Am I in Sin or What?
Ovum
I have been kind of reached out to by a few ICCers from this newsgroup. I
notice that as soon as they determine I'm not a member, the contact cuts
off abruptly. Why is that?
Tell me if I'm missing something in my take on how we're to treat
different "categories" of people:
1. If the other person is not a Christian, the brother or sister should
treat the person with love, patience and kindness, and share the gospel
with him/her. If the person rejects the truth, the Christian moves on to
greener pastures.
2. If the other person is a Christian but is in sin, the brother or
sister should treat that person with love, patience and kindness, and try
to help him/her overcome the sin. If the person refuses to repent all the
way up the Matthew 18 chain, they are then treated as an outsider.
3. If the other person is a Christian and is not in sin, but IS in
disagreement over a non-salvation issue, the brother or sister should
treat that person with love, patience and kindness, and just accept that
person as a servant whom Christ has accepted.
4. If the other person is a Christian, and is in OPPOSITION, the brother
or sister still treats him/her with love, patience and kindness, and
gently instructs them.
5. If the other person is a Christian, and refuses to repent from sexual
immorality, impurity, greed or divisiveness, the brother or sister is to
have nothing to do with that person. I believe the first three of these
four sins are treated as Matthew 18s, while the fourth one only gets two
warnings.
QUESTION: in cases where ICCers abruptly cut off relationships with me
when they discover I'm no longer a member, which of the above categories
are they ASSUMING I fall into?
R.L.Measures
-----------------------
Alas, you ARE in sin Ovum. You seem to have everything upsidedown. You
have no idea of the danger you are in. However, by revealing the truly
true one true truth of the scriptures to you, there is an excellent chance
that I can save you from the eternal fires of Hell---provided you make a
20 percent contribution of your gross income for the rest of your life.
Sure, this may sound like a bit much. However, if you divide the total
contribution by the infinite number of years you otherwise would have
spent burning in the fires of Hell, it's a bargain. Any finite number
divided by infinity is ZERO. Thus, Ovum, your salvation is absolutely
FREE!
--Rich--
EOshiro
Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
"assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
There you go with that persecution line again....been munched by any
lions lately????
Rich introduced something VERY relevant to the thread...and to all
Christians.
Salvations costs us ALL absolutely ZERO. You folks need to figure
that out. Jesus did the work.
R.L.Measures
> Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
> you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
> friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
> to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
> time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
> "assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
>
> As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
>
> And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
----------------------
Irrelevant persecution--hardly. Relevant parody is what I intended. Kim
was right. Some 'Christians' have taken this persecution thing to the
extreme. 'True Christians' seem to be at highest risk. Thank God that
the ordinary Christians haven't taken up this vice.
--Rich--
Ovum
>Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
>you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
>friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
>to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
>time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
>"assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
Why would they be uncomfortable? Am I no longer a Christian in their
eyes? I've been baptized according to the scriptures and am in the
Kingdom, I have quiet times, I'm in a discipling relationship, I'm
studying the bible with a non-Christian, I have not forsaken the assembly,
I give to the poor....so what's the problem?
Richard Fentiman
Greetings in Christ from sunny Oklahoma,
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
First--you are not in "their assembly" ergo--you lose--doesn't matter
about anything else. That is what makes these good law abiding folks
such a danger. A danger to themselves and to others.
Fo r this to work "for them"--you gotta be in their control.
Evidently, you are not. You have, however, made a wise decision in
just following the scriptures and allowing them to guide you in these
matters.
Remembr, AS A CHRISTIAN--YOU ARE A "PRIEST" you confessions are to God
not to the Catholic church in disguize of a cult.
You are free in Christ to make good and bad decisions--and to profit
or not profit from them.
Your salvation is based upon your relationship with God and not with
a bunch of folks who take the truth and make it a lie--a sutble lie
that leads to death and not life in the name of God.
That is why they are not going to have much to do with you---to
them--all who are not "them" are enemy...
didn't say it was true or right...but when folks llisten to men and
not God--you and others if they listen will pay the same price they
do--dying already dead.
Richard
**************************************************************
Richard Seeking Finding Victory in Christ and His Eternal Word
E-Mail Address la...@ionet.net
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou
shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of
thy God, I will also forget thy children.
**************************************************************
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
>you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
>friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
>to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
>time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
>"assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
>As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
>And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
Talk about totally irrelevant persecution - what's wrong with Ovum's
lifestyle?
Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
church's policies.
Yea I know - you're about to feed me more doublespeak - save it.
I was there - I know how it is.
Mark Davis
Ovum
In article <4qhies$s...@ionews.ionet.net>, la...@ionet.net (Richard
Fentiman) writes:
>Your salvation is based upon your relationship with God and not with
>a bunch of folks who take the truth and make it a lie--a sutble lie
>that leads to death and not life in the name of God.
Please elaborate.....what is the subtle lie and how does it lead to death?
Thanks
Nancy
Richard wrote:
<Remember, AS A CHRISTIAN-YOU ARE A PRIEST" your confessions are <to God,
not to the Catholic church in disguise of a cult.
Huh?
Richard, there are newsgroup for Catholics, if you want to critizise the
RCC! Otherwise, why don't you stay on the topic which is the ICC!
Also, you might want to read my post entitled RE: Email to Al Baird
nancy
Scott W. Schreiber
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>Please elaborate.....what is the subtle lie and how does it lead to death?
My guess would be salvation based on works......It's very subtle, but
very powerfull....in the ICC
Martin Hinves
meas...@vc.net (R.L.Measures) wrote:
>In article <4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>> Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
>> you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
>> friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
>> to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
>> time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
>> "assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
>>
>> As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
>>
>> And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
>----------------------
>Irrelevant persecution--hardly. Relevant parody is what I intended. Kim
>was right. Some 'Christians' have taken this persecution thing to the
>extreme. 'True Christians' seem to be at highest risk. Thank God that
>the ordinary Christians haven't taken up this vice.
>--Rich--
Why is it that so many "Christians" beleive that because they are
persecuted they must be right or was that I must be right because I am
persecuted ?
Does the persecution itself PROOVE they are right in what they say or
beleive .
OR
Is what they say and beleive going to get them persecuted ?
To my mind too much emphasis is placed upon the PERSECUTION as
evidence that what is said or beleived is right.
This is a symptom of many organisations not only the ICC.
I have attended sermons where the message was that because the ICC was
persecuted - it must be the one tue church.
It is also strange how the ICC defines persecution.
IT goes along with how they define deviseness.
To the ICC leaders who taught me, two facts were self evident.
Firstly that as Kip said "evidence of grace was Growth"
(WE grow because we are the one true church)
Secondly we are persecuted and this prooves we are the one true
church.
(If we ain't being pesecuted we are not doing our job right ).
I guess in looking at this you should take a step back and see the
forest AND the trees.
Persecution is not disagreement.
Persecution is not discussion.
Persecution is not biblically trying to solve issues at hand.
Yet the ICC defines the above as persecution.
I guess there is something seriously wrong in the system when you have
to redefine biblical words and actions to meet your own ends.
Somewhere along the way God's Grace and his Love became minor issues,
and something else became the major points.
As Christians Grace is what we need , it's what we live in - His love.
That is what matters - Jesus's sacrifice and our responce to it.
WE do what we do from our faith...
Not because of quota's, guilt, or shame.
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
P.S.
Remember logic can be wrong.
<VBG>
My dog has 4 legs.
My cat has 4 legs.
Therefore my dog is a cat.
or was that
Christians will be persecuted.
I am persecuted.
Therefore I am a Christian.
R.L.Measures
In article <4qjiq9$1...@news.aus.world.net>, hin...@world.net (Martin
Hinves) wrote:
> meas...@vc.net (R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com
(EOshiro) wrote:
>
> >> Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
> >> you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
> >> friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
> >> to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
> >> time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
> >> "assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
> >>
> >> As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
> >>
> >> And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
> >----------------------
> >Irrelevant persecution--hardly. Relevant parody is what I intended. Kim
> >was right. Some 'Christians' have taken this persecution thing to the
> >extreme. 'True Christians' seem to be at highest risk. Thank God that
> >the ordinary Christians haven't taken up this vice.
>
> >--Rich--
>
> Why is it that so many "Christians" beleive that because they are
> persecuted they must be right or was that I must be right because I am
> persecuted ?
To begin with, many historians agree that early Christian persecution has
been somewhat exaggerated. Sure, some draft-evaders got fed to the
lions--but not just Christians. Plenty of pagans were partaken by
lions. However, in the second century, Rome granted Christians a
pacifist exemption from serving in the Roman Army.
Perhaps an effective way to undermine the ICC on
alt.religion.christian.boston-church would be to start persecuting some
other control-culture Christian sect. This would deprive the ICC of the
persecution it needs. This would erode the confidence of members. If
enough persecution is diverted from the ICC to another sect, ICC members
could start bailing out and switching over to that sect.
--Rich--
Emjay65
>From: meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L.Measures)
>Date: 25 Jun 1996 08:22:08 GMT
>Message-ID: <measures-250...@port12.vcnet.com>
>Perhaps an effective way to undermine the ICC on
>alt.religion.christian.boston-church would be to start persecuting some
>other control-culture Christian sect. This would deprive the ICC of the
>persecution it needs. This would erode the confidence of members. If
>enough persecution is diverted from the ICC to another sect, ICC members
>could start bailing out and switching over to that sect.
>--Rich--
Please excuse my ignorance, but your logic escapes me. ...Or was
this a *sarcastic* comment?
~~~~Emjay~~~~~
R.L.Measures
Path: news.vcnet.com!port10.vcnet.com!user
From: meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L.Measures)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Subject: Re: Persecution ?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 15:21:25 GMT
Organization: Internet Access of Ventura County
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <measures-250...@port10.vcnet.com>
References: <measures-190...@port6.vcnet.com>
<4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
<measures-210...@port0.vcnet.com>
<4qjiq9$1...@news.aus.world.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port10.vcnet.com
Path: news.vcnet.com!port10.vcnet.com!user
From: meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L.Measures)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Subject: Re: Persecution ?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 15:16:06 GMT
Organization: Internet Access of Ventura County
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <measures-250...@port10.vcnet.com>
References: <measures-190...@port6.vcnet.com>
<4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
<measures-210...@port0.vcnet.com>
<4qjiq9$1...@news.aus.world.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port10.vcnet.com
Path: news.vcnet.com!port12.vcnet.com!user
From: meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L.Measures)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Subject: Re: Persecution ?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 08:22:08 GMT
Organization: Internet Access of Ventura County
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <measures-250...@port12.vcnet.com>
References: <measures-190...@port6.vcnet.com>
<4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
<measures-210...@port0.vcnet.com>
<4qjiq9$1...@news.aus.world.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port9.vcnet.com
In article <4qjiq9$1...@news.aus.world.net>, hin...@world.net (Martin
Hinves) wrote:
> meas...@vc.net (R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <4qbeo1$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com
(EOshiro) wrote:
>
> >> Ovum, at the beginning, you stated you are "not a member." At the end,
> >> you clarified that you are "no longer a member." I can safely say that
> >> friends that anyone has had in a "former lifestyle" can be hard to relate
> >> to. Christians who have left the "party life" behind can have a tough
> >> time even talking to their former partying pals. They may not be
> >> "assuming" anything in your case; they just may be uncomfortable.
> >>
> >> As to your "5 categories," could you provide some scriptural reference?
> >>
> >> And Rich, you inroduced a totally irrelevant persecution to this thread.
> >----------------------
> >Irrelevant persecution--hardly. Relevant parody is what I intended. Kim
> >was right. Some 'Christians' have taken this persecution thing to the
> >extreme. 'True Christians' seem to be at highest risk. Thank God that
> >the ordinary Christians haven't taken up this vice.
>
> >--Rich--
>
> Why is it that so many "Christians" beleive that because they are
> persecuted they must be right or was that I must be right because I am
> persecuted ?
--------------------
Many historians agree that early Christian persecution has
been somewhat exaggerated. Sure, some draft-evaders got fed to the
lions--but not just Christians. Plenty of pagans were partaken by
lions. However, in the second century, Rome granted Christians a
pacifist exemption from serving in the Roman Army.
It seems to me that an effective way to undermine the ICC on
alt.religion.christian.boston-church would be to start persecuting some
other control-culture Christian sect. This would deprive the ICC of the
persecution it obviously needs. Such an action is virtually certain
erode the confidence of ICC members. If enough persecution is diverted
from the ICC to the other sect, ICC members are quite likely to start
joining the sect
that provides more persecution.
--Rich--
--Rich--
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
: Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
: friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
: ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
: church's policies.
Rarely?? I thought it was categorically impossible for any ICC member,
anywhere in the world, to have any real or true friendship with any
ex-member, anywhere in the world?
How about some facts: a friend of mine from out of town who is
an ex-member came over to our house for dinner and we talked about
different subjects, including the church. He knows full well that I want
him to come back to the church and be a disciple. However, that's not
what he's interested doing right now. Some other disciples came by, and he
visited our Wednesday night service as well, and our sector leader even
mentioned from the pulpit that he was in town and introduced him.
So, here is an ex-member who:
(a) is my friend,
(b) is my friend without an "ulterior motive of recruitment"; rather my
motivation is friendship as well as blatant recruitment
(c) comes to visit and is welcomed to the fellowship by rank-and-file
members and fall-time leaders as well.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Scott W. Schreiber (sco...@nhr.com) wrote:
: ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
Baptism is very powerful, but it is not a work, is it an act of obedience
in response to God's command (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21). Salvation is by
grace, not by works (Eph 2:8).
David Mark Das
> Baptism is very powerful, but it is not a work, is it an act of obedience
> in response to God's command (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21). Salvation is by
> grace, not by works (Eph 2:8).
Wait, so baptism is not a work, and salvation is [by grace] not by works,
so theoretically one can be saved and not be baptized? That's the first
time I've heard something like that come out of an ICC member...
David
__\/__
. / _ ^ \ .
|\| (o)(o) |/|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-.OOOo----oo-----oOOO.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| David Das dd...@jove.acs.unt.edu |
| Denton, Texas (USA) http://www.unt.edu/~ddas |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Oooo.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>: Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
>: friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
>: ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
>: church's policies.
>Rarely?? I thought it was categorically impossible for any ICC member,
>anywhere in the world, to have any real or true friendship with any
>ex-member, anywhere in the world?
Bryan Slatner proved that there are exceptions - his heart was heading
in the right direction before his feet.
>How about some facts: a friend of mine from out of town who is
>an ex-member came over to our house for dinner and we talked about
>different subjects, including the church. He knows full well that I want
>him to come back to the church and be a disciple. However, that's not
>what he's interested doing right now. Some other disciples came by, and he
>visited our Wednesday night service as well, and our sector leader even
>mentioned from the pulpit that he was in town and introduced him.
>So, here is an ex-member who:
>(a) is my friend,
>(b) is my friend without an "ulterior motive of recruitment"; rather my
>motivation is friendship as well as blatant recruitment
>(c) comes to visit and is welcomed to the fellowship by rank-and-file
>members and fall-time leaders as well.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Like I said - the motive is recruitment - I rest my case.
Mark Davis
Emjay65
:Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
: friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
: ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
: church's policies.
How presumptuous of you to make a remark like this. How could you
possibly know the motives of *thousands* of ICC members? "rarely" have
"genuine" friendships.... how could you possibly know this? How many ICC
members do you know in the US or India or England or Japan or Korea
or Mexico or South Africa or Brazil or Russia etc? How "in-tune" are
you with their relationships? How could you know their "ulterior
motives"?
Love Emjay.
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Baptism is very powerful, but it is not a work,
I never said it was Roger.
I agree with everything you said.
But if, in the ICC your heart does not overflow with works for a few
days, are you not rebuked? Isn't it said that you have a hard heart
because you don't want to serve?
Scott
Wade Novin
You wouldn't know Grace if it hit you across the jaw....
"Man is the measure of all things......"
Emjay65
>From: Wade Novin <wno...@ucla.edu>
>Date: 7 Jul 1996 20:51:38 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rp80q$12...@uni.library.ucla.edu>
>You wouldn't know Grace if it hit you across the jaw....
>"Man is the measure of all things......"
Is this what a "flamer" sounds like?
Simon55699
:Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
: friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
: ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
: church's policies.
There are 2 ICCers in my building. I am an ex-ICCer. They know this.
They invited me over to watch a movie. I told them of the abuses that
caused me leave the church I didn't even see them for about 5 months.
Then I was invited to a seminar (they put an invitation under my door). I
wanted to go so I put a check under their door. It was like 2 days before
the seminar and I still had not seen them. I wasn't sure if I could pick
them out in a line up.
I saw their car coming into the parking lot so I went out like I was
going to my car so that I could 'accidently run into them.' They said:
'we are so glad your coming' and talked for about 1 minute. After the
seminar I didn't see them for about 3 weeks. They said "oh we want to
know what you thought." We never got together.
Occasionally they invite me over to see a movie. Right now I have not
talked to them since April. Every time I go to their apartment they are
busy. I can tell they get uncomfortable talking to me about church stuff
and asking me what I think about church stuff.
Having been in the church I know that something that is stressed big-time
is follow-up with visitors. I can't figure these people out. Are they
moving slowly because I am an ex-member? Are they intimidated by me
because I am an ex-member? Are they just flaky? Do they invite me when
they have no visitors coming? My latest theory is that maybe every couple
of months they hear a sermon on loving the lost and feel a need to knock
on my door.
I like them. They are very nice people but I couldn't call them my
friends and I am begining to wonder if they are genuine. Even though
I've been invited to several 'events' I hardly know them.
Emjay65
>From: dd...@jove.acs.unt.edu (David Mark Das)
>Date: 7 Jul 1996 00:18:54 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rmvpe$9...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>
>> Baptism is very powerful, but it is not a work, is it an act of
obedience
>> in response to God's command (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21). Salvation is
by
>> grace, not by works (Eph 2:8).
>Wait, so baptism is not a work, and salvation is [by grace] not by works,
>so theoretically one can be saved and not be baptized? That's the first
>time I've heard something like that come out of an ICC member...
>David
No, you dod not hear that. That's what you wanted to hear.
Nancy
On Jul 07, 1996 19:39:05 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
'simon...@aol.com (Simon55699)' wrote:
<snip>
>they have no visitors coming? My latest theory is that maybe every couple
>of months they hear a sermon on loving the lost and feel a need to knock
>on my door
Simon,
They used to have a special Sunday service around Christmas time, where we
were supposed to contact ex members and invite them to "come home" to the
ICC. This was a so important that was announced a few months before so we
could get to work contacting the fall aways. People were more willing to
come to church during the holiday season. In fact, I'm sure I'll be
getting called next Christmas by my former discipler.
Sadly though, I will have to decline.
nancy
Starr
ma...@mindspring.com (Mark Davis) wrote:
Roger said:
>>How about some facts: a friend of mine from out of town who is
>>an ex-member came over to our house for dinner and we talked about
>>different subjects, including the church. He knows full well that I want
>>him to come back to the church and be a disciple. However, that's not
>>what he's interested doing right now. Some other disciples came by, and he
>>visited our Wednesday night service as well, and our sector leader even
>>mentioned from the pulpit that he was in town and introduced him.
Mark said:
>Like I said - the motive is recruitment - I rest my case.
Mark, I don't think you're being entirely fair to Roger (a first - me
defending Roger! :) <will miracles never cease> I think that Roger
said that even though he would *like* his friend to become a disciple,
he was his friend regardless.
What I consider that "conditional" friendship is when someone is your
best friend while you study with them, then if you decide not to join
the ICC they suddenly have no time for you. I don't think this was
the case that Roger was referring to.
Starr
simon...@aol.com (Simon55699) wrote:
<snip>
>Having been in the church I know that something that is stressed big-time
>is follow-up with visitors. I can't figure these people out. Are they
>moving slowly because I am an ex-member? Are they intimidated by me
>because I am an ex-member? Are they just flaky? Do they invite me when
>they have no visitors coming? My latest theory is that maybe every couple
>of months they hear a sermon on loving the lost and feel a need to knock
>on my door.
>I like them. They are very nice people but I couldn't call them my
>friends and I am begining to wonder if they are genuine. Even though
>I've been invited to several 'events' I hardly know them.
Maybe, Simon, they don't want to seem like they are putting undue
pressure on you, but want you to know that you're still welcome. Just
giving them the benefit of the doubt...
Scott W. Schreiber
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>(a first - me defending Roger! :) <will miracles never cease>
Miracles and toungues are not for today! Not according to ICC
teaching, so Roger probably thinks your the devil's agent now....
}:-]
Jeremy Kyle
: : Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
: : friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
: : ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
: : church's policies.
: Rarely?? I thought it was categorically impossible for any ICC member,
: anywhere in the world, to have any real or true friendship with any
: ex-member, anywhere in the world?
at this point i must interject. I, as an ex-member still have friendships
with the guys in the church. Every sunday nighti play hockey (on ice for
the uneducated :) with the boys. One friend still makes a real effort to
stay in touch though i msut say that our friendship is fairly superficial
- we talk about sports, play sports and atch sports togeter...is this
what people mean when they say you cant have true friendships outside
between members and former members?
Wondering if anyone out there has a true, deep friendship with someone
either in the church (and you are a former member) or with an ex-member
(and you are still a member)??
comments please
jere
: How about some facts: a friend of mine from
out of town who is
: an ex-member came over to our house for dinner and we talked about
: different subjects, including the church. He knows full well that I want
: him to come back to the church and be a disciple. However, that's not
: what he's interested doing right now. Some other disciples came by, and he
: visited our Wednesday night service as well, and our sector leader even
: mentioned from the pulpit that he was in town and introduced him.
: So, here is an ex-member who:
TriciaAZ
In article <4rsqi6$7...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
writes:
>Subject: Re: Am I in Sin or What?
>From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 03:42:45 GMT
>
>ma...@mindspring.com (Mark Davis) wrote:
>
>Roger said:
>
>>>How about some facts: a friend of mine from out of town who is
>>>an ex-member came over to our house for dinner and we talked about
>>>different subjects, including the church. He knows full well that I
want
>>>him to come back to the church and be a disciple. However, that's not
>>>what he's interested doing right now. Some other disciples came by,
and he
>
>>>visited our Wednesday night service as well, and our sector leader even
>>>mentioned from the pulpit that he was in town and introduced him.
>
>Mark said:
>
>>Like I said - the motive is recruitment - I rest my case.
>
>Mark, I don't think you're being entirely fair to Roger (a first - me
>defending Roger! :) <will miracles never cease> I think that Roger
>said that even though he would *like* his friend to become a disciple,
>he was his friend regardless.
>
>What I consider that "conditional" friendship is when someone is your
>best friend while you study with them, then if you decide not to join
>the ICC they suddenly have no time for you. I don't think this was
>the case that Roger was referring to.
>
I agree totally, Kim. And this conditional friendship is also one-sided
and selfish. If you are not doing what the "conditional friend" expects
of you or wants you to do, she can't afford to spend the time on you since
she's not getting anything out of your friendship (converts to church, or
a disciple who tries to be like her and builds up her ego, or whatever she
is looking for). Conversely, if the other friend expects to rid his
"disciple" friend of all interest in the church and all desire to get him
back to church, he is also acting selfishly and putting conditions on the
friendship.
True friends build each other up. They spend time with each other that
each is happy with. If Roger and his friends are happy with the time they
spend together, I'm not going to criticize them and say they should be
doing something different. Each considers the other a friend, and it
doesn't seem one-sided at all.
Patricia
TriciaAZ
In article <4rudme$d...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, jtk...@unixg.ubc.ca (Jeremy Kyle)
writes:
>Subject: Re: Am I in Sin or What?
>From: jtk...@unixg.ubc.ca (Jeremy Kyle)
>Date: 9 Jul 1996 19:59:10 GMT
>
>Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: : eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
>: : Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
>: : friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
>: : ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against
the
>: : church's policies.
>
>: Rarely?? I thought it was categorically impossible for any ICC member,
>: anywhere in the world, to have any real or true friendship with any
>: ex-member, anywhere in the world?
>
>at this point i must interject. I, as an ex-member still have friendships
>with the guys in the church. Every sunday nighti play hockey (on ice for
>the uneducated :) with the boys. One friend still makes a real effort to
>stay in touch though i msut say that our friendship is fairly superficial
>- we talk about sports, play sports and atch sports togeter...is this
>what people mean when they say you cant have true friendships outside
>between members and former members?
>
>Wondering if anyone out there has a true, deep friendship with someone
>either in the church (and you are a former member) or with an ex-member
>(and you are still a member)??
>
>comments please
>
>jere
>
Yes. I have a true friendship with someone in the church (I'm not exactly
a former member since I left in the Crossroads era). I have many friends
who are now in the ICC, but I have one friendship in particular which I'll
consider an example. Our conversations are not superficial, though we
don't spend that much time together. (I have kids and she doesn't so we
don't have as many things in common as we used to. We go to different
churches, so we keep in touch when I visit.) But we both consider it a
friendship even if we don't match everyone else's expectations of what
they like to do when they are with friends. (We don't play hockey or even
badminton. We don't go fishing together or hiking or backpacking or river
rafting. And neither of us even remotely wants to!)
Patricia
Clayton Lane
: : Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
: : friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
: : ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
: : church's policies.
: How presumptuous of you to make a remark like this. How could you
: possibly know the motives of *thousands* of ICC members? "rarely" have
: "genuine" friendships.... how could you possibly know this? How many ICC
: members do you know in the US or India or England or Japan or Korea
: or Mexico or South Africa or Brazil or Russia etc? How "in-tune" are
: you with their relationships? How could you know their "ulterior
: motives"?
Perhaps Mark wrote from his own experience, where his perception of
genuine friendships in the ICC is that they're quite rare. From my
experience, I can verify the basis for Mark's comment. Perhaps he
offended you by implying that his opinion applies as the norm for most
cases. Though your experiences may be different, Emjay, I do not find
Mark's opinion to be baseless.
Clayton
Starr
tric...@aol.com (TriciaAZ) wrote:
<snippage>
>True friends build each other up. They spend time with each other that
>each is happy with. If Roger and his friends are happy with the time they
>spend together, I'm not going to criticize them and say they should be
>doing something different. Each considers the other a friend, and it
>doesn't seem one-sided at all.
Definite agreement.
Martin Hinves
>In article <4rudme$d...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, jtk...@unixg.ubc.ca (Jeremy Kyle)
>writes:
>>Wondering if anyone out there has a true, deep friendship with someone
>>either in the church (and you are a former member) or with an ex-member
>>(and you are still a member)??
>>
>>comments please
>>
I used to have until he got told to stop seeing me.
He even offered to see me behind his discipler's back (without
telling his discipler about it), I told him that this was not
right, a freindship was not something to hide and keep hidden
in the dark.
Besides I was not going to tell him what to do here - he had to
make up his own mind.
I was not scared of afraid to call him a freind or spend time
with him.
He had to come to grips with that.
Martin
Fredrick McConnell
>
>Wondering if anyone out there has a true, deep friendship with someone
>either in the church (and you are a former member) or with an ex-member
>(and you are still a member)??
>
>comments please
>
seem to fly the country...but I would like to comment on true friendships
with those outside the church - how about with those outside Christ
altogether?
I would say that my best friend outside the church is the guitarist on my
recent concept album - he is a devout Muslim. We have had some
incredible talks about our faith - neither of us will change, that much
is clear at this time, but God willing he will become a Christian
eventually. :) :) (which, btw, is why I believe God has allowed us to
make music together, so that one day he might perhaps convert) - we have
also made some absolutely incredible music together. He is a true, rare
talent - I will say I have yet to find it in the church, but I'm
looking. Meanwhile, we will continue to make music together - we can
just look at each other and feel the bond that our music brings. Another
principal musician on my recent album is a Jew, and he and I have a
similar bond, although not as deep because we haven't been performing
together as long. Now, if someone would like to accuse me of befriending
them and making music with them to convert them, I will give you their
email addresses (given they approve of course) and you can speak with
them, and ask if they felt like i have been involved with them musically
to convert them. I will state plainly, though, and if this offends you
then you have a problem with Christianity - I know they are not right
with God and will perish in Hell, and will make music with them and speak
with them and share what I'm learning in my relationship with God, and as
they see my life and hear my teaching, perhaps then they will come to a
saving faith in my Lord and Christ. but I won't stop being their friend,
because we have a special bond outside our faith.
Oh, and wanna know what the concept of my concept album was that a Jew
and a Muslim provided the principal musical input on? Well, the concept
was the Crucifixion of Christ. Soon I will be putting samples of it on
my home page (gotta find some time, first! :) :) ) - lyrics actually will
be tonight.
Well, this was long, but I just wanted to let someone know that some of
us in the church have meaningful friendships outside the church. If
anyone wants to respond to this, please feel free, even if by private
email. I get lonely sometimes... :) or at least my inbox does! :)
Love in Christ,
Fred
--
Fred McConnell - QMS Court Choirmeister @@@@@
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, #119 @@:-) <- The Brian May Smiley
Washington, DC 20006 @@@@@
http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~fredmc Yeah, the guitarist for Queen!
**My opinions do not reflect those of normal rational thinking beings**
Chris Garland
jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Jeetendra Manghani) wrote:
>>
>>: : Why don't you just tell the truth. ICoCers RARELY have GENUINE
>>: : friendships with ex-members and when they do it is eigther with the
>>: : ulteroir motive of recruitment or it is thier choice to go against the
>>: : church's policies.
>>
>>: anywhere in the world, to have any real or true friendship with any
>>: ex-member, anywhere in the world?
>>
>
>That's what we get for Followup post after followup post
>after followup oppost.....
>
>But I must protest the judgement above.
>For me, I have friends outside of the church. Several of them. I
>don't hang with them much and that is my fault for not making more
>time for them. But I have best friends that were in my ministry who
>are in different parts of San Diego (different regions, I mean) and
>I hardly keep in touch with them. And they are good friends too. I
>get so involovved, as do many other disiples, in their own little
>world.
>
>If I lack friendships with any ex-member, it is because I haven't
>kept in touch. The same goes for current discples who are in
>different regions of the church, people I have vowed with to keep in
>constant touch. How many of you have a friend who moved out of the
>city that you vowed to write every week, month, etc., that you have
>lost touch with. It happens all the time to many people who have
>never even heard of the church........
About 2 months before I left the ICC, a good friend and roommate of mine
told me that we would be friends for life. That was before I decided to
leave. I kept up my end of the friendship -- phone calls, cards, etc.
However, this person recently told me he "sees no point in continuing our
friendship." While he was the only one who said it outloud, everyone
else proved it by their actions. No returned phone calls, etc.
Frankly, I don't want to hear that ICC members maintain friendships
outside of the ICC. They don't, unless there is potential to convert or
restore. Perhaps some of you kind hearted ICCers on the newsgroup have a
friend or two outside of the ICC, but think about all those who have left
the church that you used to be close to. Have you abandoned them? When
was the last time you called?
Chris Garland
Colorado that are better in keeping contact than ICCers. You are right
that you say you are in your own little world -- it is a world designed
to immunize you against the outsiders. People outside keep up friendships
much, much better. The best friends I have ever had are those from
outside the ICC; the friends I have now.
Jeetendra Manghani
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, about 95% of the people who have been my friends that left
*FIRST* abandoned the friendship. They were the ones to withdraw
from my friendship. They were the ones who did not return my phone
calls. When I asked how they were doing, they dodged the questions.
I have absollutely no friendship with them now, and I don't know
where they are. I've completeely lost contact with them. Nobody
ever told me to ignore them. They practically disappeared.
A couple of my best friends who left I still maintain a friendship
with. They are willing to be my friends. I am willing to be
their's.
>>Frankly, I don't want to hear that ICC members maintain
friendships
>>outside of the ICC. They don't, unless there is potential to
convert or
>>restore. Perhaps some of you kind hearted ICCers on the newsgroup
have a
>>friend or two outside of the ICC, but think about all those who
have left
>>the church that you used to be close to. Have you abandoned them?
When
>>was the last time you called?
And I don't want to be blamed for abandonment. If you guys would
allow me to be heated for a second. I was not the one who abandoned
them. True, I haven't called them for a while. Part of the reason
is I don't know where they are. I called this girl who left the
church about 4 years ago. Just to say hi. Didn't even invite her
to church, but she used to be a best friend. She told me she would
call me back. Never did. I called her a couple times since, but no
return call.
I don't push friendships even with disciples who don't want to be my
close friend. If you meet me in person, I come across as very
unemotional, but there's one thing about me, and that's if someone
wins my loyalty, they've got me until I Turn to Dust. Until death.
I don't just "abandon" people. If my loyalty is in question, then I
get shaken spiritually. I don't want anyone to question my loyalty.
Just recently, it has been questioned in a couple friendships.
Close ones, too. I don't need people who don't know me to make a
statement or to question my loyalty either.
Jeetendra Manghani
member of San Diego Church of Christ
Jan Sloan
Chris Garland wrote:
>
>
> About 2 months before I left the ICC, a good friend and roommate of mine
> told me that we would be friends for life. That was before I decided to
> leave. I kept up my end of the friendship -- phone calls, cards, etc.
> However, this person recently told me he "sees no point in continuing our
> friendship." While he was the only one who said it outloud, everyone
> else proved it by their actions. No returned phone calls, etc.
That is too bad, Chris, that it turned out that way. True friends manage to remain
friends no matter what. One of my best friends from high school became a Christian
in the Atlanta church a few years ago. We talked a whole lot more when we were in
college than we do now, but we are definately still friends. We could kick back
at any time and talk about stuff with out missing a beat.
> Frankly, I don't want to hear that ICC members maintain friendships
> outside of the ICC. They don't, unless there is potential to convert or
> restore.
I see your hurt, Chris, but you know that is an unfair statement. I maintain
friendships with former members, and some who are not interested in joining the
church. These are people I know before I became part of the church and also folks
I met afterwards.
>Perhaps some of you kind hearted ICCers on the newsgroup have a
> friend or two outside of the ICC, but think about all those who have left
> the church that you used to be close to. Have you abandoned them? When
> was the last time you called?
I can think of one person that my husband and I were close to who we have no
contact with now. This person chose to return to some sinful ways that we choose
not to be a part of. This person also decided that no contact with us was best.
BTW, alot of the folks we've been close to are still members of the church. The
few that did leave the church we are still close to.
I don't believe in kickin' people to the curb (unless they don't want to be
around me anymore).
In Christ,
Jan E. Sloan
Jeetendra Manghani
RICK & SARAH BAUER
jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Jeetendra Manghani) wrote:
>
<snip>
> Nobody ever told me to ignore them.
Jee, were you at the San Diego Revival in 1992? Marty Fuqua led
the "reconstruction" of San Diego that year. He told the 1700
member congregation to stay away from former members. He said, "if
you're going to be a member of this church, you can't be palsy-walsy
with former members." He said, "you will not do it!"
> A couple of my best friends who left I still maintain a friendship
> with. They are willing to be my friends. I am willing to be
> their's.
Does Marty know this? Has the leadership in San Diego changed the
standard since the 1992 Revival?
> And I don't want to be blamed for abandonment. If you guys would
> allow me to be heated for a second. I was not the one who abandoned
> them. True, I haven't called them for a while. Part of the reason
> is I don't know where they are. I called this girl who left the
> church about 4 years ago. Just to say hi. Didn't even invite her
> to church, but she used to be a best friend. She told me she would
> call me back. Never did. I called her a couple times since, but no
> return call.
>
> I don't push friendships even with disciples who don't want to be my
> close friend. If you meet me in person, I come across as very
> unemotional, but there's one thing about me, and that's if someone
> wins my loyalty, they've got me until I Turn to Dust. Until death.
> I don't just "abandon" people. If my loyalty is in question, then I
> get shaken spiritually. I don't want anyone to question my loyalty.
> Just recently, it has been questioned in a couple friendships.
> Close ones, too. I don't need people who don't know me to make a
> statement or to question my loyalty either.
According to Marty's directive in 1992, "loyalty" to any former
member was not tolerated. Loyalty to a "fallaway" was considered
a distraction, and was a misplacing of loyalty to the church and
to God.
I respect your willingness to hang in there with your friendships,
but it is disturbing to know that the leadership makes these
friendships a test of your loyalty and membership to the ICC.
Sarah
Chris Garland
Jan Sloan <sl...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Chris Garland wrote:
>>
>>
>> About 2 months before I left the ICC, a good friend and roommate of mine
>> told me that we would be friends for life. That was before I decided to
>> leave. I kept up my end of the friendship -- phone calls, cards, etc.
>> However, this person recently told me he "sees no point in continuing our
>> friendship." While he was the only one who said it outloud, everyone
>> else proved it by their actions. No returned phone calls, etc.
>
>That is too bad, Chris, that it turned out that way. True friends manage to remain
>friends no matter what. One of my best friends from high school became a Christian
>in the Atlanta church a few years ago. We talked a whole lot more when we were in
>college than we do now, but we are definately still friends. We could kick back
>at any time and talk about stuff with out missing a beat.
>
>> Frankly, I don't want to hear that ICC members maintain friendships
>> outside of the ICC. They don't, unless there is potential to convert or
>> restore.
>
>I see your hurt, Chris, but you know that is an unfair statement. I maintain
>friendships with former members, and some who are not interested in joining the
>church. These are people I know before I became part of the church and also folks
>I met afterwards.
>
Jan, I think that you are not a typical ICC member, as can be seen by
some of your posts. I've found you to be an exceptional person -- I'm not
surprised that you maintain friendships outside of the church. However, I
still feel strongly that *most* ICC members ditch people as soon as they
leave. Jeet talked about the former members ditching current members;
but I suspect that the more likely scenario is the current members refuse
to respect the former members decision to leave and continue to harp on
them about the church rather than just being their friend. That's says to
them "You're not good enough for me to love you where you are. My love is
conditional -- you must be like *this* for me to love you." How much of
that nonsense would you take from someone before you stopped taking their
calls?
Jeetendra Manghani
<snip>
>
>Jan, I think that you are not a typical ICC member, as can be seen by
>some of your posts. I've found you to be an exceptional person -- I'm not
>surprised that you maintain friendships outside of the church. However, I
>still feel strongly that *most* ICC members ditch people as soon as they
>leave. Jeet talked about the former members ditching current members;
>but I suspect that the more likely scenario is the current members refuse
>to respect the former members decision to leave and continue to harp on
>them about the church rather than just being their friend. That's says to
>them "You're not good enough for me to love you where you are. My love is
>conditional -- you must be like *this* for me to love you." How much of
>that nonsense would you take from someone before you stopped taking their
>calls?
>
>
Well, I do agree that most disciples will, if given the chance, ask
someone who has left the church why they made that decision. Then,
they will usually throw in their $0.02 into the matter. I would
think that spiritual people would worry about the spiritual sides of
others. I can understand if this makes an Ex-ICC member feel
uncomfortable and pushes them away. But usually, it is the
ex-member who stops calling the members instead of the other way
around. I have never told anyone that they must be part of the
church in order for me to love them, but I've told them that anytime
they need me, they should just call, and I'd be there. I still
would. If any of you people on the NG were in San Diego and called
me up, I'd meet together and hang out anytime of night or day, and I
have never met any of you face to face!
Wanna put me to the test? Come to San Diego! <grin>
COneill182
In article <4t8vro$2...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu
(Jeetendra Manghani) writes:
> But usually, it is the
>ex-member who stops calling the members instead of the other way
>around.
Since my husband and I have just left the ICC a little over a month ago, I
can speak from firsthand experience that this is definitely not true. I
have two natural sisters who are still in the church, and excluding their
phone calls and those of our minister attempting to set up an exit
meeting, we recieved one phone call, and one visit from members of the
church. Concerning the other members of the church - it is as if we never
existed. I still continue to call members of the church, and have even
spent time with some of them, but unless I initiate - I don't hear from
anyone.
Catherine O'Neill
Smlleecat6
Catherine O'Neil wrote:
>Concerning the other members of the church - it is as if we never
>existed. I still continue to call members of the church, and have even
>spent time with some of them, but unless I initiate - I don't hear from
>anyone.
The same was true for me. One time I met my old discipleship partner at
school where I was working and she was still a student. She asked me for
a ride home. So as *I* was driving *her* home she was giving me the third
degree. The first words out of her mouth were: (smugly) "How's your
relationship with God?" Me: "I am not going back to that church." Her:
(again smugly) "But how's your relationship with God?" Her tone was very
definitely - you couldn't possibly have a relationship with God because
your not in 'the church.'
Bret E. Fisher
--
Bret Fisher
Greater Norfolk Church of Christ
Norfolk, VA USA
br...@as39.navy.mil
www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3407
Jeetendra Manghani <jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu> wrote in article
<4t8vro$2...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>...
> <snip>
> >
> >Jan, I think that you are not a typical ICC member, as can be seen by
> >some of your posts. I've found you to be an exceptional person -- I'm
not
> >surprised that you maintain friendships outside of the church. However,
I
> >still feel strongly that *most* ICC members ditch people as soon as they
> >leave. Jeet talked about the former members ditching current members;
> >but I suspect that the more likely scenario is the current members
refuse
> >to respect the former members decision to leave and continue to harp on
> >them about the church rather than just being their friend. That's says
to
> >them "You're not good enough for me to love you where you are. My love
is
> >conditional -- you must be like *this* for me to love you." How much of
> >that nonsense would you take from someone before you stopped taking
their
> >calls?
> >
> >
>
> Well, I do agree that most disciples will, if given the chance, ask
> someone who has left the church why they made that decision. Then,
> they will usually throw in their $0.02 into the matter. I would
> think that spiritual people would worry about the spiritual sides of
> others. I can understand if this makes an Ex-ICC member feel
> uncomfortable and pushes them away. But usually, it is the
> ex-member who stops calling the members instead of the other way
> around. I have never told anyone that they must be part of the
> church in order for me to love them, but I've told them that anytime
> they need me, they should just call, and I'd be there. I still
> would. If any of you people on the NG were in San Diego and called
> me up, I'd meet together and hang out anytime of night or day, and I
> have never met any of you face to face!
>
> Wanna put me to the test? Come to San Diego! <grin>
>
>
> Jeetendra Manghani
> member of San Diego Church of Christ
>
>
I'd have to agree w/ Jeetandra here. I've had a very close friend leave
the church. I talked for hours with him before he moved out of the
household (Mostly trying to listen to his side seeing if I could possibly
help). He promised me he would call me as soon as he got moved into his
new place (didn't tell me where it was). I told him I wanted to remain
friends. I know this is what Jesus would have done... loved him anyway.
It was hard for me to accept what he was doing, but I knew it was his
decision to make....
He has never called me,... and I miss him.
--
Bret Fisher
Greater Norfolk Church of Christ
Norfolk, VA USA
br...@as39.navy.mil
www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3407
Martin Hinves
Brett I feel sorry for you.
I also think that your respect for your freind's decision even though
you disagreed with him shows a great deal of compassion and
understanding.
I wish there were more ICC members with your heart.
Unfortunately my experience has been the complete opposite.
When I was thrown out (for not giving 10% gross tithe solely and
utterly to the iCC) I lost those I was close to within the ICC.
Each was subject to pressure from the leadership to end their
relationship with me.
I can understand how you feel and have sent this post to let you know
you are not alone in what has happened.
Though we may not understand what has happened or our hurt by it, we
must respect the decisions of those we care about, even if we do not
agree with them, or understand why they do what they choose.
In some cases it is harder if we do understand.
But this I beleive is part of the basic christian respect and
responsibility that we have to exhibit in our characters.
We can't run other people's lives for them - that denies them too
much.
WE cannot fight other people's battles for them.
We cannot run other people's relationship's with God for them.
If it is any conselation your freind probably wants to contact you, he
just is unable. HE feels guilty over not having done so when he said
he would and this guilt has stopped him from doing so.
I've seen this in many people who have left the ICC and other
authoritarian churches.
This may or may not be true but ...
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Bret E. Fisher (br...@as39.navy.mil) wrote:
: > >Jan, I think that you are not a typical ICC member, as can be seen by
: > >some of your posts. I've found you to be an exceptional person -- I'm
: not
: > >surprised that you maintain friendships outside of the church. However,
: I
: > >still feel strongly that *most* ICC members ditch people as soon as they
: > >leave. Jeet talked about the former members ditching current members;
: >
: >
: I'd have to agree w/ Jeetandra here. I've had a very close friend leave
: the church. I talked for hours with him before he moved out of the
: household (Mostly trying to listen to his side seeing if I could possibly
: help). He promised me he would call me as soon as he got moved into his
: new place (didn't tell me where it was). I told him I wanted to remain
: friends. I know this is what Jesus would have done... loved him anyway.
: It was hard for me to accept what he was doing, but I knew it was his
: decision to make....
: He has never called me,... and I miss him.
I had a friend over for dinner last month who I've kept in touch with for
over 2 years since he moved out of state and left the church. He doesn't
want to be a disciple right now, but he does want to be my friend and my
wife's friend. I can live with that. Do I secretly want him to repent
and become a disciple? No. I openly advertise that I want him to repent
and become a disciple. He doesn't want that right now, so for right now,
we're friends. But there's no secret, hidden agenda--he knows I'm "God's
man" sitting in "God's chair", typing on "God's keyboard".
BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
nancy (n1...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Jul 30, 1996 00:26:03 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
: 'rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann)' wrote:
:
: >I had a friend over for dinner last month who I've kept in touch with for
: >want to be a disciple right now, but he does want to be my friend and my
: >wife's friend. I can live with that. Do I secretly want him to repent
: >and become a disciple? No. I openly advertise that I want him to repent
: >and become a disciple. He doesn't want that right now, so for right now,
: >we're friends. But there's no secret, hidden agenda--he knows I'm "God's
: >man" sitting in "God's chair", typing on "God's keyboard".
: >
: >BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
: >the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
: >claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
: Roger,
:
: You said "he doesn't want to be a disciple right now".
: What if he told you he never wanted to be a disciple again?
: Would you still talk to him?
Of course. Now, if he said to me, "Roger, you jerk, I don't want to have
anything to do with you and your stinking church, and don't you dare call
me or my wife or I'll beat you to a pulp" I think I would take the hint
and probably wait until he called me. I'd wave hi if I bumped into him
weeks, months, or years later--he might have simmered down by then.
Likewise, if he drove up to my house in a car with a banner reading, "The
ICC is a dangerous cult, stay away!", handed my wife a stack of
persecution literature, and bragged how he got two disciples to leave the
church and that they since got divorced and one is seeking therapy, I'd
not let him set foot in my house. I don't want to wind up discouraged,
bitter, and divorced, and I don't want any of the people I care about to
go down that same road--so I am sticking with God and the ICC, and helping
them to stay faithful as best I can.
In short, I can and am friends with non-members and ex-members, but I
have no friends amongst those who are working to persecute and destroy
God's church.
nancy
On Jul 30, 1996 00:26:03 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
'rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann)' wrote:
>I had a friend over for dinner last month who I've kept in touch with for
>over 2 years since he moved out of state and left the church. He doesn't
>want to be a disciple right now, but he does want to be my friend and my
>wife's friend. I can live with that. Do I secretly want him to repent
>and become a disciple? No. I openly advertise that I want him to repent
>and become a disciple. He doesn't want that right now, so for right now,
>we're friends. But there's no secret, hidden agenda--he knows I'm "God's
>man" sitting in "God's chair", typing on "God's keyboard".
>
>BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
>the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
>claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
Roger,
You said "he doesn't want to be a disciple right now".
What if he told you he never wanted to be a disciple again?
Would you still talk to him?
nancy
>
>Roger Poehlmann
Smlleecat6
>>I had a friend over for dinner last month who I've kept in touch with
for
>>over 2 years since he moved out of state and left the church. He
doesn't
>>want to be a disciple right now, but he does want to be my friend and my
>>wife's friend. I can live with that. Do I secretly want him to repent
>>and become a disciple? No. I openly advertise that I want him to
repent
>>and become a disciple. He doesn't want that right now, so for right
now,
>>we're friends. But there's no secret, hidden agenda--he knows I'm
"God's
>>man" sitting in "God's chair", typing on "God's keyboard".
>You said "he doesn't want to be a disciple right now".
>What if he told you he never wanted to be a disciple again?
>Would you still talk to him?
>nancy
Would it be possible for him to be a 'disciple' and not go to the ICC?
nancy
On Jul 30, 1996 21:34:38 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
'rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann)' wrote:
>I don't want to wind up discouraged, bitter, and divorced, and I don't
want any of the people I care about to go down that same road--so I am
sticking with God and the ICC, and helping them to stay faithful as best I
can.
divorced?
In my case, if I had stayed in the ICC, I would have ended getting
divorced.
Leaving the ICC saved my marriage. Note: I said Leaving the ICC, NOT
leaving God!!!!
nancy
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
nancy (n1...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Jul 30, 1996 19:15:01 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
: 'smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6)' wrote:
:
: >>You said "he doesn't want to be a disciple right now".
: >>Would you still talk to him?
: >
: >>nancy
: >
: >Would it be possible for him to be a 'disciple' and not go to the ICC?
: What I meant to say, was what if he didn't want to be ICC disciple, would
: Roger still talk to him??
Yes, Roger would still talk to him if he didn't want to be an ICC
disciple. Lots of people disagree with Roger on a number of topics and
he can still get along with them just fine. (All this third-person talk
makes me want to vote for Bob Dole.) Disagreeing with an idea is
different than persecuting a person or group. I can't be buddy-buddy
with someone who is working to destroy my life, my family, and my church.
Starr
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I had a friend over for dinner last month who I've kept in touch with for
>over 2 years since he moved out of state and left the church. He doesn't
>want to be a disciple right now, but he does want to be my friend and my
>wife's friend. I can live with that. Do I secretly want him to repent
>and become a disciple? No. I openly advertise that I want him to repent
>and become a disciple. He doesn't want that right now, so for right now,
>we're friends. But there's no secret, hidden agenda--he knows I'm "God's
>man" sitting in "God's chair", typing on "God's keyboard".
>BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
>the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
>claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
Rog, this is the second time you've posted almost this exact same
post. Be a little more original, please?
nancy
On Jul 30, 1996 19:15:01 in article <Re: Am I in Sin or What?>,
'smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6)' wrote:
>>You said "he doesn't want to be a disciple right now".
>>What if he told you he never wanted to be a disciple again?
>>Would you still talk to him?
>
>>nancy
>
>Would it be possible for him to be a 'disciple' and not go to the ICC?
>
What I meant to say, was what if he didn't want to be ICC disciple, would
Roger still talk to him??
Mark Davis
>the church. I talked for hours with him before he moved out of the
>household (Mostly trying to listen to his side seeing if I could possibly
>help). He promised me he would call me as soon as he got moved into his
>new place (didn't tell me where it was). I told him I wanted to remain
>friends. I know this is what Jesus would have done... loved him anyway.
>It was hard for me to accept what he was doing, but I knew it was his
>decision to make....
>He has never called me,... and I miss him.
>Bret Fisher
>Greater Norfolk Church of Christ
>Norfolk, VA USA
>br...@as39.navy.mil
>www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3407
Sounds like he probably got tired of endlessly discussing the
ICC and of your trying to get him back into the church.
Have you tried calling your friend and asking to spend time with
him with the sincere intent of honoring his convictions? Can you
accept that you two DO NOT agree on many spiritual issues?
Are you capable of having a GENUINE freindship with him if he
will never accept your views?
Please reply, but save the word games. You know what I
mean?
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
>the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
>claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt. No sense covering all
that ground again.
This whole issue boils down to MOTIVE. A committed ICCer will
ALWAYS have the ulteriour motive of recruitment. As long as that
is true - that ICCer is failing to respect the other person. You can
not have a GENUINE friendship with someone you do not respect.
It's really pretty simple.
Mark Davis
Mudpies
In article <4tp61l$16...@mule2.mindspring.com>, ma...@mindspring.com (Mark
Davis) writes:
Two months ago while I was at work I got a phone call from a saleman
selling promotional items for exhibits and trade shows. I work as a
marketing coordinator for a software firm. The guy came across really
pleasant and friendly. We talked for about 5 minutes on the phone and
then in the middle of his speil he begins to ask me some questions that
were more personal in nature and not so work related. He then proceeds to
say, "Hey, you sound like a really interesting person and I just wanted to
invite you to a single retreat this weekend in Burlingame. ALERT! ALERT!
I stopped him and finished the sentence for him,"Let me guess, it is at
the Hyatt Regency?" He sounded very excited," Yes, how did you know?!" he
says. I ask him for clarification on what group he is affiliated with and
he says," The San Francisco Church of Christ."
I couldn't believe what was happening! This was a supposed business call
and then all of sudden I am being invited to attend a religious function?
DECEPTIVE!!!! I identified myself to him and it turns out that we had
known each other while we were in the campus ministry. He doesn't stop
there. He goes on to lecture me about the woes I must feel since leaving
the church and that everyone struggles. I had to enlighten him and tell
him that ever since I have left the church my life has gotten nothing but
better and that I am not struggling. It was a hard pill for him to
swallow.
I decided to call the owner of the company to complain and as it turns out
HE is also a member of the church. I told him that one could accuse him as
using his company as a front in order to recruit people. He told me that
he was legitimate and apologized that one of his employees took the
liberty to invite me to a personal function.
The irony of life ...
Michelle C.
"A heart held humble will level and light your way"
R. L. Measures
In article <4tak7t$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, conei...@aol.com
(COneill182) wrote:
> In article <4t8vro$2...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, jman...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu
> (Jeetendra Manghani) writes:
>
> > But usually, it is the
> >ex-member who stops calling the members instead of the other way
> >around.
>
> Since my husband and I have just left the ICC a little over a month ago, I
> can speak from firsthand experience that this is definitely not true. I
> have two natural sisters who are still in the church, and excluding their
> phone calls and those of our minister attempting to set up an exit
> meeting, we recieved one phone call, and one visit from members of the
> church. Concerning the other members of the church - it is as if we never
> existed. I still continue to call members of the church, and have even
> spent time with some of them, but unless I initiate - I don't hear from
> anyone.
>
When a friend of mine joined the ICC, she was invited to move in with some
ICC sisters who shared an apartment. After she moved in she discovered
that she was not allowed to use the telephone unless a senior sister
listened in. My friend moved out ASAP. Subsequently, she was shunned
completely. They would not even return a simple 'hi, how are you?' when
she saw them in town. They would stare right through her like she was
invisible, with blank zombiesque expressions on their faces. . . Totally
awesome, Mr. McKean.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Ovum
In article <4tuicq$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mud...@aol.com (Mudpies)
writes:
>I decided to call the owner of the company to complain and as it turns
out
>HE is also a member of the church. I told him that one could accuse him
as
>using his company as a front in order to recruit people. He told me that
>he was legitimate and apologized that one of his employees took the
>liberty to invite me to a personal function.
Michelle,
That doesn't sound right. Can you report them to the Better Business
Bureau or something?
BLantz5584
In the November 94 edition of B.A.R., the probable
site of the Field of Blood otherwise known as
'Akeldama' was discussed at length. The difficulty
archaeoloist had with its identification was the
improbable choice that the House of Annas made for
its tombs in this area. I submit that this is highly
consistent with the evil of that day. In fact AKELDAMA,
wherever it may be IS a monument to the evil of betrayal
wrought by religious apostasy against Israel's feedoms and
her God This location is believed to be a half mile to the
southwest of Jeruselem. It is also located at the eastern
most end of Wadi er-Rababeh, otherwise known asthe Valley
of Hinnom. (Indy, hang onto your hat!)
Isaiah first related the concept of hellfire to what
goes on in the Valley of Hinnom in Isa 66:24 "And they will
go out and look upon the dead bodies of
those who rebelled against me; their worm
will not die, nor will their fire be quenched,
and they will be loathsome to all mankind."
As you probably know, the Valley of Hinnom was a
garbage dump contantly burning with refuse infested
with worms. Unfortunately this is not all that was
associated with this valley. In Josh. 15.8,18:16; 2
Chron. 33.6; Jer. 32.35, before, during and after the
Israelites came was child - sacrifice; again, betrayal.
So that it is evident that as the Jew would look over
this valley from the lofty heights of Jeruselem as he
dumped his garbage, or conveyed it into the valley,
and would be reminded of this guilt his nation
brought upon itself. However, religion gave him an
alternative. He could remember this sin of his
nation or he could forget by pursuing religion. And
so both this valley and its history was perpetuated
throughout the Age of Israel. But both it and its history
ends at the Field of Akeldama. The doom of religion is the
Lake of Fire.
Before I continue with this I need to make one thing
very clear. God is betrayed by man through religion.
Man is not betrayed by God. Further, the only reason
why man is betrayed by his fellow man is because he
has first betrayed himself. This dissertation is not a
justification for bitterness. As we shall see, Man has
only himself to blame.
Judas Iscariot betrayed himself long before
he betrayed the Lord, or was betrayed by the Temple
priests - leading to his demise. When he told himself
that his destiny would be in the wealth he could derive
from the celebrityship of the Lord, he mocked the
seeming poverty of the Lord and most of the
apostles. I say "seeming poverty" because the Lord
called people from every walk of society and otherwise
had no use for human wealth. In short, Judas betrayed himself
with his own false values, disregarding the source of that
wealth. So obviously, if a person is foolish enough to betray
himself, he is going to betray everyone else as well
including the God that created him. We are aware
of the 30 pieces of silver, but what may not be such common
knowledge is its prophesy in Zechariah 11 - the "worthless
shepard" being the apostascy of Israel and her destruction in
70AD.
So let's jump ahead a litt1e bit to the religious betrayal of
Judas Iscariot that sea1ed his doom to the Lake of
Fire. The violence of his judgment will only be equaled
by the judgment of the first beast in the Tribulation.
And in doing so let's first observe a passage in Rev.
20.12:
"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before
the throne, and books were opened. Another book
was opened, which is the book of 1ife. The dead were
judged ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS as recorded in the books."
Notice, there is no mention of sin in these passages,
and NO, ergas is never used in Scripure to refer to
sins. Ergas is always used in regard to production of
some kind to some objective with some benefit in
mind, personal or otherwise - it makes no difference.
The term "sinner" only charterizes someone who
has no control over his sin nature, also condemned
in Scripture. But ergas is constructive. The
unfortunate thing about this is that it is a
litt1e TOO constructive, in fact it is self-righteous to
the point of megalomania. For the doer demands
that God accept what he does IN LIEU of what God
did for mankind at the Cross when HE JUDGED
HIS SON FOR THE SlNS OF ALL MANKIND. And so
at the Great White Throne Judgment, the Lord
examines the book of Works which the unbeliever
re1ies upon, things that impress him vs. the
propitious work of Christ on the Cross. And the
unbeliever is found wanting. Now back to Judas
Iscariot.
Let's now examine the temple of doom for Judas
Iscariot. First of a11 Judas wanted to die, he
did not have to commit suicide he WANTED to
commit suicide for the singlemost reason anyone
commits suicide - he can't live with his thoughts.
Specifical1y he could not live with the thought that
he betrayed Jesus Christ. The Lord had treated him
very well, as He had treated all all the apostles, and
had it not been for the empowenng of Satan himself, Judas
would not have been capable of it. But at the time of
the Lord's ministry Judas DESPISED Jesus Christ.
He despised the apostles and ultimately he despised
God's righteousness. Satan provided the perfect
solution to vent his vehement attitude AND HE T0OK
IT. Judas had reached the point that he was
incapable of betraying Jesus Christ on his own, but
he was also incapable of THINKING anything else but
betrayal. So God allowed this to happened. Judas had
long amassed such spiritual scar-tissue in saying
"no", "no" , "no" to the gospel throughout his time
with the Lord, only the Pharaoh of the Exodus could
compare with him - Herod running a close third. The
life of Judas Iscariot was out of control.
This may also demonstrate the extent of divine
revelation to humanity and their perception of it does not
determine their positive volition to God and the
gospel. Humanity rejects God regardless of what
humanity knows about God. And so the Apostle Peter
clearly states in 2 Peter 2:21:
"It would have been better for them not to have
known the way of righteousness, than to have known
it and then turn their backs on the sacred command
that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are
true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, a sow that is
washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
God is not in the business of exacerbating man's
grief with the truth of His Word. And insofar as
man chooses not to accept Christ God respects that privacy and
volition which He gave man - and so should all who
know the truth. If man chooses to separate himself from
his creator, he indirectly has chosen to make his camp with
the Devil and he has only himself to blame. The Holy Spirit
is the sovereign executor and revealor of the gospel, not man.
Man does not save man, God saves mankind - never
forget it or it will spiritually destroy your fellowship
with your savior. In one instance I personally and
intimately know of, this arrogance destroyed a
person's life on this earth. She developed became
anorexic and swallowed a .38 .
Judas did not seek help. He sought to condemn the
temple priests for inducing him to this act. ( I know
this is getting to be a little morose - can't help it. If
anything, download this with your copy-paste
commands and read it at later time. It is a little
strong. When human nature comes in direct contact
with perfect divine righteousness, doing so without a
mediator, this is what happens. And this conflict will happen
again on a very big scale at Armageddon. Again man will
loose. This conflict is a major theme of Scripture and a VERY
large portion of the Old Testament is devoted to it.
And so Judas returned to the temple to give back the silver,
not to seek help or forgiveness. GET IT IN YOUR NOTES
AND MEMORIZE THlS - it could even save your life some day:
With God there is always forgiveness of sin through
Jesus Christ.
Judas did not seek forgiveness. And so in not
seeking forgiveness from God he was completely
unable to forgive himself and he went out and
destroyed himself. God is the most forgiving person
ever to exist for one reason and one reason alone
your sins are paid for BY HIS SON. Whether you are
a believer or not, your sins are paid
for and God is completely righteous to forgive you
that sin should you come to the Cross as an unbeliever,
and name your sins to God as a believer (I JOHN 1.9).
Man is incapable of such propitiation
because man is not perfect righteousness. He cannot
forgive sin it is not his place to forgive sin. It is his
place to be gracious insofar as God was gracious to
him at the Cross.
So that these priests whom Judas approached spoke
as men, not as Levitical Priests who could have
performed the sacrifices and reminded Judas of the
propitiation of the Messiah. Instead they said "what
do we care, your sins aren't our problem." When it
came right down to the wire re1igion betrayed their
responsibllities entrusted them by man and in this
case by God. Instead they bought a trash dump area
where Judas could hang himself and ultimately christen
with his blood as the field of blood).
How did religion and the religious respond to this
incident? I SUSPECT they denied this incident ever
occurred. Why do I suspect this? Akeldama was bought
back by the house of Annas and used for their own
burial tombs along with the more affluent citizenry
of Jeruselem. Some 80 sepulchers were discovered there!
This area was therefore not permitted to become a monument to
the betrayal of Jesus Christ by the blood of His
betrayer. It would have been a great embarrassment
to the Temple! So that not only was Judas Iscariot
buried there, so were the temple priests as well - in
complete identification with the entire incident.
They deceived no one. And in 70AD the end of that
religion and typically the end of all human religion that
ultimately betrays anothers trust became self destruction
when they threw themselves into the burning temple. Human
nature is human nature regardless of who has it and
attempts to cover his nature from both himself and
his Creator by religion as the first couple did in the
garden with fig leaves. Instead we need the skins of sacrifice.
In the Lord,
B. Lantz
TriciaAZ
>Subject: Re: Am I in Sin or What?
>From: ma...@mindspring.com (Mark Davis)
>Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 02:48:23 GMT
>
>rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, it was posted on this NG that it was "impossible" for ANY member of
>>the ICC to have a friendship with an ex-member, and that any member who
>>claimed to have such a friendship was a "liar".
>
>>Roger Poehlmann
>>member, SF Church of Christ
>>(International Church of Christ)
>
>
>Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt. No sense covering all
>that ground again.
>
>
>This whole issue boils down to MOTIVE. A committed ICCer will
>ALWAYS have the ulteriour motive of recruitment. As long as that
>is true - that ICCer is failing to respect the other person. You can
>not have a GENUINE friendship with someone you do not respect.
>It's really pretty simple.
>
>
>
>Mark Davis
>
Respect works both ways. Roger's friend seems to respect him enough to
keep his friendship, even though he KNOWS that Roger would like for him to
rejoin the ICC. It isn't an "ulterior" motive unless the motive is not
expressed. Roger describes his hopes as something known by his friend
(and his motives as well). If this friend was constantly bringing up
Roger's beliefs and his church as things that were highly inadequate, and
urging Roger to leave them behind, this would indicate a lack of respect
on the "friend's" part. In this case (or if Roger were constantly doing
the same to his friend), I would agree with you that friendship would be
impossible. Since Roger claims friendship with the ex-member, it would
indicate respect also. Who can cast judgment on the quality of his
friendship? I think we can only take his word for what that particular
friendship is like.
Respectfully,
Patricia
Martin Hinves
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
><snip for space>
>In short, I can and am friends with non-members and ex-members, but I
>have no friends amongst those who are working to persecute and destroy
>God's church.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Two small point's Roger
Point 1 - why is the ICC God's church and any other denomination
(choose one out of the hat) not ?
Point 2 - why do you define pointing out the ICC's unbiblical,
unethical, and sometimes criminal acts as persecution?
Just for the record I am not out to "destroy" the ICC... see it change
and repent - yes. But then again by your church's definitions because
I exert my faith's responce in matters of opinion and not those of the
ICC I have sinned and committed deviseness... so I guess you would see
changing the ICC as destruction of it.
.
You would loose the control and power that you have and that would be
such a loss would it not.
Martin
N.B.
After all we must have committed disciples who attend EVERY church
service no matter what - if that is comitment it is legalistic law.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Martin Hinves (hin...@world.net) wrote:
: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: ><snip for space>
: >In short, I can and am friends with non-members and ex-members, but I
: >have no friends amongst those who are working to persecute and destroy
: >God's church.
: >Roger Poehlmann
: >member, SF Church of Christ
: >(International Church of Christ)
: Two small point's Roger
: Point 1 - why is the ICC God's church and any other denomination
: (choose one out of the hat) not ?
The ICC is not a denomination. We simply teach that only disciples who
have repented are to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38,
Matthew 28:18-20). What 'other denomination' teaches and practices these
verses?
: Point 2 - why do you define pointing out the ICC's
unbiblical, : unethical, and sometimes criminal acts as persecution?
Unbiblical? I've posted more Bible verses on this newsgroup that I can
remember to back up things that disciples do: read the Bible daily,
evangelize, attend church, repent radically of sin, etc. and have got an
argument on each one of them, often with NO Biblical support in
response. (Like where you would find a verse saying you don't have to go
to church, anyway?).
Unethical? Many ICC member postings have been simply to clear up details
left out by critics who purposely leave them out, or have posted inaccurately,
often deliberately and deceptively to mislead people. Others have posted
wild speculation about church finances with no facts to back them, only
to be contradicted by simple mathematics.
Criminal acts? Oh please, do give us the names and prison addresses
where these hardened criminals of society may be found. My foot.
: Just for the record I am not out to "destroy" the ICC... see it change
: and repent - yes. But then again by your church's definitions because
: I exert my faith's responce in matters of opinion and not those of the
: ICC I have sinned and committed deviseness... so I guess you would see
: changing the ICC as destruction of it.
Disciples who are working to see the ICC improve and grow are inside the
movement. Those who have caused splits, division, and encouraged sin
have either left of their own decision or been disfellowshiped. Other
critics on this newsgroup have posted that "the ICC must fall" and
urging any member to "get out now". "Changing the ICC" by making its
members less committed, less informed before baptism, less evangelistic,
less devoted to each other, etc. is not a change I want any part of.
If you want to change the ICC so much for the better, repent and be
baptized, and live a powerful life example and lead a personl ministry
that is inspiring and fruitful. Then when people ask you, "Hey bro, you
seem to have such a great command of the Scriptures, you're usually
humble to get advice, you baptized 3 people that you met this month, and
you seem be a lot warmer, loving, and passionate for God than anyone else
in the zone...bro, what advice would you have for me?" and then you can
tell them all your great ideas and how God has blessed you so much.
Chris Garland
I'm sorry Roger, but this post is just horrible. How could you be posting
to this newsgroup for as long as you have been, and be so completely in
the dark?
Yesterday, I asked for verses that show that in order to SAVED, one had
to 1)read their bible daily, 2)share their faith EVERY DAY, 3)Go to every
single church service, ....etc. I'll stop there, because these topics
alone will stump you. Show me verses where these things are required for
SALVATION. You want biblical proof from other people? Start showing it
yourself first.
The ICC holds back baptism from people who have not shown these traits.
That is unbiblical. Want bible proof; look up this verse: the whole new
testament. Not one account of holding back salvation until someone
"proves" themselves to be some churches definition of a "disciple."
Are you going to deny, Roger, that the ICC is acting diffently from
the first century church (God's church)?
Look again at Acts 2; no ICC person has ever given a reasonable
explanation for the fact that 3,000 people were baptized in one day, most
of whom were foreigners, and none of these people had to 1) prove
themselves; 2) confess every sin in their lives prior to
being offered salvation; be led through a series of studes. And no
ICCer has ever come up with a bible verse to legitimize
*mandatory-assigned-one-over-one discipling partners*.
Come on, Roger, I challenge you: Your church has invented a formula for
salvation that was non-existent in the first century, and is now trying
to reinvent history to try to claim it was! Where's the proof?
With all of that said, it completely nullifies your ludicrious statement
about all true disciples being inside the ICC building it up.
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The ICC is not a denomination.
Oh? What would you call it? a faction? a division? Or do you
believe that for 2000 years, Satan triumphed over the church.
Once again you demonstrate blindness to logic.
>We simply teach that only disciples who
>have repented are to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38,
>Matthew 28:18-20). What 'other denomination' teaches and practices these
>verses?
You use denomination in quotes because you don't think *any* church or
their membership is valid. Very subtle, but defies scripture, once
again.
>Unbiblical? I've posted more Bible verses on this newsgroup that I can
>remember to back up things that disciples do:
So what? I could post (and Martin HAS) verses from the Bible that say
there is no God.
>repent radically of sin, etc.
Hmmm....I repent quietly, in the privacy of my home. This probably
isn't good is it Roger.
>Unethical? Many ICC member postings have been simply to clear up details
What about the ICC member who still is a member, who posted about
"brothers" putting him down on the ground and sitting on him, and
screaming in his face all the reasons they couldn't stand the guy.
What about how they threw things in his face? Sure, that's ethical.
Lot's of love too huh.
>If you want to change the ICC so much for the better, repent and be
>baptized, and live a powerful life example and lead a personl ministry
>that is inspiring and fruitful. Then when people ask you, "Hey bro, you
>seem to have such a great command of the Scriptures, you're usually
>humble to get advice, you baptized 3 people that you met this month, and
>you seem be a lot warmer, loving, and passionate for God than anyone else
>in the zone...bro, what advice would you have for me?" and then you can
>tell them all your great ideas and how God has blessed you so much.
But untill you become a member, untill you prove godliness by numbers,
anything an outsider says will be denied or ignored by Roger.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
> Martin Hinves (hin...@world.net) wrote:
> : rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
> : ><snip for space>
> : >In short, I can and am friends with non-members and ex-members, but I
> : >have no friends amongst those who are working to persecute and destroy
> : >God's church.
>
> : >Roger Poehlmann
> : >member, SF Church of Christ
> : >(International Church of Christ)
>
> : Two small point's Roger
>
> : Point 1 - why is the ICC God's church and any other denomination
> : (choose one out of the hat) not ?
>
> Matthew 28:18-20). What 'other denomination' teaches and practices these
> verses?
You guys are the only 'denomination' that teach and practice that
"only disciples who have repented are to be baptized..."
It is interesting to examine your statement Roger.
If Disciple = Christians = Saved, how can one be "only a disciple,
repenting, and ready for baptism if they are already a Christian
and saved?
It sounds like you believe that there are people who are unsaved
disciples that need to become Christians. I thought the ICC taught
that Disciples and Christians are one in the same.
How can this be?
> snip>
> Disciples who are working to see the ICC improve and grow are inside the
> movement. Those who have caused splits, division, and encouraged sin
> have either left of their own decision or been disfellowshiped.
Those former members who tried to promote change while in the ICC
were not tolerated by the ICC leadership. If you step on leadership
toes a little too firmly you are outsed.
<snip>
> If you want to change the ICC so much for the better, repent and be
> baptized, and live a powerful life example and lead a personl ministry
> that is inspiring and fruitful.
<snip>
I joined the movement in 1975 in Gainesville, FL. I was baptized
by Sam Laing. I was in the ministry for over 10 years. I have been
personally fruitful, but when I tried to affect change of the abusive
practices within the ICC, I was cut off and marked.
I was put in the position of being in between a rock and a hard place.
As many other former members can relate to.
Roger speaks about influencing change within the ICC, as though it is
a common everyday practice. For so many who have attempted to handle
their concerns in this manner, I can personally state that it does
not work.
Sarah
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The ICC is not a denomination.
Your arrogance is showing again Roger. This is YOUR opinion
- it is NOT fact. Many people would totally disagree with this
statement. Of course - you don't see it that way because you
think you belong to the one and only true church.
My American Heritage Dictionary defines a denomination (as
used in this context) as "An organized group of religeous
conregations". Is the ICC and organized group of religeous
congregations? Sure looks that way to me...
The only better definition for the ICC is found when you look
up the word "CULT"...
Mark Davis
Catherine Hampton
Bryan Erik Slatner (bsla...@rmi.net) wrote:
<deletia>
: 5. I don't have proof of this, of course, but I find it *highly* suspicious
: that the LA Church of Christ had a fundraiser for the churches in Russia,
<etc.>
: 6. The continued slander and libel of Rick and Sarah Bauer and other
: ex-members.
: 7. Encouraging church members to breach contracts. For instance, I myself was
<etc.>
No argument with your basic premise, Bryan, but the stuff above isn't
criminal. If the allegations are true, it's at most a tort, a civil
violation or breach of contract. Which isn't any good, either. :( But
best be accurate with one's language when making accusations of this
type, especially when they're true. <sigh>
Catherine
Scott W. Schreiber
That was a good post. I only wish that it would be met with an
attitude other than "Well, he's an ex-member trying to tear down God's
kingdom." I wish it could be taken at face value. I wish folks would
trust non/ex members to be telling the truth (in most cases).
I wont hold my breath.
Bryan Erik Slatner
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
Poehlmann) had the following to say:
>Criminal acts? Oh please, do give us the names and prison addresses
>where these hardened criminals of society may be found. My foot.
One does not necessarily have to be in prison to have comitted a criminal act,
Roger. But let's see, what criminal activities has the ICC comitted?
1. John Louis's deportation from Singapore for giving false information on his
Visa application.
2. The London Church of Christ's attempt to thwart UK immigration by setting
up the bogus "International School of Evangelism" and saying that ICC leaders
were students there (so they could get into the country).
3. The Boston Church of Christ transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars
to the bank accounts of ICC leaders in the UK so that the leaders could
"prove" to UK immigration that they had the financial means to support
themselves in the UK. Later, after "proving" this, the monies were transferred
back to Boston.
4. The London Church of Christ is currently under investigation for tax fraud
by Inland Revenue.
5. I don't have proof of this, of course, but I find it *highly* suspicious
that the LA Church of Christ had a fundraiser for the churches in Russia,
raised in excess of a million dollars, wound up spending about a quarter of a
million on the Russian churches, and all of a sudden the Upside Down club gets
paid off! The ICC claims that the down payment for the Upside Down club came
from a private contributor, but it won't say where the rest of the cash came
from! Hmmmmm...
6. The continued slander and libel of Rick and Sarah Bauer and other
ex-members.
7. Encouraging church members to breach contracts. For instance, I myself was
encouraged several times to walk out on the lease on my apartment so I could
"move in with brothers". I have talked to *many* others, both in Colorado
Springs and the rest of the country who were encouraged to do similar things.
8. Fraud during fundraisers. For instance, to raise money for special
contribution, the Colorado Springs church has a "paint-a-thon" where we paint
the houses of needy people. We go door-to-door and ask people for money for
this cause. However, the *cause* is Special Contribution, not the painting of
the houses (all of the time and materials that goes into painting the houses
is donated directly)...if pressed, the door-knocker will admit that the money
is for special contribution, but for the most part the pitch is something like
"Hi! My name's Bryan and I'm with the Colorado Springs Christian Church. We're
doing a project where we're painting the houses of poor and elderly people and
I was wondering if you could help us out with a small donation?" No mention of
Special Contribution or its purpose is made. (BTW, I did, in fact, use this
pitch personally...and I learned it from my lead evangelist!!)
I think 8 is enough, huh? :)
Love in Christ,
Bryan
Mudpies
>Michelle,
>
>That doesn't sound right. Can you report them to the Better Business
>Bureau or something?
The guy asked that I show some mercy and not take it any further. I gave
it some thought and decided not to go any further with it. I sent him a
letter expressing my concern and decision. My focus is not to deal so
much with current members but deal with those who want help out of the
group and those who have who have already left. Some have disagreed with
me and felt I should have taken it a few steps further,but hey I prayed
about it and I felt my energy is not to be wasted in kicking a dead horse.
COneill182
On Tuesday, August 6, Roger wrote:
>The ICC is not a denomination.
I'm hoping that someone else can help me out here, because this is a
subject that has long confused me about the ICC.
When I look up "denomination" in Webster's, the definition that
applies in this case is: "a religious organization uniting local
congregations in a single legal and administrative body."
So what's the problem? - Isn't this what the ICC is?
It would seem to me that you should be proud of your faith, beliefs,
church, and denomination.
Why do member churches of the ICC feel the need to obscure their
affiliation when asking for donations and invititing people to church?
Why not just say - "Our church is part of the International Churches
of Christ"?
Catherine O'Neill
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
> Why do member churches of the ICC feel the need to obscure their
>affiliation when asking for donations and invititing people to church?
> Why not just say - "Our church is part of the International
Churches
>of Christ"?
>
>Catherine O'Neill
As you know the ICC is a denomination. Their claim not to be, stems
from their roots in the church of christ. The church of christ does
not have a central organization and each congregation is independent,
lead by elders and deacons (although some churches are supported
financially by other congregations). The ICC has central authority,
rules all congregations with a heiarchy of leadership = demonination.
Rob Vugnrick
(Christian)
LeMel HW
On Tuesday, August 6, Roger wrote:
>The ICC is not a denomination.
LeMel says:
Roger, this is a completely false statement, by all accounts. Please give
us your definition of denomination.
(to self: "Gee, I'm always asking for definitions." < hits 'send' button
>)
Mark Davis
lem...@aol.com (LeMel HW) wrote:
>LeMel says:
As Roger has said before, if you want the definition - you should turn
to the American Heritage Dictionary.
It says a denomination is, "An organized group of religeous
congregations". Looks pretty clear to me.
I still say the better definition for the ICC is under the word
"CULT".
Mark Davis