Has anyone noticed this?

I've noticed something for a long time now and it's this; when someone is discarded, escapes, or just leaves groups such as is the back-drop of most of us, it is they who feel rejected like we do not want them.

This is how close their system is to them. It is an actual part of them. It is them! It's stronger than a marriage to the thing, it's like Siamese twins with two heads. Where there's two masters there's two heads.

If the system is left behind by someone from their ranks it is they who feel rejected, funny thing there. There is no prior preparation for the jolt in this.

In accordance with their doctrine which continues on it is we who suffer through the life-long pangs of the thing and we're supposed to relate to that as God's love in some way.

We love when we supercede the law. We love when we supercede a doctrine. We cannot love by way of the law or by way of a doctrine!

That's true, Doug, I've been told that very thing many times. They can shun you, set you in the kitchen to eat and refuse to shake your hand and yet they are the ones who pretend they are being injured. It's how they soothe their conscience for doing such a terrible thing. If they had to accept the blame for doing something so cruel they might have to revamp their entire thinking. So they convince themselves that you have done it to yourself and all you would have to do is humble yourself and return and it would all be over. But I have read two books recently,one about a woman who converted to Christianity from Islam and another about a couple who left the Catholic Church, and the same thing happened to both of them. (Both stories were true) They were told the same things that the Holdies say. How can you leave the truth? Why are you rejecting us? How can you destroy our family this way? In reading both books I identified totally with the x Catholic and the X Muslim. People came to their homes to plead with them, condemn them, and plead with them. They were gossipped about, their children were punished and they were eventually completely cut off from their families and their former lives. And the whole time they were treated as though they had done something to harm the others. So the Holdemans don't have anything new there, they are only doing what comes naturally to exclusive cult type groups who have an interest in remaining in control at any cost.

I remember as a child hearing or reading history of persecution and executions of christians in Rome etc. and my concept was that the people were cruel. The slant that history gives this time would point toward purge type politics similar to Hitler's era.

The story in Acts of Paul's time in Rome shows leniency, toward him at least, even though he was guarded.

The era of reformation in the Catholic church was, to my childhood mind, also very cruel and bloody.

Now as I look at these times I see a little different perspective. Is it not possible that the authorities of these times were sincere and thought that they were doing society a favour even though it was difficult? They were ordinary folk with the view their enviroment had given them. The Civil War, Revolution, as well as Indian Wars etc. would be examples of this in more recent history. The German people of Hitler's era were condemned in my childhood mind as well, but now I see that most of them were just ordinary folk. I find it difficult to accept that.

When I sense bitterness in someone toward their past I often think of these examples.

If someone causes hurt in innocence or as a result of doing what they believe is right, why do we condemn?

dang, I can't believe I just read that.

If we condemn innocents we are remaking the same history the Germans, Romans and Catholics made already. And we are doing it for the same reasons.

#1. Because we think we are superior and must remove all inferior behavior

or

#2. Because we really believe society needs to be improved for the wellbeing of the human race

or

#3. Because we think that our loved ones are hell bound and need to help them for their good. This would be how I see the Catholic stuff a well as shunning of the Amish etc.

Of course there mean folks in every era as well. I'm talking about the average folks.

"If someone does a hurt to innocence when believing their thing is right, why should we condemn them" paraphrased

It's hardly about what is right in our own eyes.

There is a logic in that question but some things are simply unaccaptable in any age. Hitler was unacceptable in his purging. Stalin was unacceptable in his purging. The Roman church was unacceptable in their purging, incidently the late Pope Paul apologized to the whole would for those atrocities of those darker ages. I personally read the apology.

Are we unacceptable when we purge others out from among us as an exterior process? Is not the only valid purging that which a man would do from within himself?

It says; purge out the old leaven and that can only occur from within a believer.

Organizations of men only exist in our minds and on paper. Men organize. Faith alone does not do this!

Organizations do not exist in the realm of intrinsic Truth. God recognizes none of them. He sees not the seen things but the unseen things alone.

Men organize and then they purge out to make themselves appear to be good and glorious. Men admit this! Men reveal their own evil. I see all of this as an evil. Satan is the father of it all. Jesus said this to those who purged from the exterior; you are of your father the devil.

notg, I think you are saying that fiends are to be excused because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing.

Take the case of an old Europe Catholic family. Say the child is leaving the "faith" because they have found an answer to the superstitions of the old religion and are moving on. The parents still believe the old and they do it sincerely. They actually believe that harm is going to come to their children and that it is neccessary to remove the "devil" from their home. Their motive is pure. That does not make it true that they need to cause the hurt but it should help us forgive if we know that they are doing what they believe to be right.

Or perhaps they do not know it to be right, nor wrong and are ruled by the fear they feel. Can you feel anything but pity?

Is the bitterness we sense and feel in life bitterness at individuals or at systems. If I am bitter at a system eg. government or church- why do I take it out on people.

>notg, I think you are saying that fiends are to be excused because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing.< <br>

I am saying that if I am bitter the problem is mine.

I am also saying consider if the person is an sincere but unenlightened person or a "fiend" before I treat them as a "fiend". (I am using the word as in a "of the devil" sense)

An example that is from the Bible would be the story of Apostle Paul. He was acting very "fiendish" by his own admission, until help came his way. A very "Hitler" of nastiness. Exterminating to beat the band and the whole cruel mess. We all know what he became.

The "Hitler" wrote the Love Chapter.

I am repeating what I have said a dozen (+) times, but it is relevant here.... paraphrasing Finney's comments.

Man will be judged by his motives. If one intends evil, and perchance his actions turn out to be good, he is still culpable. If he honestly intends to do good, and it turns to be evil, we do not blame him. However, if such a one finds out his intended good turned out to be evil, he must make amends or he becomes guilty.

I say this as a general statement. We should never tolerate evil, nor avoid addressing it in a community, church or family.

I agree with that, Hank.
And may I add: It is good to make no move to deal with what we perceive as evil till we understand the motive. Only then can we be fair.

Hank;

The Jesus principle; it doesn't matter if an action turns out to be good or bad for others, if one's heart by motive is personally ambitious he already thinks already dark and is therefore an evil although no law can yet condemn or touch him.

>It says; purge out the old leaven and that can only occur from within a believer. < <br>
Doug,

What about 1 Corinthians 5. I think this one means from the group and externally. In 2 Corinthians the instruction was to now forgive.

>>Is the bitterness we sense and feel in life bitterness at individuals or at systems. If I am bitter at a system eg. government or church- why do I take it out on people.< <br>
Because,governments/churches/systems--are made of people and individuals. It might not be a rational approach but that's how we are.

The old leaven can only be purged out from within a man i.e. by his desire and consent. The old leaven is the energy that works within the confines of the law or letter. This leaven is just as dark as is malice or fornication. If this leaven is purged out we will automatically deal properly with the sins of wickedness and malice in the body.

I have been made dead to the law for righteousness by being made alive to Christ Jesus! And I am dead to the law, by the body of Christ it says! These proclaimations help with the internal process of purging out the old leaven from within us, which once again is that of law or letter. We have all had a dose of this.

There is a leaven of wickedness and malice which is altogether different from what is referred to as the [old leaven].

To put away from ourselves a wicked person does not mean this is done by a legal type of explusion. It means to excommunicate or disallow this person to eat and drink the sacraments with those walking in Christ Jesus, lest this person eat and drink of more death than he is now in. It's a love action, even a love judgment on our part.

Judging harshly beyond doing this we get into messy waters and it's no longer unconditional love. The exterior purge of wickedness and malice is not the physical removal of this person but rather this person is purged from the communion of the sacraments and this for his good. This is the proper putting away.

This is not how we have been taught to believe about this passage and other similar ones, but we were raised by legalists who did not practice or enjoy [unconditional] love!

The old leaven was both tolerated and encouraged in some degree.

Let us not keep the feast with the old leaven nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness. verse 8 of 1Cor. chapter 5.

The old leaven and the leavens of malice and wickedness should be put away from among us!

Who rejects whom when it's proper? No one rejects anyone when it's properly done. As it was said of Jesus; he will never leave us nor forsake us!

>To put away from ourselves a wicked person does not mean this is done by a legal type of explusion. It means to excommunicate or disallow this person to eat and drink the sacraments with those walking in Christ Jesus, lest this person eat and drink of more death than he is now in. It's a love action, even a love judgment on our part.< <br>

True enough. But not necessarily impressive in a positive sense to onlookers unless they would see the motive.

And what about the Hitlers, Stalins, etc. The world set out to purge the leaven with Hitler with tanks and planes and then international law. This might discourage another ruler from taking a similar path, but did not promote love. I suggest the purging there was motivated by a similar attitude in alot of people as the crime that was committed.

What do you think.

>Because,governments/churches/systems--are made of people and individuals. It might not be a rational approach but that's how we are.< <br>
I don't think that I have ever considered this before, Cupcake. Jesus example is amazing. He was treated in the ultimate unfairness and forgave as well as entreated God to forgive. And He got past the system and was able to love the individual in spite of all. He could have said He would die for all except that lousy High Priest. And Judas. Man what scum.

Instead He was sorrowful and aknowledged: "They know not what they do".

VS, i'm with you . Can't believe what i just read. It is imossible for a person to SYSTEMATICALLY harm another person in innocence. Why? Because such a man already stands condemended as a fascist, his error is that he values a system and doctrine over a human heart. This is the core foundation of fascsim. Under fascism, the people are a resource for the purposes of the system (nazi, holdy, doesn't matter). Such a man stands condemend long prior to the hurtful act which he may commit to any individual, because his heart is fascist. To extend Hank, notg, and Finney's conclusions leads to immediate danger...as if I can do whatever I want to someone as long as I'm honestly deluded. No, you stand condemend long before the system you embrace causes you to harm another individual.


Is this not obvious.

Unleash the ammo, Scott. I'm running for my foxhole. Did you ever hurt anyone when you thought you were helping? Your above human if you have'nt from what i've seen of the human race.

The Pharisees were intense fascist. Jesus didn't excuse them
He put His finger straight on their fascism by saying thus - The law was made to serve man. Man was not made to serve the law. The law the Pharisees broke was this one. The only way to fold a fascist point of view is to have
problems of the heart. THAT is what they are judged for, not the surface stuff.

notg, your conclusions seem dangerous to me. Did you notice how i emphasized the word SYSTEMATICALLY. So im not speaking of a slip of the tongue in a weak moment, but rather, am thinking of the systematic application of a fascist heart which harms people, i.e., to value doctrinal truth over caring about and understanding people. That what the Catholic inquisition was all about and thats what holdy rejection is all about.

Where oh where have you been Scott? We have not rejected you buddy!

To value doctrine or ideas more than one values the human heart and it's warmth I agree is very close to the source of all evil.

There are not many things that are actually sacred but to trangress the human heart and it's warmth is quite the opposite of it.

Out in the country those are the actions of a bull in a china cabinet! If the bull in the china stomps around with much ado of love, matters not, he is still stomping around in the china.

Scott,

Say someone commits a crime. Now this act is criminal in, say the USA. Over in Iraq it happens all the time. The doer of this deed holds to it and believes that it is ok and even proper to say drive this bomb into this bus. WE all say, "down with the middle east" and systematically set out to destroy this evil thing and support and endorse destroying as the proper thing. And guess what. The guys over there use that as proof that the aggressor is at it again and set off another bomb to get us. So we go again and again....

The game is an old one and the motive is hate on both sides.

This can happen emotionaly between individuals as well. He hurts me so I hurt him.

>am thinking of the systematic application of a fascist heart which harms people, i.e., to value doctrinal truth over caring about and understanding people< <br>

I see your point. What I am wondering is do we or rather are we doing anything different as a society really when we head over seas if we are not sensitive to the culture there?


> That what the Catholic inquisition was all about and thats what holdy rejection is all about. < <br>

How about before I reject Holdies or Catholics because of inquisitions or the ban I try to understand if the individual cares for me and is being hindered because of his environment rather then his heart.

I understand Scott's comments, and I am bothered by my own response when considering comments like "Hitler thought his actions were well intended". However, I cannot with certainly say that Hilter was being honest with his intentions. It is actual, real honesty that is the hinge point of this position and only God knows the final truth of that. I said above that we should never avoid addressing evil... and regardless of what the intentions were. Here is Finney's full reasoning. (He was first a lawyer... may be more here then necessary, but want to give the full effect of Finney)

From: "Finney's Systematic Theology", page 22-24 p

"I have said, that moral obligation respects in the strictest sense and directly the intention only... this is a first truth of reason.

(1) Little children know and assume this truth universally. They always deem it sufficient vindication... I did not mean to hurt him...

(2) Every moral agent necessarily regards such an excuse as a perfect justification, in case it be sincerely and truly made.

(3) It is as common as men are, and as true as common, that men are to be judged by their motives. That is by their designs, intentions. It is impossible for us not to assent to this truth. If a man intend to evil, though, perchance, he may do us good, we do not excuse him, but hold him guilty of the crime he intended. So if he intend to do us good, and perchance, he may do us evil, we do not and cannot condemn him. For this intention and endeavor to do us good, we cannot blame him, although it resulted in evil to us. He may be to blame for other things connected to the affair. He may have come to our help too late, and may have been to blame for not coming when a different result would have followed; or he may have been to blame for many things connected with the transaction, but for a sincere, and of course hearty endeavor to do us good, he is not culpable, nor can he be, however it may result. If he honestly intended to to do us good, it is impossible that he should not have used the best means in his power, at the time. This is implied in honesty of intention. And if he did this, reason cannot pronounce him guilty, for it must judge him by his intentions.

(4) Courts of criminal law have always in every enlightened country assumed this as a first truth. They always inquire into the 'quo animo', that is the intention, and judge accordingly.

(5) The universally acknowledged truth that lunatics are not moral agents and responsible for their conduct, is but an illustration of the fact that the truth we are considering is regarded, and assumed, as a first truth of reason.

(6) The Bible everywhere either expressly or impliedly recognizes this truth. 'If there is a willing mind', that is, a right willing or intention, 'it is accepted', etc... If there be not a willing mind, that is right intention, no outward act is regarded as obedience. The willing is always regarded by the scriptures as the doing. 'If a man look at a woman, to lust after her, that is with licentious intensions or willing, he hath committed adultery with her already, etc. So, on the other hand, if one intends to perform a service for God, which after all, is unable to perform, he is regarded as having virtually done it and rewarded accordingly. This is too obviously the doctrine of the Bible to need further elucidation."

I'm rejected and I reject. The secret is not to be hurt by the rejection or to hurt what you reject. Its really all in your own hands.

Brent

true enough

''' It is actual, real honesty that is the hinge point of this position ...''''

I can't prove this, but the way the patterns are working out in my mind is that where ever you find fascism, i.e., valueing doctrine over people, and being willing to harm people to promote your doctrine, that you will find dishonesty on some level. I just bet the world is about that simple.

'''What I am wondering is do we or rather are we doing anything different as a society really when we head over seas if we are not sensitive to the culture there? ''''


Do a search. The correlation with our foreign policy with fascism is overwhelming. Your thinly veiled insinuation did not alarm me, shock me, nor offend me. I could say it stronger than you did. We likely had no business over there for the basic reasons discussed on this thread, but if one (country or neighborhood, or individual) does decide the circumunstances are so dire regarding human rights that they must intervence into a jurisdictional boundary not their own, they better do it with concensus and with certainty.

The dishonesty could be in that you tell yourself that you are hurting someone to help them when in truth you like to see them suffer.

you got me thinking, Scott.

Is there anyone that isn't at some level "fascist"? Some of the farthest left wing folk are the most agenda promoting guys there are.

notg, I am astonished at you. The question is not whether someone means well when they are actually damaging another, but I think Scott has nailed it down. To SYSTEMATICALLY harm another is a sign of an unregenerated heart. Yes, there are many who mean well when they hurt others. As Scott said, a slip of the tongue, things done in anger, but to deliberately set up a system which coerces people at the cost of their liberty, which bends them to the will of the group for no other reason than because they will it, this is done out of a heart which has not come to know Jesus Christ. My initial point was that the Holdemans, in doing this, are behaving exactly like the evil systems of the world. Harming others will simply not happen when one has the heart and mind of Christ. It is impossible to systematically abuse others when one has been forgiven and found grace in God's eyes. You are so far from getting it that I must conclude beyond any doubt that you are a hard core card carrying H. You give yourself away with no room left for doubt. SHEEEEESH

If you have a good heart, not an evil heart, then when you harm someone, you will one way or another come to realize it. Either the harmed one will bring it to your attention, or if you have the Holy Spirit within you He will draw it to your attention. If you REALLY mean well, it will be brought to your attention. When it is, you will leave no stone unturned to make it right. You will never knowingly harm another and allow it to stand. I am amazed at the thinking that allows for people to SYSTEMATICALLY hurt one another and never catch on to it or be held accountable for it. Within the framework of non Christian people this is a possibility, but doggone it, we are presumably talking about people who should be head and shoulders above the rest of the ungodly world. What is the point of knowing Christ if it doesn't somehow make you different; more loving, more tenderhearted, my sensitive, good heavens, how can people so calmly assume that wicked behaviour can be considered the norm for people who claim more righteousness than anyone else in the world? What on earth is it that sets them apart then? Just their religion?

>To SYSTEMATICALLY harm another is a sign of an unregenerated heart.< <br>
Do me a favour and point me to where I have said otherwise please.

>You are so far from getting it that I must conclude beyond any doubt that you are a hard core card carrying H. You give yourself away with no room left for doubt. SHEEEEESH< <br>
Are you SYSTEMATICALLY trying to harm my feelings here?

Read what I wrote, VS; not what you think I wrote. Everything is about us accepting others doing wrong to us and how WE react. There is nothing in there about us deliberately doing harm to others! Brent hit it right on as far as personal feelings go.

My comments don't mean I am bitter; I am simply making a statement about certain type of behavior. Does commenting on something or disapproving of it prove one to be bitter? I'm over these dudes. But I still think they're stupid.

I think I'm understanding you now, VS. To you this thread is about holdemans. Am I right? I'm thinking of the whole view point from Scott's fascism to Hank's quotes reguarding the law to my own observations on the German people of the 30's and 40's.as well as early christian persecution.

As far as that goes I know alot of conservative christian people including Mennonite background as well as some other Anabaptist background people that are as sincere as the day is long and would give the shirt off their back to help someone in need. To me at least I see a GOOD heart in alot of these people. I am sure that many of them hold a type of church discipline at the same time and do it genuinely thinking it is what God wants them to do. Can you really paint them all with the same brush? I can't.

Notg, I would highly recommend reading "The Presence of the Kingdom" by Jaques Ellul. He deals in depth and at length with what Scott just touched on. At worst Ellul will make you think and at best you will likely never see the world or "Christianity" the same again. Be forewarned though, Ellul's books are not the "easy reads" we tend to be accustomed to today, but they ARE worth the effort. Don't wait, supplies are limilted, get it cheap here........


http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Kingdom-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0939443147/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237618049&sr=8-4

I wonder if there is such a thing as being hurt because we were hurt? I think what hurts us is what we don't understand, or refuse to understand, or at the time don't have the means to understand.

If we understood both those that hurt us innocently and intentionally, their hurtful things wouldn't have no power over us.

I know I've hurt by not even giving anything hurtful out. That's how vast the deficiency of human understanding was on the other side. If one wants to count this deficiency as rightful or human to have, then I am to blame because I hurt. But then why isn't my ability to hurt by nothing hurtful, not counted as an deficiency so I can be excuses for the right and humanity to hurt?

Brent

This may sound a little simplistic at this juncture but I'll say it.

We either walk in personal ambition at some level or we walk in the Spirit of the Lord! That is the way humans are built.

Belief systems whether that be religious organizations or whether that be an individual's belief system easily lend themselves to ambitious behavior.

None of it can be trusted! Personally ambitious people or groups of people have great agendas many times. Someone is sure to get hurt at the fault of the belief and the ambition. A wise and limited man once said; I trust no one but I love everyone!

Love covers a multitude of sins while our trust is in the Perfect Model! Once a perfect point of reference is firmly established it is then we can trust it. The side product of this, is this; at this point we vicariously partake of His type of trust-worthiness and others can actually begin to trust us. [That perfect model is to love unconditionally!] A perfect point of reference must be established or all of us remain as the bafoons we are. A wife learns to trust a husband who loves her unconditionally and visa-versa.

The person that can be trusted more and more is he or she who limits his walk to that of walking in step with the Perfect Model! If we do not come to the position where we unconditionally love we will continue to walk in personal ambition, I think it's that simple. What exactly the beliefs are among all the ambitions, appears not to be the issue at all.

Rejection and it's feelings seem always to be connected with a premature trust in someone or some thing. We do well to not trust becasue someone wants us to but rather when we observe unconditional love in motion.

Let me ask this question; at which point did we feel more accepted and loved; when we were among those of the organization or when we were no longer among the organization? You see we had placed a premature trust in the organization and in those of the organization before we knew that we were trusting in [something less] than unconditional love. Hence the hurts. Hence the feelings of rejection. Hence the feelings of being discarded.

Just off the surface I would say that those who return to religious organizations that have shunned or dis-accepted them, in some way still believe that [conditional] love is good enough and that they can once again trust these groups.

On the other hand vast numbers simply do not trust [conditional] love and fail to believe in or fail to respect a church system that manifests [conditional] love.

My wife and I have pastored for many years, [right now we're not pastoring] but we learned that the burden to revive or rebuild trust is upon the back of those who discard the errant ones because of a [conditional] love in them.

The same is true when the trust of a spouse is broken because he or she has been loved in a conditional way rather than unconditionally. The one who has loved [conditionally] is the one who has broken the trust. The responsibility to rebuild the trust is upon this one. If both have loved conditionally then there is a real dilemma that usually ends in the exit door of the courthouse.

Many times, credibility itself has a one time shot.

Doug,
I do not exactly know were your thoughts come from as I do not know you, but at face value I read from them that you might be willing to catalogue some people as being unacceptable in a christian sense because they have caused "hurt".

Now this is human and ok as everyone here is human so they act humanly as cupcake pointed out yesterday. (correct me if you think I'm wrong)


Hank has suggested that when we see evil we should always combat it. If we were to take this approach just literally we would be very busy battling and hurt a lot of people that would have no idea what they had done to hurt us. We need to curb our going to war with people with a carefull consideration of their motivations. I think the essence of Hank's posting covers this.

The author of the book Gene pointed to spent time underground in ww2 against the Germans and then acted as a lawyer on their behalf when the rest of the world turned against them.

I guess at the bottom level of what I believe would be a faith that God is at work among humanity in ways that humanity has no idea of. He allows people to think they are doing right and gives them direction to change course at appropriate times for the promotion of His work as long as the individual is sincere. Apostle Paul is a well known example of this as I pointed out earlier.

From human perspective we can do this kind of thing with our children. We use a situation where a selfish child has mistreated our child to councel our child about acting fair and accepting. We accept the "bad" actor this time for the sake of the well being of the victim, and address the "bad" from a different angle or later. I am not sure how to put this into words here, but the message is tolerence to others. We are promoting GOOD as the way to overcome EVIL rather then squash violence with bigger violence so the violent quit hurting me.

Notg;

My belief is quite the contrary so far as people becoming unacceptable; all men are acceptable but not all activity is acceptable. If we do not separate the person from his dark activity we may well come to hate and even judge this person. Or we may settle down into an apathy where nothing matters and into some faint kind of faith that all attitudes and heart matters will ultimately turn out to be good.

Men look upon the exterior but God views the Heart. The issues of life procede from the heart. Whether they are damaging or whether they are edifying they come from the heart. A damaging thing can come out of us at times and we wonder where that came from. It was in the heart at some level.

That is a post I agree with, Doug.

notg, you said you thought I thought this was a HOldeman thread. It is about a group of people and behviours and HOldemans are in the group. It is a group of people and behaviors that does not exclude Holdemans. I suppose the man in BC thought he was doing the right thing by molesting his daughter so we must excuse him? The preacher thought he was doing a good thing by covering it up? I am usually quite merciful towards perverts and pedophiles, not because I think their behavior is alright, but because most people who do it had it done to them, and they are acting out of an inner hurt and anger and compulsion so strong that I am unable to hate them, but I rather have pity on them. This doesn't mean that they aren't accountable, that they didn't have a choice, and that they shouldn't be punished. But they should be loved and cared about. They certainly should not be aided and abetted. The Holdemans protected this man, while others, on this forum, such as Locklady and myself, had done nothing to hurt anyone, and they cast us away and caused great harm to our families. Better to be a rapist and child molester in their group, than a woman who challenges their greatness.

Sorry Cammie; you challenged the assumed authority and that's a mortal transgression. Besides that if a man did that he might fare a little better but not for long.

The one in open sin of some kind quite likely hasn't done that.

My sister Marie [who's a Holdeman preacher's wife] asked me last week, Doug have you ever in the past 35 years desired to come back to us. What is an honest man to say without hurting one's feelings? I said no I have not, but I do desire to fellowship true and real Christians no matter where I run across them. She acted as though the last part of what I said was good.

You know most of them really do believe in the system as being quite important. At this point in my own life that amazes me.

Just an observation.

A man named Hank Toews, a long standing friend called a year or so ago before he passed away and asked me if I remembered those good times at the Mennonite church when we were, oh so young? I simply said no, I do not remember any particularly good times. Some have better things in their past than do others and I am delighted to give them that. Hank was a good man, an interesting fellow.

Isn't it funny how vital it is, how very affirming, for them to believe that anyone who leaves them spends a lot of time yearning for them and wanting to be back? This is all so wrong. I find myself trying to hide the fact that I have any fond memories of my childhood or that I might ever be moved to tears by the sight of my family gathered round, doing all the old things that I remember so well. But I had to come to realize that this is totally apart from their value as a religious organization. Anyone can miss family and home and old times without validating the SYSTEM that spawned them. I had to learn to separate what was real from what was an illusion.

by doug,
You see we had placed a premature trust in the organization and in those of the organization before we knew that we were trusting in [something less] than unconditional love.



In talking to an H minister recently I said, I believe a lot of the people put their security in the church(system?)rather than in God. He said, But there IS security in the church ! I had no further response.

Cammie;

I do miss not being judged when I am with family and friends. What I was refering to was times in the church house or related things.

I do not miss the idea of it being kosher to have a red and white tractor but it was [not] kosher to have a red and white pickup truck.

I do not miss when I was away from home the extended family came into my domicile and made a religious bon- fire in the yard with our drapes and other wrong objects that were hanging on the wall.

As to pot-lucks. I do not miss those pot-lucks where we spoke of the weather and the price of soybeans or treflan. No great ideas were ever fostered! No life-changing revelations were ever mentioned! I just can't muster up any [miss] of all those type things.

Re-reading all this I think that I might have rejected some things in my past.

I do not miss the culture. The food? I personally like Cajun food. The boudain, the etouffes, the sauce-picants, the craw-fish boils, and the crab and shrimp gumbos. Hey!

If you've never been involved in the art of saving face or getting along to keep the peace, then you don't understand human character and nature, or have no compassion, or are extremely self centered. On the other hand, one shouldn't bend to the blatant error of others. You only get along when the other party is innocent or don't know what they're doing. If you can't tell whether they're innocent or prodding you, you're stupid and need more experience in life. Or else you're wicked to the core, knowing but not heeding to their faults, but instead trying to get the upper hand on them by taking advantage of all their errors. This is why one has to learn when to play along or when to stand your ground in the face of blatant error.

Brent

Brent;

Indeed it's a privilage to get along on friendly terms with any number of people with all types of belief and with those without strong belief as well.