bosom of the church. You have limited right to think for yourself, but be prepared to lay it down at a moment's notice, because only the thinking that lines up with the group think will be allowed. Your leaders have the right to control what information you have, and to decide how information is presented. They have the right to filter and edit until the baby food goes down with nary a spasm. Down she goes! Pat and burp, put the baby to sleep, yessirreee bob!
Cammie, are you trying to launch a left over church of the middle ages where men were hiding the truth of God from the laity for the sake of control, into the truths that occur in the latter rain of God's Spirit? James chapter five.
Your humor however is extraordinary! Humor helps the naval. No situps today.
If I was to lead such a church that you describe I can tell you this much; the forest I could not see for seeing the individual trees. Some things you simply must back away from to see the forest and that is what you and I have done. I suppose it's called having an overview.
You and I both know that it was about control and authority a whole lot more than it is about restoration of the soul in the middle and dark ages. The linage you speak of is from those ages and the linage is being held to with white knuckles. This means that the control and authority is being held to with white knuckles.
From inside the forest I really do not think anyone can see this; that is how deceptive this type of thing is. If these things are pointed out it brings frustration and even anger like the man is angered that is told that he has spent his whole life fishing on the wrong side of the boat.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 1, 2008 9:01 AM
I think I agree whole heartedly with Fred, however I won't totally commit to the comment at this time. I have called a meeting with some of "my people" and will see how I really feel about it, then I will get back to you!
Very well written post. Can one of the 'brathren' that reads the forum print that post off for Pope Gladwin and all of his cardinals? Perhaps one of the Tech Committee gurus could do it. Rob T, would you be able to do that for us?
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
