Rephrasing the Divorce Statement....
Starr
RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu> wrote:
<snip about marriage/divorce in ICC>
>*These marriage problems are bemoaning us!"
>Kip McKean - August, 1994 - Manial Leadership Conference
>EO - why would Kip even need to bring this topic up in a leaders
>conference, if it were not a problem? And these are your leaders!
>Sarah
Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
encourages "Type A" personalities? By this I mean outgoing, always
doing, rush rush rush, etc. and actively promotes them into
leadership? And then encourages "leaders" to date/marry "leaders"? I
have usually noticed that when two type A's get together, there is
usually difficulty because Type A's typically have difficulty with
compromise. (And yes, I'm generalizing - but it's a thought)
RICK & SARAH BAUER
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>
> Or you could rephrase it:
>
> "Christians don't divorce Christians."
Or how about:
Faithful ICC members do not divorce their spouces when they remain
faithful, acceptable ICC members.
"It is appalling to me how much time is spent counseling leaders'
marriages...There's not enough breaking out the Bible and saying to
a woman that has emotionally *quit* on her husband, 'Listen, God
hates divorce.' Whether you want to officially get separated or
not, you're breaking your covenant with God, lady. And brother, if
you're treating your wife this way, you are messing up with God...
EOshiro
Scott W. Schreiber
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
>encourages "Type A" personalities?
Oh. You mean personality falsification?
Isn't that a cult control technique??
Clayton Lane
EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
: Or you could rephrase it:
: "Christians don't divorce Christians."
By omission, the above implies it is somewhat acceptable for one to be a
Christian and divorce a non-Christian.
Then throw in a statement that accurately reflects the ICC practice:
Christian = member of the ICC = Saved.
Now it is somewhat acceptable to be a member of the ICC and divorce a
non-member.
Clayton
Scott W. Schreiber
ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>: >Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
>: >encourages "Type A" personalities?
>
>: Oh. You mean personality falsification?
>: Isn't that a cult control technique??
>
>I don't think that was what Kim was talking about, Scott.
OK. I see your point.
The way I read it was the ICC encourages type A personalities, if you
don't have one, better go buy one! :) Almost everyone is squeezed
into some kind of "leadership" position, aren't they? I think this
was discussed here recently. I don't know of too many people who
aren't Bible talk leaders or house church leaders, or some other
trumped up "leader." Kinda like throwing the dog a bone....
Like I said once before, I know a guy who has been in the ICC for a
tiny bit over a year now, and he is a "leader."
Thanks for your viewpoint!
In Him,
Scott
EOshiro
Sarah writes:
...>*These marriage problems are bemoaning us!"
>
>Kip McKean - August, 1994 - Manial Leadership Conference
Typo. (No offense.) Not a typo of "maniacal," mind you. :-) But
"Manila," as in the capital of the Philippines
>EO - why would Kip even need to bring this topic up in a leaders
>conference, if it were not a problem? And these are your leaders!
Exactly. If the leaders can't hold their marriages together, how can they
set an example for others? Everyone has problems. Even leaders. The
difference is that leaders have shown the capacity to surpass these
problems on a consistent basis. And I have no idea what those problems
are, or even if they exist in abundance, since I am neither a leader nor
married.
There seems to be a misconception running around that ICC members think
their leaders are perfect.
Catherine Hampton
: >Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
: >encourages "Type A" personalities?
: Oh. You mean personality falsification?
: Isn't that a cult control technique??
I don't think that was what Kim was talking about, Scott. She wasn't
discussing what the ICOC encourages someone who isn't a "Type A" personality
to do. She just observed that they encouraged people with this personality
type to go into leadership, and encouraged leaders to marry leaders.
This could conceivably be the case without any personality falsification
taking place. At least, in theory. Given the kind of "encouragement"
I've seen from ICOC leaders, I think it would take an unusually strong
person emotionally and mentally to resist the pressure to change....
I'm an introvert, and had enough trouble from it in the earlier
discipling movement. I don't even like to think of what the pressure I've
read about on this group would have done to me. :(
Catherine
Martin Hinves
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu> wrote:
>
><snip about marriage/divorce in ICC>
>
>
>>Kip McKean - August, 1994 - Manial Leadership Conference
>
>>conference, if it were not a problem? And these are your leaders!
>
>
>Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
>doing, rush rush rush, etc. and actively promotes them into
>leadership? And then encourages "leaders" to date/marry "leaders"? I
>have usually noticed that when two type A's get together, there is
>usually difficulty because Type A's typically have difficulty with
>compromise. (And yes, I'm generalizing - but it's a thought)
>
My discipler, and an up and coming leader who was one of my
closest freinds when we were in the iCC (he has now left - I
was mC at his wedding and helped regarding the birth of his
son) one did a study of this when he was in the ICC.
WE are still close good freinds <G>
He pointed out that the ICC "pushed" leaders to marry
"leaders".
It even arranged prospective relationships.
He felt guilty about this - (he later left because the
leadership decided his girlfreind was not the wife of "an
evangelist" which was where he was going... and they broke his
relationship up. They decided they did love each other and
left.)
He stated that it was the elader's duty to assess all
prospective relationship's - he even sat in on some of this.
An attempt would be made to match people of the same
prospective spiritual level.
Matchmaking WAS indulged in.
A few guiding rules were :
Never match two "emotional" people together.
They may find they love eachother more than the church and
cause problems.
You could match two "spiritual" people together and they would
both stay because of the church.
You could match one "emotional" person and one "spiritual"
person.
The emotional person would stay because they loved the
"spiritual" one.
The "spiritual" one would stay because of the church.
Often people were "advised" that a certain person was the right
spiritual level for them even if they did not like them much.
People were also "reserved" under this system.
Talk about controlling people's lives.
One of his comments was have you ever seen an ugly evangelist
or his wife <G>
Martin
DAnder9518
In article <4simkh$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>Or you could rephrase it:
>
>"Christians don't divorce Christians."
Or, "If Christians *do* divorce Christians, we'll revoke their
'Christianity' (ICC membership) so we can say that Christians' don't
divorce Christians."
EOshiro
Dave writes:
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the BIBLE set the standard that
"Christians don't divorce Christians."
I know it's OT, but anyone ever read Malachi 2:16? Kind of
straightforward and simple.
DAnder9518
In article <4sntja$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
I'm well aware of the Bible's statements about divorce.
I was simply alluding to the fact (which has been revisited many times on
this newsgroup) that the ICC has withdrawn membership from members who've
divorced, allowing the ICC to make highly qualified statements like the
following:
". . . we have never had a divorce with couples who have remained
faithful to God and his church in any of our congregations." -- Kip
McKean, 1992
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Dave writes:
>
>>In article <4simkh$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>>writes:
>>
>>>Or you could rephrase it:
>>>
>>>"Christians don't divorce Christians."
>>
>>Or, "If Christians *do* divorce Christians, we'll revoke their
>>'Christianity' (ICC membership) so we can say that Christians' don't
>>divorce Christians."
>
>Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the BIBLE set the standard that
>"Christians don't divorce Christians."
>
>I know it's OT, but anyone ever read Malachi 2:16? Kind of
>straightforward and simple.
But does the bible say this is an unforgiveable sin? Seems like that's
how the ICC treats it.
Starr
ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>: >Sarah - could some of these marriage problems be that the ICC
>: >encourages "Type A" personalities?
>: Oh. You mean personality falsification?
>: Isn't that a cult control technique??
>I don't think that was what Kim was talking about, Scott. She wasn't
>discussing what the ICOC encourages someone who isn't a "Type A" personality
>to do. She just observed that they encouraged people with this personality
>type to go into leadership, and encouraged leaders to marry leaders.
<snip>
Thank you Catherine.
I wasn't talking about personality falsification in the slightest.
The ICC, as I have experienced it, does their best to recruit type "A"
personalities - forceful, go getters, dedicated types, rather than
type "B" personalities - introverted, thinkers, emotional. Simply,
Type A's go further usually than Type B's in the ICC. Since Type A is
usually a strong personality, when you take two type A's and marry
them, you are going to have conflict. Read any psych 101 manual.
It's been proven over and over again.
Ther personality falsification Scott was talking about was the
Briggs-Meyer test, where you're ESFJ or whatever, and after joining
the ICC your basic make up of your personality changes. This is
similar to what happens in the Moonies, $cientology, etc. This was
proven by a study done by Flavil Yeakley, an expert on church growth.
Kip's response was, well, I guess Jesus was an ESFJ (or whatever the
type was)
EOshiro
Dave writes:
>I was simply alluding to the fact (which has been revisited many times on
>this newsgroup) that the ICC has withdrawn membership from members who've
>divorced, allowing the ICC to make highly qualified statements like the
>following:
>
>". . . we have never had a divorce with couples who have remained
>faithful to God and his church in any of our congregations." -- Kip
>McKean, 1992
I'm not clear on what exactly you're saying here. Are you saying that
something is wrong with holding members to the Bible's standards?
(Work with me on a logic basis here.) If the ICC's membership is composed
of Christians, and Christians don't divorce, the divorce removes them from
the membership, not any formal ICC statement.
Catherine Hampton
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: I wasn't talking about personality falsification in the slightest.
: The ICC, as I have experienced it, does their best to recruit type "A"
: personalities - forceful, go getters, dedicated types, rather than
: type "B" personalities - introverted, thinkers, emotional. Simply,
: Type A's go further usually than Type B's in the ICC. Since Type A is
: usually a strong personality, when you take two type A's and marry
: them, you are going to have conflict. Read any psych 101 manual.
: It's been proven over and over again.
I agree, with a caveat -- "Type B"'s are not always thinkers, or emotional.
They're all introverts, but it's perfect possible to have an introvert
who is primarily a logical/rational being (like some college professors
of mine). I also know some introverts who are definitely leaders -- they
like to control and shape human societies. They just do it differently than
an extrovert would.
It's also perfectly possible to have an extrovert who is primarily an
emotional/social being, not a thinker at all, nor (in some cases) a leader
by nature. Many followers are extroverts. IMHO it is precisely this type of
extrovert who does well in the ICOC -- the thinkers tend to see the things
that are wrong more clearly and rely more on their perceptions than on their
feelings. The leaders get tired at the lower stages of having so little
control over their own lives, so unless they get promoted fast, they tend
to leave.
IMHO the Meyers-Briggs test (MBTI) does a much better job of mapping
personalities than a simple "Type A"/"Type B" does, or can. People just
aren't that simple. :>
But, with all that said, two extroverts, especially two extroverts who
are also aggressive and like to control things, are probably going to
make a stormy and contentious couple.
Catherine
Clayton Lane
EOshiro (eos...@aol.com) wrote:
: Sarah writes: [snip]
: >EO - why would Kip even need to bring this topic up in a leaders
: >conference, if it were not a problem? And these are your leaders!
: Exactly. If the leaders can't hold their marriages together, how can they
: set an example for others? Everyone has problems. Even leaders. The
: difference is that leaders have shown the capacity to surpass these
: problems on a consistent basis.
Oh? What ever happened with the sin lists that Al Baird said was "totally
wrong" and possible "grounds for. . . dismissal" (October, 1993), -- the
ones he still "didn't approve of" in December, 1993, and supposedly had
"never seen" before? Former members have claimed breaches in their
confidentiality for *years*. What has been done?
bsla...@rmi.net wrote:
:In article <4sf18o$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eos...@aol.com (EOshiro):
:> For another, the people. If you honestly believe that this is being
:> deceptive, make a legitimate fuss about it. Tell the ICC. Write
:> letters. Get other people to write letters. Make a petition. But
:> make sure you don't end up becoming deceptive yourself in the
:> information you give out.
: You think this would actually *work*?????? Oh, my, the naivete! :)
Write letters, EO??
Most recently (April 26, 1996), I have a copy of a letter from a low-level
leader, "to the leadership and members of the International Churches of
Christ," that claims consistent, "Lack of confidentiality in discipling
relationships and in confession of sin," in the Philadelphia Church. I
have a copy of a letter (October 26, 1993) from a former upper-level
leader in Boston to "Mr. Al Baird", providing information about the sin
lists' origin from Gordon Ferguson (a top leader in the Boston Church),
and an explicit call to repentance: "Truly, your [Al Baird] swift
attention to this ministrial discipline would demonstrate that the upper
echelons of the group [the ICC] are able to discipline themselves." I
have a copy of a letter (early 1994) to "Mr. Kip McKean / Los Angeles
Church of Christ" about the sin lists:
". . . Kip, you're in charge. You're the discipler of these men, your
World Sector Leaders. Are the men at the top of the ICC accountable?
Are you accountable? Can they truly disciple each other and keep
corruption out of the upper echelons of the organization? Do they
have the openness to accept correction and reproof. . . ? Your
actions will speak volumes of your true convictions in this matter. . .
". . . Restore our trust that you folks are honorable men capable of
correcting an egregious practice."
The ICC's response has been to "mark" both writers of these letters, to
make baseless threats with lawyers (letter: Michael S. Greco (lawyer)/Hill
& Barow, November 24, 1993) and to slander (documented on tape). In
addition, the ICC and its leadership has *not* repented of this "totally
wrong" practice that Al Baird called possible "grounds for dismissal."
Instead, the ICC supports it. Al Baird now justifies this practice that
breaks disciples' confidentiality without their knowledge, saying that "the
leader of that group [from where the lists originated]. . . must know his
people. . . He's got to know the sins that you're, on-going basis,
struggling with" (May, 1994).
: And I have no idea what those problems are, or even if they exist in
: abundance, since I am neither a leader nor married.
Neither am I, EO. However, I have taken it upon myself to find out.
Opening my eyes was a worthwhile experience.
: There seems to be a misconception running around that ICC members think
: their leaders are perfect.
Clayton
Ovum
In article <4sr3p3$q...@nntp1.best.com>, ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine
Hampton) writes:
>The leaders get tired at the lower stages of having so little
>control over their own lives, so unless they get promoted fast, they tend
>to leave.
Steve Johnson said that in his tape "Raising Up Leaders Quickly."
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>(Work with me on a logic basis here.) If the ICC's membership is composed
>of Christians, and Christians don't divorce, the divorce removes them from
>the membership, not any formal ICC statement.
So in the ICC, divorce is the unforgivable sin? If not, then why are
they removed from the membership? The Bible says that *all* sin is
forgivable, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It doesn't
mention divorce in that phrase...
EOshiro
Chris asks:
>But does the bible say this is an unforgiveable sin? Seems like that's
>how the ICC treats it.
I think it's virtually inexcusable for Christians. Divorce is NOT a sin
that you "fall into." You "fall into" lust. You "fall into" anger.
Divorce is something that slowly builds. If you are really care about it,
it is certainly avoidable. You should be humble enough to seek advice.
Of course, the Bible says it's acceptable for people to get divorced if
one commits adultery. In that case, I don't think divorce would be
counted as a sin. Adultery would still be a sin, but I think that is
forgivable. But again, for the most part, adultery is not something you
"fall into," either. I don't know of any situations where that actually
happened, and I hope I never do. (I mean, I hope it never happens, not
that I become ignorant.)
I personally know of a case here where a woman was baptized into the
church, and her ex-husband was baptized afterwards. They're still
considered 'single.' As far as I know, they are not currently in any type
of reconciliation process. It may have been considered, but decided
against. I think that counts as 'divorce being forgiven."
However, I am just stating what I think is true at this point. I have
little knowledge of official ICC policy in this area, if there is any. I
have no experience with marriage in any way, except for videotaping
weddings. :-) So, please feel free to direct your comments at me, not
the ICC.
Ovum
In article <4stp6q$r...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
<chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>
>Even Moses granted divorces. I'm not an advocate of divorce, but even
>Jesus acknowledged that we humans are weak people and, therefore, our
>relationships are not perfect. Every effort should be made to make a
>marriage work. But sometimes its not possible. Should someone be sent to
>hell for this? I don't think so -- do you?
Chris,
Jesus said Moses granted divorces because the people's hearts were hard.
When Jesus laid down His "No Divorce Unless There's Been Adultery"
command, the disciples were taken aback. They were like, "Duuuude! If
this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to
marry!" [surfer translation. :-)]
And Jesus basically said, "Hey Listen, you don't HAVE to get married." In
other words, here are the rules. You don't like it, don't get married.
Fredrick McConnell
In article <4suosi$q...@news.ios.com>,
ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, but how would you "repent" of divorce?
>
>You repent of any sinful actions, like selfishness or whatever, that were
>your role in the divorce. And you can be sure that those things never
>play a role in any other relationship you are in.
>
But, you can't get into any future marriage-oriented relationship.
Granted, what you learn of in your character and repent of can apply to
general interpersonal relationships, it obviously can't go to another
romantic attachment, until the spouse you separated from has died.
That's part of "repenting" of divorce.
Now, here is *A MATTER OF COMPLETE PERSONAL OPINION, BASED ON MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES*
Anyone who got a divorce before becoming a Christian, by becoming a
Christian, all sins are washed away (acts 23, where Paul Quotes Ananias
at his conversion) and therefore God does not even consider you to have
been married - granted, if you become a Christian and make the decision
that now that you are divorced, because of the Bible's stand on divorce
in general, you can not get married, that's a matter of opinion. But
anyone who is a Christian at the time of their divorce cannot get married
again, otherwise it is viewed as adultery - and the only way to repent of
adultery is to stop being involved with the co-adulterer, which would
mean *another* divorce, with more of its stickiness.
But like I say, that's just a stab at the issue based on my opinion from
my understanding of the scriptures.
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**
Smlleecat6
EOshiro wrote regarding divorce:
>I have little knowledge of official ICC policy in this area, if there is
any
Wouldn't their policy come from the bible? The bible is their only
standard right?
Scott W. Schreiber
Martin Hinves <rhi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Matchmaking WAS indulged in.
And now, on the icc web page, Al Baird openly encourages all members
to become "matchmakers," and help to arrange marriages in the icc.
My member-acquaintance has recently talked about marriage with another
icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
But then I consider the icc's doctrine on what they call dating. The
guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
Scott
Ovum
In article <4stm89$4...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W.
Schreiber) writes:
>My member-acquaintance has recently talked about marriage with another
>icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
>of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
>for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
This brings up a question: if half the people who join ICC fall away,
what's going to happen to all these arranged marriages when these people
fall away? If the main thing they had in common was ICC, and that's taken
away, how will their marriage survive? Especially if, like 40% of those
who fall away (according to Jerry Jones) they become atheists or agnostics
once they leave the movement?
>But then I consider the icc's doctrine on what they call dating. The
>guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
>week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
>humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
Pat Gemple said 80% of the women who fall away from ICC do so because of
dating issues. I guess ICC is trying to stem the tide by making sure
women have someone to date in the movement. Speaking as one who was a
single Christian for 10 years, it's EXTREMELY difficult to have all these
guys in the world, who are "off limits," beating your door down while
brothers ignore you.
ChrisGarland
EOshiro, I'm sorry, but that all sounds quite legalistic to me -- sounds
as if you've fallen into something we all do at times; following the
letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Remember, God cares
about the heart. Actions flow from the heart. Nitpicky definitions of
divorce are legalistic.
You seem to have forgotten about the holiness of God. We are all sinners.
No sin is different, whether you "fall into it" or "build into it." We
are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. That's why we need
grace. When you forget about our sinful nature, the holiness of God, and
the grace of God, you fall into legalistic nonsense like the ICC.
ChrisGarland
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>In article <4stp6q$r...@news.ios.com>, ChrisGarland
><chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>
>>
>>Jesus acknowledged that we humans are weak people and, therefore, our
>>relationships are not perfect. Every effort should be made to make a
>>marriage work. But sometimes its not possible. Should someone be sent to
>>hell for this? I don't think so -- do you?
>
>Jesus said Moses granted divorces because the people's hearts were hard.
>When Jesus laid down His "No Divorce Unless There's Been Adultery"
>command, the disciples were taken aback. They were like, "Duuuude! If
>this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to
>marry!" [surfer translation. :-)]
>
>And Jesus basically said, "Hey Listen, you don't HAVE to get married." In
>other words, here are the rules. You don't like it, don't get married.
Actually, Ovum, Jesus said "Those who *can* accept this, should accept
it." That's a big difference.
In anycase, my point to EOshiro was that the ICC tends to treat divorce
as an unforgiveable sin, renouncing those who divorce as "non-members",
which we all know in ICC-speak means lost and going to hell. That's a
pretty severe punishment for a sin that the *bible* doesn't call
unforgivable.
EOshiro even made a comment that basically made a distinction between sin
you "fall into" and sin that "develops." In other words, divorce is
somehow a "worse" sin (mortal sin??) because it's contemplated. I have a
real problem with this distinction, because I don't believe it's possible
to accidently fall into sin. In order for sin to be sin, we have to know
it is sinful, and we have to callously engage in it anyway, fully aware
of what we are doing. The ICC tends to believe that almost everthing is
sin, and we fall into it constantly, even unintentionally. I find that to
be preposterous at least, and a slap in the face of the grace of Christ
at the most. I believe that 'unintentional ignorance can diminish or even
remove imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be
ignorant of the princiaples of the moral law, which are written in the
conscience of every man.' <From the Catechism>
In any case, divorce is no where mentioned in scripture as unforgivable,
therefore it is forgivable. Does that mean we should engage in it because
we'll be forgiven anyway? Absolutely not. But it does mean that those who
simply can not find a way to make a marriage work without physical or
emotional destruction of either partner should not be treated as social
or spiritual outcasts by those of us who call ourselves Christians. And
we certainly have no right to self-righteously assume they are going to
hell, as their sin is no more offensive then our own.
ChrisGarland
ChrisGarland
>
>>>Matchmaking WAS indulged in.
>
>>And now, on the icc web page, Al Baird openly encourages all members
>>to become "matchmakers," and help to arrange marriages in the icc.
>
>>icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
>>of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
>>for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
>
>>guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
>>week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
>>humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
>
>
>Oh, give me a break, Scott. The ICC's view of dating, is different
>than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
>opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
>date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
>I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
>
>>>Matchmaking WAS indulged in.
>
>>And now, on the icc web page, Al Baird openly encourages all members
>>to become "matchmakers," and help to arrange marriages in the icc.
>
>>icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
>>of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
>>for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
>
>>guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
>>week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
>>humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
>
>
>Oh, give me a break, Scott. The ICC's view of dating, is different
>than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
>opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
>date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
>I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
Sorry, Kim, but that is *exactly* how it was portrayed to us brothers.We
were made to feel that if we *didn't* take out a sister on a given
Saturday night, we were aiding and abetting in their falling away and
going to hell because they needed the attention and affection, and if
they weren't going to get it from us, they'd go out to "the world" and
get it.
It is a ridiculously piggish viewpoint of women, that's true. But Scott
is right; it is the ICC's mentality.
Catherine Hampton
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: I agree, Catherine - I was simplifying a *lot* for those who have not
: extensively studied psychology and have no clue as to what Type A/B or
: Myers Briggs or Rorschach is. (and I wouldn't either, except I've
: studied it :-)
Yep, I daresay for the same reasons I did. <wry grin>
: Total agreement. That was really my main point. You sum up things a
: lot better than I do in many cases. Are you a professor or something?
: :P) Kim
:P yourself. I'm a graduate of the school of hard knocks where that kind
of thing is concerned. Like some other people in this group. <sigh>
Catherine
Scott W. Schreiber
fre...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Fredrick McConnell) wrote:
Now, here is *A MATTER OF COMPLETE PERSONAL OPINION, BASED ON MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES*
Your post makes sense to me. :)
Scott W. Schreiber
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>Yeah, but how would you "repent" of divorce?
By never remarrying {that's biblical...} and asking for forgiveness.
Maybe working on relational skills, and if possible, maybe a
reconciliation {I assume it would be okay to remarry your ex-spouse}.
Good question, but not the point of my question.
Scott W. Schreiber
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>Oh, give me a break, Scott. The ICC's view of dating, is different
>than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
>opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
>date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
>I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
No, I am not. If you get that impression, then you are seeing what
ICC "brothers" think of the "sister's" self esteem. What I related to
you was not something I drummed up. It was told to me directly by the
guy I work with.
I myself consider it to be insulting. If I was a "sister" in the ICC,
and I knew what this guy explained to me, I wouldn't go out on too
many "dates!"
Scott W. Schreiber
ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>It is a ridiculously piggish viewpoint of women, that's true. But Scott
>is right; it is the ICC's mentality.
My thoughts exactly. Sorry I didn't make it more clear.
Thanks Chris
Scott W. Schreiber
bsla...@rmi.net (Bryan Erik Slatner) wrote:
>Me, I did my own thing.
And so you were in sin....
Just trying to save Roger some keystrokes....
>I think that the ICC has a very unhealthy view of women and the role of women
>in society and in the church. More to the point, I think that what they
>teach *discourages* healthy, opposite sex relationships.
I agree, and would add that it discourages the women. If I were a
woman, and I knew what they say about women, I would be really angry,
or I would become very self concious<SP?>.
>Since about my sophomore year in high school, those who I would call my "best
>friends" have typically been women.
That's a normal thing. I think it applies across the board (of course
there are exceptions.) I am the same way, and just about all the
female humans I talk to express the same feeling. They have told me
"it's easier to talk to guys" or something similar. Of course this is
because we aren't ICC members, and we are in sin.
>I'm lead to believe that the only time it's acceptable to pray with a woman is when
>you're married to her!
That's absurd!
>One of the things I object to the most about the ICC's treatment of women is
>this silly rule that women cannot teach or lead men. Is anybody besides me
>tired of this antiquated notion?
Well, this will serve as proof to the ICC members here that I'm just
not a "true Christian," but in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, there are female pastors. Lots of them. I have heard some
really great sermons, and learned a lot from some of them. I don't
consider my pastors to have "authority" over me. I consider them
partners, and they all consider themselves servants of the
congregation.
The Bible talks about women prophesying in church, so I see no problem
with them preaching. The verses that talk about women keeping silent
are dealing with behavior during a church service, and they are
applicable to everyone in the church.
In Christ,
Scott
Martin Hinves
And remember we were guilty of selfishness and being lazy by
NOT taking them out on the traditional Saturday night date.
WE used to get checked up on to see if we had been going out on
dates.
I as an over 30's male was once given two special dispensations
(though I was not allowed to share them with the "sisters")
Firstly (after 6 months of trying) I was able to go out on
dates without another couple as company IF I could find a
sister who would do so.
Since every sister was indoctrinated to go out on double dates
and those that had gone or ended up on single dates even by
accident were castigated and morally accused of certain sins -
this was a laughable concession.
Secondly If I found a sister I liked and the leadership
approved, also include somewhere that I guess she liked me <G>
I would be able to have 3 weeks between each date with her
instead of the obligatory 4 AND I would be able to ask her to
be my girlfreind after 3 such dates not 4.
(After a date I was expected to provide a detailed breifing to
my discipler - after refering to higher up he would tell me
what the leadership and I guess her discipler thought.)
These were part of the rules by which we struggled to have a
social life within the ICC.
So if you want to know about the mechanisms of ICC matchmaking
please ask some questions - I will be happy to explain my
experience.
Martin Hinves
Ovum
In article <4sus2m$8...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W.
Schreiber) writes:
>No, I am not. If you get that impression, then you are seeing what
>ICC "brothers" think of the "sister's" self esteem. What I related to
>you was not something I drummed up. It was told to me directly by the
>guy I work with.
>I myself consider it to be insulting. If I was a "sister" in the ICC,
>and I knew what this guy explained to me, I wouldn't go out on too
>many "dates!"
I think too many brothers are just afraid to date. After 3,786,453,267
sermons, challenges, confessions, guilt trips and repentances on
masturbation and lust, though, if I were a brother I'd get over it and get
married! :-)
Randy Poe
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>(Work with me on a logic basis here.) If the ICC's membership is composed
>of Christians, and Christians don't divorce, the divorce removes them from
>the membership, not any formal ICC statement.
>
Logic. I see. Let's see if I understand your logic system:
I state that all dogs have 4 legs.
Here comes an animal you say is a dog, but it only has three legs.
I declare that losing a leg made it automatically not a dog.
Therefore my statement is still true. All dogs have 4 legs.
It certainly sounds like logic, so why am I left scratching my head...?
Lewis Carroll did a much better job of punctured logic of this sort.
See any collection that includes his essays. I think he's
responsible for this one: A tyrannical government
is arbitrary. Pick any government. This is by definition an
arbitrary government. Therefore it is a tyranny. Therefore all
governments are tyrannies.
Lesson: Just because it sounds like logic doesn't mean it's sane.
- Randy Poe
Catherine Hampton
Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
: Great post, Bryan!!!!
Yep. Agree 100%. :>
Bryan:
: >I think that the ICC has a very unhealthy view of women and the role of
: >women in society and in the church. More to the point, I think that what
: >they teach *discourages* healthy, opposite sex relationships.
No kidding. As I said some months ago when this was first being discussed,
if the ICOC wanted to destroy any marriage I was in, I doubt they could do
so more effectively than by sanctioning that level of intrusion into the
relationship. If I found out my spouse was discussing sex or other
intimate issues with a discipler rather than me, there would be no sex
or other intimate issues quite quickly. :( This isn't rebelliousness;
it's a fact. I would not be able to take that level of involuntary
exposure.
I'm not even sure I could handle talking to a marriage counselor, but
in that case at least it would be with my consent, and I would know that
the conversations were strictly confidential. :(
Ovum:
: Too true. If anyone makes sexual objects out of the opposite sex, it's
: the ICC!
I've gathered that. There was some tendency toward this in the rest of
the discipling movement, but it wasn't this bad.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bryan isn't the only one who found it difficult to cope with the ICC's
insistence on "same sex" close friendships. That insistence was part of
the discipling movement, and was something I had a great deal of difficulty
with because I tend to make close friends among men as well as women.
As a high-school student, almost all my close friends were guys, mostly
because the women I went to school with weren't interested in the same
things I was. I was working to go to college, and then a career. Most
of the women I went to school with were focusing on finding Mr. Right,
getting married, and having kids. I have nothing against that -- I Think
it's a worthy goal -- but we didn't have much to say to each other at that
point.
One blessing of growing up is that I've met and made friends with other
women who felt as I did. ;> I've also gotten more interested in men,
and perhaps someday marriage and a family. But I still have as many
close friends among men as among women, and I can't imagine this being
the case if either they or I viewed the other person as primarily a
sex object and were constantly worrying about making each other stumble.
Nor, to tell the truth, can I imagine wanting to marry someone who saw
me primarily in those terms. That would get boring real fast.
Catherine
DAnder9518
In article <4sqg7i$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>Dave writes:
>
>>I was simply alluding to the fact (which has been revisited many times
on
>>this newsgroup) that the ICC has withdrawn membership from members
who've
>>divorced, allowing the ICC to make highly qualified statements like the
>>following:
>>
>>". . . we have never had a divorce with couples who have remained
>>faithful to God and his church in any of our congregations." -- Kip
>>McKean, 1992
>I'm not clear on what exactly you're saying here. Are you saying that
>something is wrong with holding members to the Bible's standards?
No, I certainly did not say that! : ) Once again, we've come up against
an issue of "intent". The "intent" behind the ICC policy may well be to
uphold a Biblical standard. But by kicking out divorcees, the ICC's
resultant *policy* is not biblical! Make sense?
>(Work with me on a logic basis here.) If the ICC's membership is
composed
>of Christians, and Christians don't divorce, the divorce removes them
from
>the membership, not any formal ICC statement.
Okay, I'll structure your argument in the form of a logical "proof":
1. The ICC's membership is composed of Christians
2. Christians aren't supposed to divorce
3. Therefore, "the divorce removes them from the membership, not any
formal ICC statement."
From a logical standpoint, you have made a false inductive leap in #3.
Just because Christians do something they're not supposed to does not
remove them for membership.
More logical arguments against kicking out people who divorce:
I. The Bible never says that divorce is an unforgivable sin. So
apparently divorce, just like murder, adultery, etc. can be forgiven.
II. In all the New Testament examples of disfellowshipment, no one was
ever kicked out for divorcing.
---->Dave
TriciaAZ
In article <4suu6o$t...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, fre...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
(Fredrick McConnell) writes:
>Subject: Re: Rephrasing the Divorce Statement....
>From: fre...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Fredrick McConnell)
>Date: 21 Jul 1996 23:57:12 -0400
>
>In article <4suosi$q...@news.ios.com>,
>ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yeah, but how would you "repent" of divorce?
>>
>>You repent of any sinful actions, like selfishness or whatever, that
were
>>your role in the divorce. And you can be sure that those things never
>>play a role in any other relationship you are in.
>>
>But, you can't get into any future marriage-oriented relationship.
>Granted, what you learn of in your character and repent of can apply to
>general interpersonal relationships, it obviously can't go to another
>romantic attachment, until the spouse you separated from has died.
>That's part of "repenting" of divorce.
>
>Now, here is *A MATTER OF COMPLETE PERSONAL OPINION, BASED ON MY
>UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCRIPTURES*
>Anyone who got a divorce before becoming a Christian, by becoming a
>Christian, all sins are washed away (acts 23, where Paul Quotes Ananias
>at his conversion) and therefore God does not even consider you to have
>been married
Huh? "All sins are washed away" means that you've never even been married
before? Is a person's whole life washed away?
DJRTX
On 23 Jul7 1996, in article <4t394q$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) writes:
>In article <4ssup8$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>writes: {snipped}
>
>>Of course, the Bible says it's acceptable for people to get divorced if
>>one commits adultery. In that case, I don't think divorce would be
>>counted as a sin. Adultery would still be a sin, but I think that is
>>forgivable. But again, for the most part, adultery is not something you
>>"fall into," either. I don't know of any situations where that actually
>>happened, and I hope I never do. (I mean, I hope it never happens, not
>>that I become ignorant.)
>
>EO, this is not really a rebuttal against your position, but something to
>*think* about:
>
>If we absolutely, rabidly FORBID divorce except in cases of adultery, but
>we DO allow divorce in the case of adultery, there are some interesting
>scenarios which can arise:
>
>1. An unhappy married person who wanted to divorce could commit
adultery,
>thereby justifying a divorce. Or they could encourage their *spouse* to
>commit adultery so they could divorce them. (note: if two wrongs
become
>better than one, we have obviously carried the letter of the law too
far!)
>
>2. A person could *murder* their spouse to remarry, and legalistically
>they could be forgiven for it, even though they couldn't have been
>forgiven for *divorcing* them.
>
>This is more evidence that we need to consider the *wisdom* behind the
>Bible's commands, instead of just legalistically enforcing them. . .
>
>$.02,
Dave, these observations are worth *far* more than $.02!
Joanne
Jeremy Kyle
: >Martin Hinves <rhi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
: >>Matchmaking WAS indulged in.
: >And now, on the icc web page, Al Baird openly encourages all members
: >to become "matchmakers," and help to arrange marriages in the icc.
: >My member-acquaintance has recently talked about marriage with another
: >icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
: >of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
: >for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
: >But then I consider the icc's doctrine on what they call dating. The
: >guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
: >week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
: >humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
: >Scott
: Oh, give me a break, Scott. The ICC's view of dating, is different
: than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
: opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
: date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
: I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
wrong...
when i was in the ICC i was specifically told on several occasions to
make a real effort to date sisters every weekend because they suffered
from a low self image and that most sisters fall away because of guys "in
the world". In other words i was told that a very large part of the
sister's self-esteem stems from dating within the church. Therefore, in
my opinion, Scott's comments were on the money.
Jeremy
Ovum
Great post, Bryan!!!!
In article <31f2e71f...@166.93.8.12>, bsla...@rmi.net (Bryan Erik
Slatner) writes:
>I think that the ICC has a very unhealthy view of women and the role of
women
>in society and in the church. More to the point, I think that what they
>teach *discourages* healthy, opposite sex relationships.
Too true. If anyone makes sexual objects out of the opposite sex, it's
the ICC! You can't even breath in and out on a date without being
paranoid that it's going to make the other person stumble. I predict that
within five years they'll do away with dating totally and just do the Sun
Young Moon thing: show up on your wedding day and meet the mate "God" has
picked out for you!
>Matthew 18:15 when dealing with *brothers* was okay, you should
*absolutely
>not* try to talk one-on-one about a problem with a sister; you should
>*always* go to her discipler first. The rationale behind this statement
was
>that you could "really hurt the sister" if you talk to her from a man's
point
>of view. "We think differently, men and women," he said.
First off, it's incredible that that guy could stand there and tell you to
disobey a direct command of God! Second off, if I was not able to speak
directly to my husband about our relationship, and he to me, it would make
marriage impossible!
You know how God commands man to "leave & cleave?" (Leave his parents and
cleave to his wife.) It's interesting that God tells us to leave the
foundational relationship of our lives and become ONE with our spouse.
This would be synonymous in the ICC with....say....leaving your
discipleship partner and bonding with your spouse. Sounds radical!
Chris Garland
law...@ct.net (Laura Ware) wrote:
>In message <4suo01$q...@news.ios.com> - ChrisGarland <chr...@village.ios.com>
>writes:
>
>(Some stuff cut out for the sake of bandwidth) :-D
>>I have a
>>>real problem with this distinction, because I don't be
>lieve it's possible
>>>to accidently fall into sin. In order for sin to be sin, we have to know
>>>it is sinful, and we have to callously engage in it anyway, fully aware
>>>of what we are doing. The ICC tends to believe that almost everthing is
>>>sin, and we fall into it constantly, even unintentionally. I find that to
>>>be preposterous at least, and a slap in the face of the grace of Christ
>>>at the most. I believe that 'unintentional ignorance can diminish or even
>>>remove imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be
>>>ignorant of the princiaples of the moral law, which are written in the
>>>conscience of every man.' <From the Catechism>
>
>designated under the Law of Moses for unintended sin?
>I think one CAN sin without intention - "heat of the moment" or giving into
>impulse - but that sin is forgiveable. Indeed, we would more easily repent
>of unintended sin, because we didn't mean to in the first place.
>Prime example - Peter didn't plan or intend to deny Jesus. He let pressure
>get to him. Was what he did wrong? Yep. did he repent? Yep.
>
>Laura Ware
>law...@ct.net
>
>"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Matthew 7:12
>
Sorry, I gotta believe that Peter knew what he was doing was wrong, but
did it anyway. He denied Jesus THREE times; not one slip of the tongue.
He gave in to the sin.
Starr
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>>Oh, give me a break, Scott. The ICC's view of dating, is different
>>than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
>>opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
>>date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
>>I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
>No, I am not. If you get that impression, then you are seeing what
>ICC "brothers" think of the "sister's" self esteem. What I related to
>you was not something I drummed up. It was told to me directly by the
>guy I work with.
>I myself consider it to be insulting. If I was a "sister" in the ICC,
>and I knew what this guy explained to me, I wouldn't go out on too
>many "dates!"
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I construed it to mean that you
supported that view (of dating). As you have said it was not your
point, and you do not agree with it, I apologize for my
misunderstanidng.
DAnder9518
Now *there's* a provocative name for a thread!
In article <4t3aq5$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, in the thread "Women in the
ICC" ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes: {snipped}
>Too true. If anyone makes sexual objects out of the opposite sex, it's
>the ICC! You can't even breath in and out on a date without being
>paranoid that it's going to make the other person stumble.
Yup. Definitions of sin are so extreme that practically anything could
cause a person to "stumble" at any point in time. One of these areas is
"lust."
The Bible portrays both "lust" and "coveting" as sins of the heart. In
fact, their similarity is underscored by the KJV translation of Romans 7:7
"for I had not known lust, except the law had said, 'thou shalt not
covet."
However, the ICC's unwritten interpretations and rules about lust seem
determined to make it a sin of the *eye*, rather than of the heart. The
ICC's attention to lust is focused on factors like *duration* (don't look
at a member of the opposite sex too long), *repetition* (don't look twice)
and *location* (don't look in the wrong place)!
By drawing a parallel between "lust" and "coveting", one can make a case
that the ICC has gone overboard in its position on lust. For example, if
I *look* at a sportscar, I am not "coveting" it. If I look at the car
*twice*, this does not *automatically* mean I'm "coveting" it. Even if I
stare at the car for a long time, it does not necessarily mean I am
"coveting." Now, if I envy the person driving the sportscar, or I
visualizing myself forcing my way into the car and stealing it for myself,
*then* I am probably "coveting". It is it sin to look twice at the car?
Is it sin to wish I had the car? One can make the case that it's what the
*heart* does, not what the eye does, that is important.
----->Dave Anderson
Forrest
No arguement here!
Ephesians 5:28, 33 In the same way husbands ought to love thier wives as their
own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
However, each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife
must respect her husband.
An abusive husband is obviously not "loving his wife as he loves himself."
Bryan
--
If we are not our brother's keeper, at least let us not be his executioner.
-Marlon Brando
Michael A. Vickers
In article <4t5h3k$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) wrote:
[re: icc's interpretation of lust based on eye contact]
>By drawing a parallel between "lust" and "coveting", one can make a case
>that the ICC has gone overboard in its position on lust. For example, if
>I *look* at a sportscar, I am not "coveting" it. If I look at the car
>*twice*, this does not *automatically* mean I'm "coveting" it. Even if I
>stare at the car for a long time, it does not necessarily mean I am
>"coveting." Now, if I envy the person driving the sportscar, or I
>visualizing myself forcing my way into the car and stealing it for myself,
>*then* I am probably "coveting". It is it sin to look twice at the car?
>Is it sin to wish I had the car? One can make the case that it's what the
>*heart* does, not what the eye does, that is important.
great analogy.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Vickers mvic...@mindport.net
http://www.mindport.net/~mvickers vicke...@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'uh, do electric lighters require batteries?' - leslie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hinves
I would like to vote double on this.
<VBG>.
I found that the ICC discouraged freindships that it did not
think were right.
At one time I was in serious trouble - I had only one male
freind (the 5 or so female freinds I had I was told did not
count) within the ICC.
THose I made freinds with left... this I was told did not
reflect well upon me.
When I pointed out that I could trust my non-ICC freinds (some
of whom we had been freinds for over 20 years) I was told by a
Zone leader THAT HE WOULD CHOOSE MY FREINDS FOR ME.
Naturally this failed.....
I also found the dating system controlled and sexually
discriminating towards women.
AS brother's we were supposed to date every weekend on
a Saturday - double dates were the minimum.
I wish I had kept the 3 page rule list they gave me on how to
date properly...
We were also told we should date sisters to encourage them.
It was wrong for us to date sisters we "liked", but should date
sisters who were struggling or weak or who were such.
You would expect to be debreifed on your date by your
discipler.
There were strict rules to be applied to dates. - No
exceptions.
(IF anyone is interested let me know I have some written down
in my diary).
Any relationship with a non-ICC member of the opposite sex was
very severely frowned upon - in some cases it would be
sabotaged if possible by a variety of means.
For me, a male with many female freinds this was a hard time
for me.
I had two types of close freinds both of whom the ICC Regarded
as threats to my Salvation (I was told this).
Those from my Army Reserve days and those from my University
Studies.
To this were added ICC members whom I became freinds with and
they subsequently left.
Dating was controlled - nobody was allowed to become a couple
unless the ICC leadership placed their approval upon the
relationship.
People did leave because of thsi interference in their personal
relationships.
Unless you had a girlfreind you could not go out on a single
date.
There were cases of boyfreind-girlfreind relationships that
were ludicrous.
At one time it was said you had to have been "fruitful" to be
allowed to date.
At another time only people in leadership could date.
There were even cases of guys asking girls to be their
girlfreind without anyone's permission.
The discipler's involved did not know !
In this case it had to be undone....
There were also cases of people who were dating when they
joined the ICC being broken up by the leadership....
There were also cases of sisters being "reserved" .
Also to deal biblically with a "problem" was a problem within
the ICC especially with regard to women you knew.
I had a marvellous experience.
On my first date I enjoyed myself and I did what I have always
done after a particuarly pleasant time I sent a bunch of
flowers to her work.
(All women I have gone out with socially have received similar
traetment - I guess I am a romantic at heart. I made no
exception on this date. Having an account with a flower shop
helped <G>).
Next thing I know I get an abusive phonecall from her discipler
telling me never to do such a thing without her (the
discipler's) consent. I point out is there a problem here and
get no answer but told not to speak to the sister involved but
to her (the discipler).
I point out that biblically if I have a problem with someone I
should talk to them.
I get told DO NOT RING (the sister involved) she will refuse
your phone call.
Then I get another abusive phone call from my discipler -
telling me off for my actions.
Again I get warned off talking to the sister involved.
Finally I decide that I must do the correct thing and talk to
the women in question. I do so. She was just overwhelmed by my
gesture - no-one had ever sent her flowers before .. we talked
about things and it was no real problem .
Then the disciplers found out I had not obeyed my orders ...
and I got severely rebuked.
I had no defense in their eyes.
I never should have spoken with the women in question all
communication should have been through them....
I went out on another date the next Saturday.
Again I sent flowers to the lady in question as I had again
enjoyed myself.
(By now she knew about the previous flower escapade).
She rang me up and thanked me.
But her discipler was the same as the previous sister's.
I was rung up and abused for sending the flowers without
permission - thence followed a series of accusations and a
"robust" discussion that I will not go into.
Sufficient to say I was ordered never to give any gift to any
sister for any reason without having that sister's discipler's
approval.
A "dating" schedule was then set up to ensure I dated proper
spiritual ladies.
<G>
My third date happened to be with the female discipler of the
two women I had dated before.
I dispite some reservations did enjoy myself, and after praying
about things sent her a bunch of flowers at work on the Tuesday
following.
Suddenly the leadership took a different veiw of the situation.
Here was a sister who (it pains me to say this but it was true
at the time) they had been trying desperately to find a
boyfreind for.
Now my action was kosher .. and led to some interesting
discussions.
Funny how stupid the ICC dating and discipling system is.
<VBG>
Martin HInves
Randy Poe
In article <4t3vv3$r...@news.ios.com>, chr...@village.ios.com says...
>
>My sister divorced a man who abused her for 14 years. They have a young
>daughter, who was 11 at the time of the divorce. Some of the comments
>I've read about God on this newsgroup would indicate a God who would
>*not* forgive my sister and would send her to hell because she divorced
>this man and then married another man who loves her, cares for her, has
>made a loving household, and is raising their daughter. Frankly, a god
>like that isn't worth worshipping, and I would rather spend eternity in
>Hell than spend it with some petty, meticulous, anal retentive
>pseudo-god, who seems to be a control freak. But I don't believe that's
>who/what God is -- and I certainly don't think the God of the bible is
>that petty god. (Incidently, I'm speaking about the same petty god who
>sends people to hell for being baptized as infants instead of as adults
>-- you know, the one who has damned Mother Theresa).
>
>Jesus said God is a loving father. My father is a loving father. When my
>sister was divorced, he was hurt deeply *because* it tore my sister apart
>to break up her family, but it was clearly the right thing to do. Dad was
>in pain because my siser was in pain. Why do you people think God has
>*rules* in the bible? FOR US.
>
>Jeez, don't miss the point! There are more ways than one to be unfaithful
>in a marriage. I do not believe my sister was wrong in divorcing this man
>simply because he failed to sleep with another woman. He WAS unfaithful
>to her -- unfaithful to the vow he took with her before God to Love,
>Honor, and Cherish her all the days of her life. She was justified in
>leaving this man -- would any of you have her stay with an abusive
>husband and have her raise her child in this atmosphere? Do any of you
>REALLY believe your holy God would want that? Let's get back to the head
>here - a loving father. Let's all stop being legalistic. My sister had
>no repenting to do, because she did nothing wrong. Yet she was divorced
>-- and SHE initiated the divorce. And there was no adultery. Anyone care
>to disagree?
>
Ahh, but those aren't the ICC vows. My sister was married in the ICC,
a ceremony that causes me pain to this day because of the way it
turned the idea of marriage -- a sacred and beautiful institution--
upside down.
As I recall, the man's vows were basically that he is the gateway through
which the woman finds god. He's her spiritual leader, and she can not
find god without him. He promises to guide her correctly, meaning
to follow the guidance of anybody designated as his leader.
Her vows were to be obedient and unquestioning.
If any ICC-er cares to disagree, please publish the text of the marriage
vows and the words the pastor tells the couple, so we can all judge.
- Randy Poe
brother and brother-in-law to current and ex-members
Bryan Erik Slatner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Just a little follow-up to what I said previously.
I find the following in "Revolution Through Restoration":
"In our churches, except for the older women, all women are discipled by
other women (Titus 2:3-5). This avoids many of the possible temptations and
tensions in male-female relationships and allows women to more effectively
disciple other women as they are obviously more insightful into women's needs
than men (Titus 2:1-8). We believe that the format offices of elder, deacon,
and evangelist can only be occupied by men according to the Scriptures. (1
Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9) We call our women leaders "women's counselors."
In all of our churches, the women's ministry is led by a woman leader and she
has no authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12) Since God has given these
principles to totally fulfill women, it is no wonder that few, if any,
worldly organizations of women can equal the power, radiance, and talent in
our women's ministry."
I won't comment on the scripture references, except to say that they do *not*
say that "women only teach women". This concept of "women teaching only
women" is an *inference* on Kip's part...the language of the verses does not
etch this rule in stone. Nor do these references preclude the idea of elders
and deacons who are female. I also find it relevant that in the 1 Timothy 2
reference, Paul is clearly stating *his opinion*. "*I* do not permit a woman
to teach or have authority over a man." (Emphasis mine)
But on to the real meat of this quotation...
How do you like the bit about "Since God has given these principles to
totally fulfill women..." Hello? Help me understand this...am I to believe
that a woman cannot be completely fulfilled unless some *male* has a position
of authority over her, and unless she is in a position of submissiveness to
some *male*? That is the implication of that statement...and it's hogwash,
frankly.
Love in Christ,
Bryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Personal Edition
iQEVAgUBMfawtI2thMkRBmL3AQHBvAf+JSSpEEBriNrYVXNcVKlqmaPZSeq0krpD
KtqHWLDVB3ALqyUhKu1J+2pqbaX3tMdun9mjoEdRh+fIzVeAJy21udV+UtumG6nT
UDtto16Cn5hPSrZpzPBlFL7i51gfUVqke7EoYIskH4HfLLkILWTvMB27IXSu7JkJ
IEVMGXnDBQF28YN92EzJFZ1BlG2TjvgU0jnuM+zVe19EncQ1D94pLF+AOROnv9j7
/2ONLbOjJvXqktEWLEc7Dl+btmzV3uK+G+lu5sh2Fpbe9rSci5PnT63drbCD3mAG
KRywzKSbja10Py4aMuB5v84kq2oOapQbSpLkQ/wF1DQrydYl6WReVA==
=1vBR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ovum
In article <4t4spd$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>, Martin Hinves
<rhi...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>Next thing I know I get an abusive phonecall from her discipler
>telling me never to do such a thing without her (the
>discipler's) consent. I point out is there a problem here and
>get no answer but told not to speak to the sister involved but
>to her (the discipler).
>I point out that biblically if I have a problem with someone I
>should talk to them.
>I get told DO NOT RING (the sister involved) she will refuse
>your phone call.
>
>Then I get another abusive phone call from my discipler -
>telling me off for my actions.
>Again I get warned off talking to the sister involved.
Houston, we have a problem.... :-)
Smlleecat6
>Yup. Definitions of sin are so extreme that practically anything could
>cause a person to "stumble" at any point in time.
An ICC roommate I had told me that I was causing her to struggle when I
was getting ready to go to work at a very early hour and she walked past
my room and saw me day dreaming - just spacing out for a couple of
minutes.\
Gintas Jazbutis
>By drawing a parallel between "lust" and "coveting", one can make a case
>that the ICC has gone overboard in its position on lust. For example, if
>I *look* at a sportscar, I am not "coveting" it. If I look at the car
>*twice*, this does not *automatically* mean I'm "coveting" it. Even if I
>stare at the car for a long time, it does not necessarily mean I am
>"coveting." Now, if I envy the person driving the sportscar, or I
>visualizing myself forcing my way into the car and stealing it for myself,
>*then* I am probably "coveting". It is it sin to look twice at the car?
>Is it sin to wish I had the car? One can make the case that it's what the
>*heart* does, not what the eye does, that is important.
>
>----->Dave Anderson
This is a most interesting analysis. Perhaps it comes down to
over-constraining our behavior, so that we come to think that
when we are tempted, we are actually sinning.
Gints
-------------------------------
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Chris Garland
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>Now *there's* a provocative name for a thread!
>
>In article <4t3aq5$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, in the thread "Women in the
>ICC" ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes: {snipped}
>
>>Too true. If anyone makes sexual objects out of the opposite sex, it's
>>the ICC! You can't even breath in and out on a date without being
>>paranoid that it's going to make the other person stumble.
>
>"lust."
>
>The Bible portrays both "lust" and "coveting" as sins of the heart. In
>fact, their similarity is underscored by the KJV translation of Romans 7:7
>"for I had not known lust, except the law had said, 'thou shalt not
>covet."
>
>However, the ICC's unwritten interpretations and rules about lust seem
>determined to make it a sin of the *eye*, rather than of the heart. The
>ICC's attention to lust is focused on factors like *duration* (don't look
>at a member of the opposite sex too long), *repetition* (don't look twice)
>and *location* (don't look in the wrong place)!
>
>that the ICC has gone overboard in its position on lust. For example, if
>I *look* at a sportscar, I am not "coveting" it. If I look at the car
>*twice*, this does not *automatically* mean I'm "coveting" it. Even if I
>stare at the car for a long time, it does not necessarily mean I am
>"coveting." Now, if I envy the person driving the sportscar, or I
>visualizing myself forcing my way into the car and stealing it for myself,
>*then* I am probably "coveting". It is it sin to look twice at the car?
>Is it sin to wish I had the car? One can make the case that it's what the
>*heart* does, not what the eye does, that is important.
WARNING: Ladies, this post might cause some of you to "struggle," so read
at your own risk.
Along those lines, I had a roommate who approached me one morning
devastated because he had a nocturnal emission. He thought he was in all
kind of sin, and his self-esteem level was down to zilch. I just asked
him, "where you asleep?" He replied, "Yes." Then I said, "then don't
worry about it -- you weren't consciously lusting; you couldn't control
it, it's NOT a sin." Yet he was convinced that somehow he was a deep
down evil person because something that happens naturally happened to
him. The ICC promulgates this kind of nonsense. Everything is sin in the
ICC.
ChrisGarland
>
>Maybe working on relational skills, and if possible, maybe a
>reconciliation {I assume it would be okay to remarry your ex-spouse}.
>
>Good question, but not the point of my question.
Let's get back to some basics here. God. How many times did Jesus refer
to God as a loving father? Remember the parable of the lost son? Remember
the God character in that parable? Loving, forgiving, accepting -- all
*despite* the fact that his son trampled all over his wealth and his
trust and his love and lived a filthy life. How did the son get
reconciled to the father? He repented -- turned back. No where does it
say he committed to never spending another sheckel of his father's money;
he just turned back sincerely -- that's all. Why do we as humans keep
trying to earn our salvation?
Some of the ideas of literalists frighten me, because I can't find God in
the equation.
Catherine Hampton
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
: >WARNING: Ladies, this post might cause some of you to "struggle," so read
: >at your own risk.
: Please, Chris, tell me you were being sarcastic with the above part of
: the post?
<sigh> I guess Martin's recent spot of humor deprivation is contagious.
I don't think we really need to ask, Kim. ;>
Catherine
Starr
Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
<snip>
>WARNING: Ladies, this post might cause some of you to "struggle," so read
>at your own risk.
Please, Chris, tell me you were being sarcastic with the above part of
the post?
Please?
Catherine Hampton
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: q...@dgsys.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
: >Her vows were to be obedient and unquestioning.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is a BAD idea???
: Grin
: Mark Davis
: (Who could give the ICC the benefit of the doubt on this one)
<THWACK!>
Catherine
(Who knows a younger brother in need of correction when she sees one)
;>
Catherine Hampton
Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
: Martin Hinves wrote:
: >Then I get another abusive phone call from my discipler -
: >telling me off for my actions.
: >Again I get warned off talking to the sister involved.
: Houston, we have a problem.... :-)
That's about the size of it, I'd say. ;>
Catherine
DJRTX
In article <4t6ijk$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) writes:
>>On 23 Jul7 1996, in article <4t394q$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>>dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) writes:
>>
>>>If we absolutely, rabidly FORBID divorce except in cases of adultery,
>but
>>>we DO allow divorce in the case of adultery, there are some interesting
>>>scenarios which can arise:
>>>
>>>1. An unhappy married person who wanted to divorce could commit
>>>adultery, thereby justifying a divorce. Or they could encourage their
>*spouse* to
>>>commit adultery so they could divorce them. (note: if two wrongs
>>become better than one, we have obviously carried the letter of the law
>too
>>far!)
>>>
>>>2. A person could *murder* their spouse to remarry, and legalistically
>>>they could be forgiven for it, even though they couldn't have been
>>>forgiven for *divorcing* them!
>>>
>>>This is more evidence that we need to consider the *wisdom* behind the
>>>Bible's commands, instead of just legalistically enforcing them. . .
>>>
>>>$.02,
>
>Then in article <4t3h7t$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dj...@aol.com (DJRTX)
>writes:
>
>>Dave, these observations are worth *far* more than $.02!
>>
>>Joanne
>
>That's okay, Joanne -- as a fellow AOLer, you probably payed *far* more
>than $.02 to read them! : P
ROFL!!! Without a doubt, and : P to you too. :-)
Joanne
Mark Davis
Jeetendra Manghani
In article <31f2e71f...@166.93.8.12> bsla...@rmi.net (Bryan Erik Slatner) writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In article <4sun68$a...@guitar.sound.net> kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) had
>the following to say:
>
>>>But then I consider the icc's doctrine on what they call dating. The
>>>guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
>>>week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
>>>humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
>>
>>>Scott
>>
>>than mine, I admit, but you are giving the "sisters" an awfully low
>>opinion of their own self-esteem and self-worth. If I don't have a
>>date, I don't sit at home, eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's & watch soaps.
>>I would imagine, neither do the "sisters" in the church.
>
>repeatedly that it was my *duty* to take the sisters out on dates. I heard
>*repeatedly* that "the number one reason sisters fall away is to have
>relationships with non-Christian men." I heard one of my roommates call up a
>guy in Denver to arrange a date for a sister who "doesn't go on many dates
>and is in need of encouragement because she just lost her job". I was
>personally rebuked for not dating once per week. I was told "Bro, you need to
>be on a date once a week. These sisters need encouragement." I heard one of
>my roommates remark at a Bible talk that dating was not just fun for him, but
>that he saw it as "a duty to his sisters."
>
I've heard this before, and I don't really see it as a duty, but as
something that I want to do. I guess those brothers were extremely
heartless about it, to avoid rebukes. I've stood up to rebukes when
I didn't have a date because of financial problems. Some called me
prideful, others gently told their perspective. I still don't date
every week, again financial problems (but my full-time job is
about to correct that!), though inwardly I want to.
>Personally, from day *one* I thought all of this to be a bunch of poppycock.
>I said so on more than one occassion. I said, on more than one occassion,
>that the men in the church have a completely skewed view of women. They view
>them as these frail, easily swayed, very gullible creatures who need men to
>step in
>and "encourage" and "protect" and "lead" them. It makes me want to gag,
>frankly.
>
Uh, actually, I am not attracted to frail, swayable, and gullible
women. If this truly the way they are portrayed, then I REALLY
don't want to date spineless women. But the truth is that I
appreciate women who are strong spiritually, have deep convictions,
and are willing to point out things in me. What you described above
also makes me want to gag, especially if a brother has taught that.
>Me, I did my own thing. After about a month and half of the frustration
>involved in dating people I was told to date ("Bryan, you need to ask
>so-and-so out on a date...she needs encouragement.") and dating people I
>really didn't *want* to date, I said "forget this" and started dating when I
>wanted to and--GASP!!!--dating women I was *attracted to* and whom I had
>things *in common with* and whom I *genuinely wanted to be with*. I never
>told people what I was doing, but I continued to get discipled about not
>dating once per week (I was once *seriously* taken to task when someone told
>me that I needed a date for the weekend and I told them that I had to work on
>Saturday).
I usually date girls that I am attracted to and could see dating
steady. That's the case more often than not. But don't you think
that something is wrong when someone asks you to encourage a sister,
and you don't want to? Is that thinking of her or yourself. Ok,
maybe he said "Bryan, you *NEED* to ask so-and-so....." instead of
asking you, which I think is wrong, you should be asked to do
something, not told, but did you consider her feelings or state of
mind? I'm not personally attacking you; I'm just bringing up the
point that dating *is* a heart issue, even though some disciples use
their authority to "enforce" it. I wonder about guys who don't want
to date period, whether they're attracted or not to a sister. Why
don't they want to date? I can understand a young christian not
wanting to date, but after we mature, I still don't understand why
if we're asked (or told, commanded :) ) to encourage so-and-so on a
date, we us guys buck. I do buck too, but when I stop thinking of myself,
and think about how she would be encouraged by me, then I feel
like I am doing what Jesus would do. (Please don't post that Jesus
would never date, that's NOT the point! :) )
>
>I think that the ICC has a very unhealthy view of women and the role of women
>in society and in the church. More to the point, I think that what they
>teach *discourages* healthy, opposite sex relationships.
>
>Since about my sophomore year in high school, those who I would call my "best
>friends" have typically been women. I don't know why, frankly, but I simply
>have found that I have an easier time being close friends with women than
>with men <shrug> However, in the ICC, relationships of this type between
>members of the opposite sex are *strongly* discouraged. I mentioned to the
>evangelist here, that my best friends are typically women and he told
>me, flat out, that "Bro, your closest relationships in the kingdom need to be
>with brothers." What a bunch of manure!
I am the same, Bryan! I relate best with women, and I am able to be
more open about feelings with women! I set up times to hang with
women more often than the dudes, because I enjoy female company. I
also hang with the dudes, because they are more likely to help me be
a man of God, cuz they know how men think, and they are more likely
to help me be a greater leader of men. I do believe that you need
to have best friends amongst the bro's that you can be *completely*
open with about sin, because us guys know that there are just
somethings you just can't tell women.
But my best friend among the women is my coleader, and she is
"equal" in "best-friendness" as my best male friennd.
>
>I remember once that my discipler was complaining to his girlfriend that his
>sister (an ICC member) had prayed--ALONE--with her boyfriend. I thought this
>was a bit strange, so I asked him what the problem was. His girlfriend
>answered, saying that "Praying with someone brings you closer to that person.
>It's a very bonding thing. It might lead to other things. We don't want
>people to fall into immorality because they're praying together." I was
>*stunned* when I heard this. My discipler, at this same time, told me that I
>should never pray with a sister (regardless of whether we're "just friends"
>or "dating" or whatever) by myself and for the same reason. I'm lead to
>believe that the only time it's acceptable to pray with a woman is when
>you're married to her!
>
Well, I know that it is discouraged to pray with sisters. I have
prayed with my co-leader, and it is a bonding thing. I don't really
know about the immorality part, but for me, I feel a little
uncomfortable praying with women, although I do it very sparingly.
Maybe about once every three months.
>I was at an all-male d-group in, I think, February. We were talking about how
>to resolve conflicts in a "Christian way." The guy leading the d-group said
>that, for the most part, you should go to a person's *discipler* when you've
>had a problem of some sort with them. I disagreed and brought up Matthew
>18:15 where conflicts are, if possible, to be resolved between the parties
>involved in a one-on-one discussion. One of the guys there said that I was
>correct, but went on to say that I should *still* tell the person's discipler
>so that they can get discipled about the conflict. The leader of the d-group
>concurred with this statement. This other guy went on to say that while using
>Matthew 18:15 when dealing with *brothers* was okay, you should *absolutely
>not* try to talk one-on-one about a problem with a sister; you should
>*always* go to her discipler first. The rationale behind this statement was
>that you could "really hurt the sister" if you talk to her from a man's point
>of view. "We think differently, men and women," he said. While I won't argue
>that men and women think differently <g>, I strenuously object to the notion
>that I have the propensity to "really hurt" a woman simply by telling her
>that she's hurt my feelings, or done something that offended me. Of course, I
>can be an insensitive jerk about the whole thing, and *that* would probably
>hurt her, but if I come to her in a calm, honest, rational manner, I think
>things can, in most situations, be resolved fairly easily.
Well, about this, I was always told to resolve it face to face with
the sister but get advice on *HOW* from a brother or a sister,
preferebly from their discipler because she would know the sister
quite well. You are right with your last sentence. We do think
differently, men vs. women, and so that bridge is gapped by getting
advice and not having others resolve it for you.
>
>One of the things I object to the most about the ICC's treatment of women is
>this silly rule that women cannot teach or lead men. Is anybody besides me
>tired of this antiquated notion? Yes, I know that the Bible says that women
>do not teach men, but I really think that we need to take sociological
>factors into account when using those passages. Women were seen differently
>by men then than they are today. While I am sure that there are many men who
>would love to see this--IMHO, artificial--status quo remain, I believe that
>this centuries-old Biblically-perpetuated role for women has shuffled off
>whatever usefulness it may have had in the first century. IMHO, Christians,
>especially fundamentalist Christians, need to lead the way in dispelling this
>antiquated view of women.
>
I am wondering where you got your history lesson from. This is
absolutely untrue and one of the biggest fallacies about modern day
thinking. (The women are going to hate me for this one :) ) Back in
the first century, there were more female religious leaders than men
in pagan religions! Roman men generally viewed women with absolute
respect because they held much religious power. The oracle at
Delphi was led by a high priestess. What Paul taught about women
not having authority over men was actually going *AGAINST* the
thought and culture of the day! I would suggest reading the book
_Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up_ by Bercot. He digs up alot
of early Christian writing through which he tells us that
Christianity in the modern day barely resembles that of the early
Christians. You'll find interesting subjects about Baptism, the
role of the Church, leadership, women's roles, etc. Please, let us
not start typing out opinion as historical fact, because, as in this
case, it may not be true. We do not have an antiquated "Roman view"
of women, because that is not what Paul had either when he wrote
what he wrote in the Bible.
>What kills me is that the women I have met in the ICC (I'm sure there are
>women like this in other churches as well, so don't say I'm picking on the
>ICC) actually participate in perpetuating this anachronistic view of women.
>Some of them even seem *happy* about it. For instance, near the beginning of
>this year, the leader of the COS single's ministry mentioned that we would be
>meeting together to practice leading Bible Talks; these meetings would be
>mixed-sex and the women would be doing this as well as the men. One of the
>women there *freaked out* about this because she felt that, if she
>participated in this way, she would be "teaching the men" and that she would
>be sinning. The single's leader assured her that while she might be "teaching
>a Bible talk" that *he* would still be "leading it" and that that "made it
>okay." <shakes head>
>
>The ICC has made a big deal about shaking off some of the burdensome
>traditions of the traditional Church of Christ (like the ban on instrumental
>music). I think it could set itself up as a model of open-mindedness if it
>would dispel these, IMHO, misogynistic "traditions" and ridiculous ideas
>about the role, mind, and power of women.
>
>I do not believe that God loves men any more than he loves women. God has no
>special love set aside for Y chromosomes :) If *God* loves women as much as
>he loves men, should we not also take this stance? If God *treats* women the
>same as he treats men, should we not do liekwise? If we are all the same
>before God, should we not all be peers in the church, in our friendships, and
>in our marital relationships? Yes, Yes, and Yes.
>
I do not believe that God loves any race, sex, etc. more than any
other. But he *HAS* defined roles in the Kingdom, and I love and
respect women with all of my heart, and I'm very protective of them
also, but again, he has defined roles, and if you take sociological
factors into view, then you would see that your view of Roman
culture is not correct, and that would be doing to Bible much
discredit.
>Dear me, this has turned into a rant :) I'll go away now :)
>
Uh, I think I've ranted just a wee bit more! ;)
Jeetendra Manghani
member of San Diego Church of Christ
Jeetendra Manghani
BTW, I just encouraged people to read _Will The Real Heretics Please
Stand Up?_ by Bercot, and I wanted to clarify thhat this is NOT a
DPI book. The author is not an ICC member, and I don't know if he's
ever heard of us either.
But many of the things that he write will cause any Berean to
examine his beliefs and compare it with the beliefs of the early
Christians. Very thought provoking book that it caused him to
reexamine his own beliefs, even when he didn't want to!
Love,
Martin Hinves
I look at this way.
My dog has 4 legs
My cat has four legs.
Therefore my dog is a cat.
And no for my next feat I am going to proove that black is
white.
Postscript
Sorry about that but I got run over at the pedestrian crossing.
<VBG>
Martin
Spumoni (NJ Verenini)
In article <31f6a9b9...@library.airnews.net> bsla...@rmi.net (Bryan Erik Slatner) writes:
------BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-
-Just a little follow-up to what I said previously.
-
-I find the following in "Revolution Through Restoration":
-
[ RTR reference deleted ]
-I won't comment on the scripture references, except to say that they do *not*
-say that "women only teach women". This concept of "women teaching only
-women" is an *inference* on Kip's part...the language of the verses does not
-etch this rule in stone. Nor do these references preclude the idea of elders
-and deacons who are female. I also find it relevant that in the 1 Timothy 2
-reference, Paul is clearly stating *his opinion*. "*I* do not permit a woman
-to teach or have authority over a man." (Emphasis mine)
Wow, that's a pretty radical statement there. Could it be that the
literalists' claim of 'if the Bible says it, it must be true' isn't 100%
airtight? I guess that's what happens when you throw common sense into the
equation...
I can see the fundamentalists' response a mile away: Paul's writings are
Divinely inspired, therefore, to question Paul's writings is to question
Divine inspiration, ie. God. You can drive a Mack truck through the hole in
this reasoning: to claim that is to claim that Paul somehow could not hold
a *human* opinion, and, if he did, that it couldn't find its way into his
writings. Ok, so maybe I've set up a 'straw man' (one that bleeds, btw),
but nevertheless this position is ridiculous and untenable.
Personally, I don't understand why the Bible is held to a 'different
standard' than any other book. I am suspicious of people who expect one to
blindly accept what's written in a -book- as the "Truth", or expect you to
view that book as 100% correct, or else there must be something wrong with
you. I say, if it jives with rational morality and common sense, go with
it. Certainly much of the Bible corresponds with that position, but some of
it does not, as you pointed out.
Jesus certainly was not against questioning and challenging established
institutions. The mindset of 'shut up and don't ask any questions or come
to any conclusions outside of our established religious dogma, or else
you'll burn in hell' does often exist. It's my thought that Jesus probably
wouldn't survive too long in an atmosphere like that.
This isn't necessarily -just- the ICC, either. One could probably indict
most religion on this point.
-
-But on to the real meat of this quotation...
-
-How do you like the bit about "Since God has given these principles to
-totally fulfill women..." Hello? Help me understand this...am I to believe
-that a woman cannot be completely fulfilled unless some *male* has a position
-of authority over her, and unless she is in a position of submissiveness to
-some *male*? That is the implication of that statement...and it's hogwash,
-frankly.
I think it's what someone here referred to as 'reverse agenda engineering,'
the idea that someone goes to the Bible to justify what they already
believe. This can be very dangerous, especially when 'God's will' is
swapped with someone's beliefs that are matters of *opinion*, and nothing
else. Certainly, there is ample evidence from the fallout of the ICC
doctrine to demonstrate this.
---
annoying .sig, version 3.1a, ©96 SpooSoft, Inc.
---
IRC: Spumoni | C7 B1 17 FA 14 5F 8B BD 08 71 68 64 3F A2 85 65
ftp: spunet.znet.com | "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it."
www: spunet.znet.com | -John Cage
Catherine Hampton
Martin Hinves (rhi...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: I look at this way.
;> Another Hitchhiker fan, I see.
Catherine
Gintas Jazbutis
>>My experience certainly mirrors Scott's!!! While I was in the ICC, I was told
>>repeatedly that it was my *duty* to take the sisters out on dates. I heard
>>*repeatedly* that "the number one reason sisters fall away is to have
>>relationships with non-Christian men." I heard one of my roommates call up a
>>guy in Denver to arrange a date for a sister who "doesn't go on many dates
>>and is in need of encouragement because she just lost her job". I was
>>personally rebuked for not dating once per week. I was told "Bro, you need to
>>be on a date once a week. These sisters need encouragement." I heard one of
>>my roommates remark at a Bible talk that dating was not just fun for him, but
>>that he saw it as "a duty to his sisters."
This has led to more than a few "martyr" dates, where you sacrifice
yourself for the cause of the sisterhood.
Gintas
-------------------------------
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Catherine Hampton
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
: ><sigh> I guess Martin's recent spot of humor deprivation is contagious.
: >I don't think we really need to ask, Kim. ;>
: I had really *hoped* not (and, honestly, thought not), but my sarcasm
: detector seems to be getting a bit of interference lately, so I
: thought that perhaps I had better make sure before going off on a
: tangent...
Ok -- hope this acted as a tune-up. ;>
: And we all *know* how *I* get when I go off on a rant....
ROFL! No kidding -- Hurricane Starr is making landfall tonight. ;>
: (I'm not *nearly* so polite as Bryan...) :)
Nor I, when I get mad.... Fortunately no one here has really seen that
happen yet. <wry grin>
Catherine
Bryan Erik Slatner
In article <4t4spd$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> Martin Hinves
<rhi...@ozemail.com.au> had the following to say:
>Unless you had a girlfreind you could not go out on a single
>date.
You mean you *could* go on a single date if you were going steady? Wow...not
here, man!
>On my first date I enjoyed myself and I did what I have always
>done after a particuarly pleasant time I sent a bunch of
>flowers to her work.
[tons of snippage]
Yikes, Martin! That's a heck of a story. I'm sad to say, but I witnessed
similar things here.
Shortly before my discipler started steadilly dating the woman he was,
eventually, to marry, he sent her flowers after a date. Our evangelist was out
of town at the time, but when he came back, he found out about it and asked my
discipler about it. "Did you seek advice on that?" he asked. My discipler said
"Yes, I did." "Who did you ask?" asked the evangelist. My discipler said that
he had asked the leader of the single's ministry and this leader had said it
was okay. You could tell that the evangelist was really irked by this (I don't
think he would have given similar "advice" <g>), but he couldn't say anything
to my discipler about it because my discipler had been a "good disciple" by
asking for advice.
I never found out what became of that, but I've always wondered.
Love in Christ,
Bryan
P.S. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who believes in sending flowers :)
CCollins35
Golllleee Martin! I can't believe they let you stay after all that
rebellion! <VBG>
FWIW, I would have loved to get flowers after a date, but it never
happened. (From a boyfriend on my birthday, yeah, but never after a
date.) I would have wondered why, though, and might have been a little
nervous if I didn't know the brother very well -- I'd think he was getting
too interested too soon. Still, it doesn't justify the abuse from the
disciplers. (sigh)
Carol C.
R. L. Measures
In article <measures-270...@port6.vcnet.com>,
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R.L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <4t3vv3$r...@news.ios.com>, chr...@village.ios.com says...
> > >
> > >. . . Frankly, a god
> > >like that isn't worth worshipping, and I would rather spend eternity in
> > >Hell than spend it with some petty, meticulous, anal retentive
> > >pseudo-god, who seems to be a control freak. But I don't believe that's
> > >who/what God is -- and I certainly don't think the God of the bible is
> > >that petty god. (Incidently, I'm speaking about the same petty god who
> > >sends people to hell for being baptized as infants instead of as adults
> > >-- you know, the one who has damned Mother Theresa).
> -----
As to the Mother Theresa issue, I'm waiting to see what transpires on
Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Mark Davis
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>As to the Mother Theresa issue, I'm waiting to see what transpires on
>Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
>Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
>Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
I got Mother Theresa at 1000-1, any takers?
Mark Davis
Martin Hinves
gin...@concentric.net (Gintas Jazbutis) wrote:
>In article <4t5h3k$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>>By drawing a parallel between "lust" and "coveting", one can make a case
>>that the ICC has gone overboard in its position on lust. For example, if
>>I *look* at a sportscar, I am not "coveting" it. If I look at the car
>>*twice*, this does not *automatically* mean I'm "coveting" it. Even if I
>>stare at the car for a long time, it does not necessarily mean I am
>>"coveting." Now, if I envy the person driving the sportscar, or I
>>visualizing myself forcing my way into the car and stealing it for myself,
>>*then* I am probably "coveting". It is it sin to look twice at the car?
>>Is it sin to wish I had the car? One can make the case that it's what the
>>*heart* does, not what the eye does, that is important.
>>
>>----->Dave Anderson
> This is a most interesting analysis. Perhaps it comes down to
> over-constraining our behavior, so that we come to think that
> when we are tempted, we are actually sinning.
> Gints
>-------------------------------
> Gintas Jazbutis
> gin...@concentric.net
Gintas in ICCspeak (that's the ICC version of George Orwell's
newspeak) you are quite correct.
BY looking at something we are guilty of lust/covertness etc.
Especially if it is a woman.
WE had numerous sermons on what amounted to "thoughtcrime".
Don't think was the rational.
If you thought then your sinful nature would take over and ....
IN a way it was state that by paying any attention to anything outside
the ICC (especially ex-members. women and other churches) we committed
a sin as we were not focussed on the ICC (which was THE CHURCH).
MY responce to this was to re read 1984 and see that the sermon had
been taken out of the book, in my opinion.
So my question is who is George Orwell, and why did the ICC steal his
ideas ?
<VBG>
Martin
Catherine Hampton
Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4tgnp1$1r...@mule0.mindspring.com>, ma...@mindspring.com (Mark
: Davis) writes:
: >I got Mother Theresa at 1000-1, any takers?
: Hey, if any of us could earn God's grace based on good works, Jesus
: wouldn't have had to die on the cross.
Yeah, but if =anyone= can claim that Mother Teresa isn't a superb
example of the fruits of the Holy Spirit and grace in a human life,
they've read a different Bible than I have. ("The fruit of the Spirit
is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, and self-control....")
It's been many years since I last saw Kip, so I don't really know how
he's changed personally. I don't think anyone who knew him in the
late 70's through mid-80's would have pointed at him as an example
of the fruits of the Spirit. He was too loud, too determined to just
do it, too impatient. None of which are deadly sins, by any means,
but they are signs of spiritual immaturity.
I'm not Roman Catholic, and have some people I really know who exhibit
these qualities, but as I understand the Scriptures, a mature Christian,
one in whom the Holy Spirit and His fruit is well established, will "look
like Christ" in spirit -- you'll be able to see Christ in him or her.
I can see Christ in Mother Theresa, and in spite of the doctrinal
differences between us, I can't deny this.
Catherine
Bret E. Fisher
> sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>
> >And now, on the icc web page, Al Baird openly encourages all members
> >to become "matchmakers," and help to arrange marriages in the icc.
>
> >My member-acquaintance has recently talked about marriage with another
> >icc person. Funny, he said nothing about love, or the great qualities
> >of the woman, he said "I wouldn't be doing it for me, I'd be doing it
> >for Jesus." I thought that made absolutely no sense at all.
>
> >But then I consider the icc's doctrine on what they call dating. The
> >guys are doing the gals ohhh such a favor by taking them out once a
> >week, just to make sure they don't get a bad self image. How
> >humanitarian, how noble! They view it as a responsibility. What fun.
>
Hi, I'm the "member-acquaintance" Scott is talking about...
First off before I go into this I want to say something.
I'm new here, but plan to stay a while.
Scott is my closest "non-ICoC" friend and I Love him a lot. We used to be
inseparable before I joined the movement, but now we are mearly
"work-buddies" at best. This is not because of any "advice" from members.
It's because I haven't taken the effort it takes to keep a relationship
close when God puts other things in my life. And now he will be leaving in
less then a month for good (out of the Navy). I could very well never see
him again face to face. I can't tell you how much he means to me. I feel
most of the time that we're on opposite sides of the line... both believing
he's fighting on God's side. Scott..... you were my first best friend.
Aheemmmmm {sob, sob}
Scott and I talked about this subject. Then I sent him a email about how I
feel. Here is the gist of the email:
Hey Bret,
I was checkin out the ICC site, and I was reading in the KNN area. This
is what Al Baird wrote:
(You can read the article at
http://www.intlcc.com/KNN/Only_You/Only_You.html )
>Scott,
>I read it twice and then read it again… only from a >"outsiders" point of
view. I can see your concern.
>But believe me; it's nothing like you think it is. I think >this letter
was written more for members of the ICC >that already know about dating and
how to get advice >in the kingdom. If I had never seen the Church I would
>think this sounded a lot like the old days of "you will >marry her" or
"she isn't the one for you".
>
> But its not,… in the least bit.
> And I don't say this just to side with the Church. >Believe me, I have
thought a lot about dating lately and >never once, not for a moment,
thought that I would >never marry the lady of my dreams because it wasn't
>someone else's idea for us.
>
> Never in the history of the church have I heard of >people getting set
up. Yes Al did talk about >Matchmaking, but from the inside I can see
exactly >what he's talking about. He's talking about leaders >helping and
encouraging singles who like each other >and are thinking of dating. I
think sometimes singles >can get so mission focused (I have felt this way)
and >gung ho with other things that they can forget about >dating.
>
> I for one haven't gone on a lot of dates this year. >I know it's because
I'm lazy…
> You see, back in the world a date meant asking >someone out… going to a
movie… and then going >somewhere hoping to "make out".
> NOT IN THE KINGDOM
> You have to put more effort into dating as a >Disciple of Jesus. I don't
take sisters to movies that >often 'cus there just so worldly anymore; you
never >know what your going to expect. So I only go if I know >it's a
"clean" flick. So this creates a demand for more >effort. Planning dates,
maybe trying to do a double or >something, etc. So lazy people and selfish
people like >myself don't make that effort often. (On the average I >go on
a date 1 or 2 times a month).
>
> If someone doesn't have the interest in dating at >the moment, or for a
while that's fine. As long as the >motives behind it are holy. Not all
are meant to marry.
What I think Al is referring to is the fact that many people might like
someone. And do nothing about it.
"Any single disciple who wants to marry should be assisted in creative ways
to make his/her dream become reality."
1. {wants} Leaders don't force anything.
2. {assisted} Different than pushed.
3. {his/her dream} Not the leaders dreams for them.
>I like this sister… and she likes me. But that isn't to say >everything
is going to be fine. We need advice,… and >lot's of it.
> What should I focus on… communication, or >openness, or maybe
encouragement…. This is the >kind of "matchmaking" he's talking about….
> What if another brother likes her too? How >should I deal with this?
> What if she likes the other brother better?
> How can I keep hers and my relationship as >friends, and not get jealous
of the other brother?
> How do I know when I'm spiritually ready to date?
>
>I have all these questions and more floating inside my >head every day.
>Leaders can give me spiritual advice on how to deal >with these
situations. I can just see myself sliding into >a pit if I were to ask
here to date and she thought I was >way to focused on her and "dating", and
not the LORD. >It would be hard to take,… but the truth.
>
>Like you said the other night. You have a hard enough >time keeping your
self accountable. And your >responsible for your wife and family too. I
need advice >and direction on how to get and keep myself spiritually >and
physically ready to be responsible for another >soul.
>
>Matchmaking as Al would call it in the Kingdom is about >advice,
direction, caring, encouragement, humility, >and most of all LOVE.
>
>
>I've never called it matchmaking; but what the heck… >It's God's
matchmaking!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Scott, as a good friend I always appreciate your care >as a father for me.
I know your always looking out for >me. I didn't plan on writing this to
you as I will see you >tonight. But a flood of feelings filled me and I
just >started to write.
>I hope this is the answer you were looking for, as it is >straight from my
heart.J
>
>Love in Christ,
>Bret
I hope this gives some of you a better idea of how it goes.
--
Bret Fisher
Greater Norfolk Church of Christ
Norfolk, VA USA
br...@as39.navy.mil
www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3407
Chris Garland
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>In article <4tgnp1$1r...@mule0.mindspring.com>, ma...@mindspring.com (Mark
>Davis) writes:
>
>>>Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
>>>Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
>>>Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
>>
>>>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
>>
>>
>
>Hey, if any of us could earn God's grace based on good works, Jesus
>wouldn't have had to die on the cross.
I suppose we earn God's grace through legalistic interpretation of
scriptures?
Chris Garland
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>In article <4tgnp1$1r...@mule0.mindspring.com>, ma...@mindspring.com (Mark
>Davis) writes:
>
>>>As to the Mother Theresa issue, I'm waiting to see what transpires on
>>>Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
>>>Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
>>>Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
>>
>>>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
>>
>>
>>I got Mother Theresa at 1000-1, any takers?
>
>Hey, if any of us could earn God's grace based on good works, Jesus
>wouldn't have had to die on the cross.
By the way, since when is imitating Christ "earning" ones good works?
Chris Garland
By the way, since when is living in imitation of Christ "earning" ones
salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
baptism.
Ovum
In article <4timb3$2...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>>Hey, if any of us could earn God's grace based on good works, Jesus
>>wouldn't have had to die on the cross.
>
>I suppose we earn God's grace through legalistic interpretation of
>scriptures?
Okay, Okay. I interpreted Rich's remarks to imply that Mother Theresa
would be saved because of all her good works. I was trying to point out
that good works don't save.
Here's an analogy about salvation:
Trying to be good enough to get to heaven is like trying to swim from L.A.
to Hawaii. Most people would only get about a mile or so away from L.A.
The world's greatest swimmer might get 30, or even 50 miles away from
L.A., but no one would be able to swim the whole 800 miles without
stopping.
To follow the same analogy, here's how salvation works:
You're standing on the beach in L.A., knowing you have to get to Hawaii to
be saved. You have absolutely no means of getting there at all. The
Captain of the only boat going from L.A. to Hawaii sees you in this
predicament, and sends someone to you with a note. The note says for you
to go to the third boat in the marina, the blue one with "Ekklesia"
painted on it, and it will take you to Hawaii -- for free!
To be saved, you have to: (1) Believe the note, (2) Get on the right boat,
and (3) Stay on it until it reaches Hawaii.
The following actions will result in you NOT being saved:
(1) Putting the note in your pocket until you can have the handwriting
analyzed by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA and have the paper dusted for
prints and carbon-dated, and research all the books about all the notes
ever handed to anybody on a beach since the dawn of time.
(2) Deciding that you will be taken to Hawaii no matter WHICH boat you get
on; after all, they all SAY they're going to Hawaii, and so you get on the
red boat because it looks so much sleeker.
(3) Getting on the right boat, but jumping overboard halfway to Hawaii
because the other passengers on board get on your nerves so much.
In this analogy, Hawaii = Heaven. The Captain = Jesus. The Note = the
Bible. The Boat = the Body of Christ. Getting on the Boat = Baptism.
Getting on the boat is the result of you believing the note; both are
essential to you being saved.
Ovum
In article <4timem$2...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>
>By the way, since when is living in imitation of Christ "earning" ones
>salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
>baptism.
This would normally be true, but Catholics don't believe in baptism.
Ovum
>>As to the Mother Theresa issue, I'm waiting to see what transpires on
>>Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
>>Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
>>Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
>
>>--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
>
>
>I got Mother Theresa at 1000-1, any takers?
Hey, if any of us could earn God's grace based on good works, Jesus
Scott W. Schreiber
"Bret E. Fisher" <br...@as39.navy.mil> wrote:
>Scott..... you were my first best friend.
Thanks for posting Bret. Hope you don't feel that I'm attacking you,
but I have to point out the word "were" in your post. I saw your post
on another thread stating agreement that it's the ex-members who leave
and fail to communicate with members, yet here you just said it.
"You *were* my best friend."
You never call, we never do anything together anymore. Nothing. When
did it start? When you started at the ICC. Why? Because they gave
you the impression that my eternal salvation was in question, and that
I was worldly, and pridefull (Allan's Bible talk...), and therefore
not good to be around. And it didn't just affect me, my wife and
daughter missed you too.
Now. On to the dating thing.
>I've never called it matchmaking; but what the heck It's God's
>matchmaking!!!!!!!!!!!
Does anyone see the equation?
ICC (or Al, or Kip's) policy = God's policy
Scott
R. L. Measures
In article <19960726.7...@spunet.znet.com>,
nver...@spunet.znet.com (Spumoni (NJ Verenini)) wrote:
> I think it's what someone here referred to as 'reverse agenda engineering,'
> the idea that someone goes to the Bible to justify what they already
> believe. This can be very dangerous, especially when 'God's will' is
> swapped with someone's beliefs that are matters of *opinion*, and nothing
> else. Certainly, there is ample evidence from the fallout of the ICC
> doctrine to demonstrate this.
>
Yeakley talks about it in *The Discipling Dilemma*.
Basicly, this appears to be what happened. Charles M. Lucas designed the
discipling movement in the early 1970s after the writings of Robert
Coleman and Watchman Nee. Subsequently, Lucas began a search of
scriptures to supposedly confirm his design. After Lucas was booted out
because of romantic involvement with young males, McKean took over and
continued the trying process of trying to find scriptures to more or less
match the discipling movement agenda.
A few decades later, we find 70,000 'true christians' who judge
others--and many hundreds of thousands who have cleverly been tricked into
turning away from God.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
nancy
On Jul 29, 1996 22:50:33 in article <Re: Rephrasing the Divorce
That is wrong, Catholics do believe in baptism, it is a sacrament. You
cannot be Catholic and not baptized.
nancy
Chris Garland
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
>(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>
>>DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: In article <4shdq1$4...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W.
>>: Schreiber) writes:
>>
>>: >Simon Majus was the sorcerer in Acts who wanted to buy the Holy
>>: >Spirit. He was rebuked, but he was never told to be re-baptized. He
>>: >apparently repented, and still no mention of re-baptism....
>
>>Why do you say he "apparently repented"? I don't see that from the text:
>
>{snipped}
>
>I'll let Scott answer your question, because it is Scott's comment you are
>questioning. . .
>
>>: And then there's the story of Apollos in Acts 18, who "knew only the
>>: baptism of John". No rebaptism is mentioned in his case, only that
>they
>>: explained things to him "more adequately."
>
>>Apollos became a significant figure in the Corinth Church of Christ
>>(affiliated with the International Churches of Christ) according to 1 Cor
>
>>1:12, and he was clearly there in Corinth at the time (Acts 19:1). Paul
>>writes to the congregation in 1 Cor 12:13 that "For we were ALL baptized
>>by one Spirit into one body, whether Jews or Greek, slave or free--and we
>
>>were ALL given the one Spirit to drink".
>>
>>This suggests strongly that Apollos was baptized, along with everyone
>>else who was a part of the Corinthian church.
>
>I strongly disagree with the method of your "proof":
>
>1. Apollos was once in Corinth.
>
>2. Therefore I Corinthians 12:13 applies to Apollos.
>
>3. Therefore Apollos was rebaptized after the events of Acts 18.
>
>Roger, you are proof-texting, plain and simple. Please, PLEASE, take a
>dictionary and look up the word "eisegesis". (And don't be suprised if
>you see a picture of Kip next to the word!).
>
>Have you even CONSIDERED the possibility that Apollos WASN'T rebaptized?
>(even though it might conflict with your belief system) Or are you just
>trying to find ANY scripture to verify your personal opinion that Apollos
>MUST HAVE been re-baptized?
>
>Roger, since no re-baptism of Apollos is MENTIONED in Scripture, and since
>there is not a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a believer (someone who was aware of
>Christ and his significance) being rebaptized, you should at least have
>the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to consider this point of view! (Is the Bible
>your "standard", or is ICC interpretation?)
>
>Also, can we have some clarification on your statement that the "Corinth
>Church of Christ" was "affiliated with the International Church of
>Christ"?? I have never seen a scriptural reference to a "Corinth Church
>of Christ" (note: capital "c"), nor to the "International Church of
>Christ". Any connection between your Movement and the First Century
>Church is a *tenuous* one, at best!!!
Actually, there still is a church in Corinth -- directly connected to the
original one mentioned in the bible -- with an elder who happens to be an
Orthodox Bishop. I'm sure that the bishop would take offense at being
affiliated by Roger with the ICC, as the Corinth church is Orthodox and
always has been since its inception.
Chris Garland
ar...@nntp.best.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>
>I'm not Roman Catholic, and have some people I really know who exhibit
>these qualities, but as I understand the Scriptures, a mature Christian,
>one in whom the Holy Spirit and His fruit is well established, will "look
>like Christ" in spirit -- you'll be able to see Christ in him or her.
>I can see Christ in Mother Theresa, and in spite of the doctrinal
>differences between us, I can't deny this.
>
>Catherine
You know, it's not too late to convert, Catherine :)
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
nancy (n1...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Jul 29, 1996 22:50:33 in article <Re: Rephrasing the Divorce
You can indeed be a Catholic and not be baptized. Baptism means
immersion; I was sprinkled as an infant (without repenting, and without
being a disciple, although I did have the "loud cries and tears" part
down, but it would be a stretch to say that was imitating Jesus's prayer
life in Hebrews 5:7).
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Chris Garland
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) wrote:
>On Jul 29, 1996 22:50:33 in article <Re: Rephrasing the Divorce
>Statement....>, 'ov...@aol.com (Ovum)' wrote:
>
>
>>In article <4timem$2...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
>><chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>>By the way, since when is living in imitation of Christ "earning" ones
>>>salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
>
>>
>>>baptism.
>>
>>This would normally be true, but Catholics don't believe in baptism.
Uh, Ovum, I'm getting a bit fed up with your self-righteousness; your
spewing nonsense out of ignorance. I suggest you read the Catechism
before you condemn the Catholic church -- they most certainly DO believe
in Baptism for salvation.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
: >DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: In article <4shdq1$4...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W.
: >: Schreiber) writes:
: >
: I strongly disagree with the method of your "proof":
: 1. Apollos was once in Corinth.
Apollos was not just "once in Corinth", but was a significant figure in
the church (1 Cor 1:12) as evidenced by the fact that different people in
the church seem to be following Peter, Paul, and Apollos as personalities
rather than Jesus Christ. Apollos was "strongly urged" to leave Corinth
as recorded in 1 Cor 16:12. He did not just appear once in Corinth and
then disappear (no doubt being AWOL from Wednesday night services every
now and then) but helped the church to grow substantially (1 Cor 3:6).
: 2. Therefore I Corinthians 12:13 applies to Apollos.
: 3. Therefore Apollos was rebaptized after the events of Acts 18.
I disagree with your usage of the term "rebaptized" since Apollos had
never been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but had received John's
baptism.
: Roger, you are proof-texting, plain and simple. Please, PLEASE, take a
: dictionary and look up the word "eisegesis". (And don't be suprised if
: you see a picture of Kip next to the word!).
I'm just reading the Bible and what it says: the Corinithian church was
ALL baptized, every last one of the members. Apollos was not only a
member but a significant leader in the church in Corinth.
: Have you even CONSIDERED the possibility that Apollos WASN'T rebaptized?
: (even though it might conflict with your belief system) Or are you just
: trying to find ANY scripture to verify your personal opinion that Apollos
: MUST HAVE been re-baptized?
Find me a Scripture that suggests that Apollos was not in Corinth during
the time that 1 Corinthians was written, and I will be more likely to
entertain the notion that this letter does not apply to him. Really, you
think Apollos was the only disciple in all of Corinth who scooted out of
being baptized? When everyone was talking about how they were baptized,
how their sins was washed away, Apollos was just saying, uhh...well, I
prayed Jesus into my heart...didn't really get baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ...that's just what I teach all you guys to do...?
: Roger, since no re-baptism of Apollos is MENTIONED in Scripture, and since
: there is not a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a believer (someone who was aware of
: Christ and his significance) being rebaptized, you should at least have
: the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to consider this point of view! (Is the Bible
: your "standard", or is ICC interpretation?)
I don't see any "rebaptisms" either. I see those who were immersed by
John being baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:1-5). This was their
second time in water, true, but John's baptism was for repentance, water
baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was for salvation (Acts 2:38).
In the ICC, you may meet up with people who were baptized in the ICC
multiple times. They will tell you that their first baptism was invalid
(didn't repent, didn't get baptized as a disciple) for some reason, and
so they just have a bath the first time, with no spiritual consquences.
When they finally did repent, and decided to be a disciple (Matt 28:19)
at that time they were baptized. I don't call it "rebaptism" since they
could have lived in a water tank for the last 5 years and it still
wouldn't have amounted to a valid baptism.
: Also, can we have some clarification on your statement that the "Corinth
: Church of Christ" was "affiliated with the International Church of
: Christ"?? I have never seen a scriptural reference to a "Corinth Church
: of Christ" (note: capital "c"), nor to the "International Church of
: Christ". Any connection between your Movement and the First Century
: Church is a *tenuous* one, at best!!!
Yes, this was an attempt at humor on my part. :) I didn't mean for it to
become the whole discussion.
: >Notice that Apollos doesn't argue, fight, get defensive, or get all
: >emotional, but he was humble to learn and take correction when he
: >realized that there was something missing in his doctrine, even though he
: >had believed it for a long time and was an active public speaker.
: >Imagine the humility it must have taken for him to stand up the next day
: >and tell people about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and to have to
: >correct his message to include that essential part which Priscilla and
: >Aquila adequately explained to him.
: I hope you're not suggesting that I need to "humble out" and accept your
: interpretation! : ) I would, if only it made sense!
No, I just don't expect to see personal attacks, emotional "Do Not
Judge! Do Not Judge!", specious arguments like "What about the thief
on the cross?", etc. You haven't done that; I've seen others turn a
perfectly logical discussion into a big emotional flame war since what
the Bible said
R.L. Measures
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
>
> >As to the Mother Theresa issue, I'm waiting to see what transpires on
> >Judgement Day. The person who calls himself 'God's Man leading God's
> >Movement' has judged that Mother Theresa is going to burn forever in
> >Hell. However, based on what I know, I'm guessing major upset.
>
> >--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
>
>
> I got Mother Theresa at 1000-1, any takers?
>
Those are odds I just can't pass up, Mark. Oh--what the hell. Put me
down for 10 dollars.
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>You can indeed be a Catholic and not be baptized. Baptism means
>immersion;
Where is this defined?
Ovum
In article <4tkpv4$4...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
<chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>Uh, Ovum, I'm getting a bit fed up with your self-righteousness; your
>spewing nonsense out of ignorance. I suggest you read the Catechism
>before you condemn the Catholic church -- they most certainly DO believe
>in Baptism for salvation.
OK, I'll take "Clarifying Statements for $100, Alex." :-)
Catholics do not believe in baptism the way the scriptures teach it. They
baptize infants, who cannot have faith, repent, confess Jesus as Lord,
etc. etc. The way I had it explained to me is that infant baptism is
basically the parents pledging to raise the child to be faithful. Later
the child goes through "confirmation," where the teenager pledges
him/herself to live for God. Sounds good in theory, but it's not in the
Bible.
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>nancy (n1...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
>: On Jul 29, 1996 22:50:33 in article <Re: Rephrasing the Divorce
>: Statement....>, 'ov...@aol.com (Ovum)' wrote:
>: ><chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>: >
>: >>
>: >>salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
>: >
>: >>baptism.
>: >
>: >This would normally be true, but Catholics don't believe in baptism.
>: That is wrong, Catholics do believe in baptism, it is a sacrament. You
>: cannot be Catholic and not baptized.
>
>being a disciple, although I did have the "loud cries and tears" part
>down, but it would be a stretch to say that was imitating Jesus's prayer
>life in Hebrews 5:7).
Afraid your wrong, there Roger. Read the Didache, which includes early
writings of the Apostles. The instructions they gave for baptism were
EITHER immersion or sprinkling. You ICCers think you've got it all down
pat, but you miss a lot by taking your leaders word for things. Why don't
you practice what you preach and BE A BEREAN and research things out for
yourself?
Starr
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>>You can indeed be a Catholic and not be baptized. Baptism means
>>immersion;
>Where is this defined?
Original greek - baptizmo = immersion. Or so I'm told - by people I
trust who know greek (i.e., Rick Bauer).
Starr
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>In article <4timem$2...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
><chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
>>By the way, since when is living in imitation of Christ "earning" ones
>>salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
>>baptism.
>This would normally be true, but Catholics don't believe in baptism.
Beg to differ, Ovum. All Catholics are baptized, and they recognize
other baptisms in other churches as "valid" if you decide, as an
adult, to convert to Catholicism. They may not agree with "your"
definition of baptism, but that's another thread...
:)
Catherine Hampton
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: Now, I'm not saying I agree with the point that Mother Theresa is
: "Hell's Angel". I think she is a good woman doing the best she can
: through her faith. But I also think that she is a human being, not a
: Saint, and as such she is subject to human error. I would like to
Difference in terminology. A saint is a human being and subject to
human error. I can point to saints of the Church guilty of some pretty
horrendous stuff, and not all of it before they started doing the
things that led to their being considered saints. St. John Chrysostom,
one of the great Nicene-era Christian fathers, was by all accounts
seriously antisemitic. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, another saint of that
era, was known for his "fighting monks", something as against the rules
of monastacism then as it is now. And I could go on.
Being recognized as a saint does not imply perfection, or no sin -- it
implies that the Holy Spirit is working and has matured in someone's
life.
I'd have to take a close look a the circumstances you mentioned before I'd
criticize her about the things brought up in that magazine article. Her
stand on abortion and birth control has earned her some powerful opponents
and, on occasion, enemies. Her stand against child labor has also earned
her powerful enemies. While I doubt the facts in the article you cite
were wrong, it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the interpretations
on those facts were biased beyond belief. :(
Catherine
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >: On Jul 29, 1996 22:50:33 in article <Re: Rephrasing the Divorce
: >: >In article <4timem$2...@news.ios.com>, Chris Garland
: >: ><chr...@village.ios.com> writes:
: >: >
: >: >>
: >: >>By the way, since when is living in imitation of Christ "earning" ones
: >: >>salvation? The grace of Christ saved her; grace that came upon her at her
: >: >
: >: >>baptism.
: >: >
: >: >This would normally be true, but Catholics don't believe in baptism.
: >: cannot be Catholic and not baptized.
: >You can indeed be a Catholic and not be baptized. Baptism means
: >immersion; I was sprinkled as an infant (without repenting, and without
: >down, but it would be a stretch to say that was imitating Jesus's prayer
: >life in Hebrews 5:7).
: Afraid your wrong, there Roger. Read the Didache, which includes early
: writings of the Apostles. The instructions they gave for baptism were
: EITHER immersion or sprinkling. You ICCers think you've got it all down
: pat, but you miss a lot by taking your leaders word for things. Why don't
: you practice what you preach and BE A BEREAN and research things out for
: yourself?
Didache, Didache...it that before or after 1 Thessalonians? Oh Chris,
you got me again, quoting uncanonized books that are not in the Bible.
As I recall the Bereans of Acts 17:11 were commended for "examining the
Scriptures".
Here's what "The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words" has to say:
"BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion,
and emergence (from bapto, to dip), is used (a) of John's baptism, (b) of
Christian baptism..."
W. E. Vine is not a leader in the Boston Movement. You insult me as well
as the whole brotherhood of disciples when you accuse us of just taking
some human leader's word for things. Believe you me, I spent a good
number of years of my life in a denominational church where I blindly
trusted the leadership and did not read the Scriptures for myself and
study them closely. It was the ICC that challenged me with Acts
17:11--to seek God's counsel and to view the teachings of men--even
respected men with worthy examples and experience and knowledge--with a
healthy skepticism and a learner's heart.
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Here's what "The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament
>Words" has to say:
>
>"BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion,
>and emergence (from bapto, to dip), is used (a) of John's baptism, (b) of
>Christian baptism..."
That was nice. Now lets hear from the American Heritage College
dictionary, which has equal spiritual value with Vine's:
Baptism: 1) A Christian sacrament marked by the symbolic use of water and
resulting in the recipient's admission into the Christian community. 2)
an initiation, purification, or naming ceremony or experience.
See anything about full immersion in there? Gee, neither are the bible --
which should I believe; Vine's or the Dictionary?