Twinky

Unfortunately I did endure this and there was many a Corps night lashing about it. No tthat LCM would want to make anybody suffer under a load of self-condemnation and misery, of course (tongue in cheek). If you left but hung around you were "harassing." If you contacted anybody who had left/been flung out, you were "unproductive" and they were "destructive." I never understood it then and even less now (actually I had almost forgotten about this). ...Isn't it good to know that NOTHING CAN SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD, that neither God nor Jesus Christ want divisions in the church, and that we should be very wary of those who cause divisions among us - by introducing, perhaps, false concepts of what kind of evil they were deluded by - especially when it might well have been their sound mind that took them away from TWI!! Now (perhaps) back to the regularly scheduled topic... (sorry, was I being a bit "unproductive"?)

Romans 2:23 (again) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. You aren't arguing with me, Oldies, when you say that the preacher's lifestyle doesn't negate the message preached. Seems to me that a higher authority has rather strong words to say about it. (edited for emphasis)

A bit "off topic" this, but a couple of months ago there was an article in the NZ newspaper and on the UK news about some man who decided to emigrate to New Zealand "before he got too old." He uprooted and took his wife with him to start their new life. What's amazing about that? He's 92 and his wife is 86. Good for them!!!!!

True, Oldies, we all commit sin. But in context this is getting at those who set out to teach one thing whilst deliberately doing something different. We're not talking about the occasional falling short of the mark but a persistent abuse, a failure to even try to live up to the standard, a teaching of that which the teacher knows in no way matches his lifestyle. Try reading Galatians 5 about the works of the flesh. Very interesting if read in different versions. One version even talks about fits of rage and explosive outbursts. Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. (NIV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: (KJV) Paul (the former religious zealot known as Saul, much given to works of the flesh, including murder) tells us to be "followers of him" but I don't think he meant in the things of his sinful nature. And I do not see that Paul continued in the sinful nature but rather that he made such an about-face that those approving of his former lifestyle persecuted him.

That's if we can even get past the incredulous look, to start explaining...

Ithought this bore repeating...

I think it rather that it negates the so-called "teacher" - who clearly isn't living what is taught - and therefore disqualifies himself from teaching and is a disgrace to God Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law [or of whatever is being taught - grace, in our administration], and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law [or, grace]; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law [or, grace]. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law [or, grace], through breaking the law or abuse of grace dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. I b'lieve the usual word is "hypocrite."

Two points from this thread: 1. Internationals as well as FC usually did two years back to back. It was hard to convince the issuers of the US study visa to grant a one year study visa then out and then another one year study visa, and they would not grant a three year study visa. So Internationals did Yr 1 Apprentice; Yrs 2 and 3 - in rez; Yr 4 =- practicum year (often helping at a Branch or going WoW). Same for FC but I think that was to prevent too much disruption to the education of children. 2. I know two successful ministries run by non-graduated Corps ex-Wayfers. Both international; neither huge, but they are both growing. In different countries. One wasn't Corps at all and the other left after a few months in rez.

Nice card, Kit!!

Hey George! Have a great time. Happy birthday. Twinx

My goodness, what an unusual person you are. How many right eyes do you have? And how many left eyes?? Can you see well out of all of them now??

Oh hilarious. Get'em to do one for lawyers too.

Happy Easter, everyone. A good time to remember all the blessings that we have and the privileges we can enjoy. A time to celebrate LIFE in all its fulness. Be ye thankful. It's a long weekend holiday-break. Take care if you are traveling and enjoy yourself when you get there.

Don't know if this made it to US papers. The McCanns took proceedings against the noisiest news group that was printing stories against them and even before it got to court, the news group caved in. They have paid a substantial sum (now apparently noted as £550,000, which is significant in UK terms, maybe not US terms - the news group also has to pay all the costs) and have put huge front page apologies on all the newspapers printed by the news group. Below is a synopsis from a website, not from the newspaper itself. if you Google "Daily Express" you'll probably find something. Of course, it proves nothing except that the McCanns had been seriously defamed. Regrettably, it does not bring back the little girl.

How the heck could any Corps grad (especially now) get $1million together at all, never mind $1m to give away? Clearly not living on a need basis...on staff... Anyway, that kinda smacks of "buying a ministry". Bet if anyone did donate $1m they didn't get M&A'd too quickly.

Interesting, this, isn't it, why someone would not continue. He joined them in Acts 12:25, they went to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas are sent to Cyprus and John Mark goes with them; they get expelled from there and go to Iconium where Paul gets stoned; then off to various other places including Pamphylia (Acts 14:24). John Mark might have thought he had a good reason. Perhaps a family member was ill or in other need and he felt he needed to go to that person's aid. Perhaps he had become ill. Perhaps he was fearful. He does not seem to have made a big impact between Act 12:25 and 14:24 since only Paul and Barnabas are mentioned. NIV and NASB say he "deserted" them. A strong word. Perhaps, even, Paul was partly to blame. It was a learning curve for him, too, and he must have been an immensely strong-willed person and perhaps quite difficult to live with at times. Maybe JM felt oppressed or taken for granted or overridden. Since this is in About the Way, we all know what it is like to feel oppressed by leadership. But I agree it must have been something pretty significant. I don't think Paul was playing the MOGFODAT card. As previously mentioned, the significant thing seems to be that he got over whatever had held him back before. Problem dealt with or fear overcome. He went on to become a useful member of the outreach team. And Paul got over his (let's call it) disappointment with JM. JM and Paul "made it up" and got on with life preaching and teaching the gospel. I don't know that JM could be called a "quitter". He departed but there is nothing to say that he did not continue preaching and teaching in other locations, and indeed he probably did, because he was welcomed back as a fellow laborer and not reviled and never heard of again. It's nice to look at the make-up not just the break-up.

Rachel: by all means re-post what I have posted using the same scriptures from KJV if that is what you prefer. I invite you to consider the content (+heart) not the precise words. You seem determined to pick a fight. I am not fighting, arguing or anything else. Just ... asking. Kindly reply politely or not at all. Ex-Wayfers have seen too much abuse. Let's not add to it. If I offended you by what I posted in response ot someone else (as you say), I'm sorry. Perhaps that person can respond if offended - or are you the same person? I welcome considered comments. Plese keep this thread civil :-)

Of course you are both soooo right, Bride and Rachel. Rachel, you do not need to be insulting. This is not About the Way - it's Doctrinal, and if you prefer "a good row" you can stay in About The Way. I must have over a dozen different versions of the Bible at home. I have read KJV so very long that it is too familiar. I read The Message occasionally because it gives suuuuch a different picture BUT if you go back and read it in KJV or a more tight translation you see what it is getting at. I chose to use The Message not because it is good but because it breaks out of the KJV/TWI mold - sometimes it's so eyebrow-raising that it makes me take another look at KJV or anything else. It's not my Bible of choice. My invitation is to think outside the box for a while. But if you prefer not to, that's fine.

I’d urge you to think again about responses on this thread. Look at the last action of Jesus towards the apostles: John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put him in complete charge of everything, that he came from God and was on his way back to God. 4 So he got up from the supper table, set aside his robe, and put on an apron. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples, drying them with his apron. 6 When he got to Simon Peter, Peter said, "Master, you wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered, "You don't understand now what I'm doing, but it will be clear enough to you later." ... 12 After he had finished washing their feet, he took his robe, put it back on, and went back to his place at the table. 13 You address me as 'Teacher' and 'Master,' and rightly so. That is what I am. 14 So if I, the Master and Teacher, washed your feet, you must now wash each other's feet. 15 I've laid down a pattern for you. What I've done, you do. 16 I'm only pointing out the obvious. A servant is not ranked above his master; an employee doesn't give orders to the employer. 17 If you understand what I'm telling you, act like it - and live a blessed life.” The apostles didn’t understand this business about clean and unclean, no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and real servanthood. We see how religious Peter is in Acts 10: 10 Peter got hungry and started thinking about lunch. While lunch was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the skies open up. Something that looked like a huge blanket lowered by ropes at its four corners settled on the ground. 12 Every kind of animal and reptile and bird you could think of was on it. 13 Then a voice came: "Go to it, Peter - kill and eat." 14 Peter said, "Oh, no, Lord. I've never so much as tasted food that was not kosher." 15 The voice came a second time: "If God says it's okay, it's okay." 16 This happened three times, and then the blanket was pulled back up into the skies. …. (So in spite of the last example of footwashing by Jesus; and in spite of previous teaching about what goes into the mouth does not defile – Peter still didn’t “get it.” In fact, he's quite indignant that he should be asked to step outside his cultural values.) 28 Peter addressed [the household of Cornelius], "You know, I'm sure that this is highly irregular. Jews just don't do this - visit and relax with people of another race. But God has just shown me that no race is better than any other… [bless his heart - how many times had he been shown this previously??] 34 Peter fairly exploded with his good news: "It's God's own truth, nothing could be plainer: God plays no favorites! 35 It makes no difference who you are or where you're from - if you want God and are ready to do as he says, the door is open. 36 The Message he sent to the children of Israel - that through Jesus Christ everything is being put together again - well, he's doing it everywhere, among everyone. Acts 11: 17 So I ask you: If God gave the same exact gift to them as to us when we believed in the Master Jesus Christ, how could I object to God?" 18 Hearing it all laid out like that, they quieted down. And then, as it sank in, they started praising God. "It's really happened! God has broken through to the other nations, opened them up to Life!" (Maybe they are beginning to understand…) 19 Those who had been scattered by the persecution triggered by Stephen's death traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, but they were still only speaking and dealing with their fellow Jews. 20 Then some of the men from Cyprus and Cyrene who had come to Antioch started talking to Greeks, giving them the Message of the Master Jesus. 21 God was pleased with what they were doing and put his stamp of approval on it - quite a number of the Greeks believed and turned to the Master. Bride of JC says that the persecution was allowed of God: what I see is that it happened, but it still didn’t achieve all that was commanded. This makes it clear there is still no outreach to non-Jews. And the Jewish members of the church are suspicious of those who do reach outside their own culture: 22 When the church in Jerusalem got wind of this, they sent Barnabas to Antioch to check on things. 23 As soon as he arrived, he saw that God was behind and in it all. He threw himself in with them, got behind them, urging them to stay with it the rest of their lives. 24 He was a good man that way, enthusiastic and confident in the Holy Spirit's ways. The community grew large and strong in the Master. Clearly Barnabas sees how it is supposed to be. He sees there is a lot of difference between what was going on in Jerusalem, and what he was seeing in Antioch. He wouldn’t have stayed otherwise; he would have gone straight back to Jerusalem. A bit like seeing the scriptures taught today in a “live” church, and comparing that with the scriptures in a church where they go through the motions. As I have read more and more with this question/idea in mind, it seems to me more and more that what I first posted is correct. We can get so "holier than thou" about everything that people (who are written about in the Bible) did was correct - yeah, right. Lots of their mistakes are written about in there too. There's a time and a place for setting up centralised teaching places (school of the prophets? The work in Antioch?) but right after Pentecost was not the time (proclaiming the message was more urgent) nor the place (Jerusalem was full of legalists ready to attack). I think traveling fast and light, as Paul did on his many missionary journeys, was what the LJC intended these apostles to do. Sometimes he is noted as having had companions; no reason to suppose that they didn’t have wives and children too. The apostles could have left their wives and kids (if necessary) back in Galilee (sufficiently far from Jerusalem), broadcast the News, and then return to Galilee. Or taken the wives and kids (if still young) and gone as a family. Why not? (Family WoW.) There are even now many missionary families moving the word today in many countries. Certainly the apostles’ wives would have seen as much of Jesus as many of the husbands, entertained the LJC in their homes, heard his teachings - consider Mary and Martha. Why shouldn't the wives of the apostles also be able to teach and share the News? They would have outreach in places their menfolk couldn't. From a PM to me: T-Bone: I agree that every detail worked on Saul’s hard heart too. But it didn’t need to include the death of Stephen. Precious in the sight of the lord is the death of any of his people. God was big enough to work on Saul’s meanness outside of Stephen’s death. The LJC could have appeared to him at some other time. Rachel: it was the Greeks who were complaining they were neglected, not Hebrews. Not clear whether these were people who normally lived in or close to Jerusalem, or whether they were also visitors from parts round about come for the big Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and stayed. Or even other visitors, traders and passers-by who came and never left. None of this, of course, “proves” anything. I’m just offering a different take on a familiar section of scripture and wondering if there aren’t lessons to be learned. We mustn’t consider that everything that we read about in the Bible really is the will of God, no matter how Godly it appears. There’s a shedload of examples of that in both OT and NT.

(Rascal, have you noticed it is not women who attack on the sex and abortion issues? We know - gnosko - what was done to us, individually and as a group.) (But that's another thread, please take it up elsewhere if anyone wants to argue.) It is good to bring to the light the works of darkness and expose them for what they are. The commitment to a person (fetus) has got to be greater than the commitment to a program devised of men - especially one devised for a man's glorification. You know that to be told that God required this of you is COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO HIS WILL which is that you be fruitful and multiply. Examining in the light cannot completely repair the damage (can't bring back an aborted fetus). But it does relieve the silence and guilt of darkness.

Me too. At church nobody kisses anybody except people who seem to have known each other a long time. In some cultures people do greet with a kiss - others don't. I see this as an instruction to greet in a civil and culturally appropriate manner. Not an instruction that you MUST kiss believers in greeting. In some cultures that would in fact be highly offensive (Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?). But it is nice, and welcoming ...

This is clearly stirring up some very unpleasant memories for some people and I am very sorry if I have prodded anybody's pain that was slumbering below the surface. The teaching was wrong, stupid, inconsiderate, so anti-God and part of the general belittling of women. Pregnant women KNOW they have life growing within them. Even if it isn't "breath life" yet. Tiny fetuses can now be seen via scans making little movements, stretches, yawns, sucking fingers - it's not alive??? An older fetus when it kicks and can be seen moving - isn't alive??? Pregnant whilst in residence? Well that would be a no-no, and very difficult to do the program whilst either pregnant or with a tiny babe, but the couple should have been given LoA and then returned to the Family Corps (that's if they still wanted to be Corps) Child "a trick of Satan"? "Move the Word unencumbered"? (The words "steal, kill and destroy" come to mind.) New meaning of "Suffer the little children to come unto me." "A dozen or so little mogsters crawling about" - now that might be a reason (ha ha) but even the little mogsters if taught proper behavior could learn to be decent kids and adults. (Sorry, being flip here.) Good thing God is big on forgiveness, both for those who endured the loss of a baby and for those who condoned/supported it, like niKa, with financial help. Not sure what forgiveness is available to those who actively taught this devilish doctrine.

Hey Excie, you don't have to go in that horrible old motor coach In fact you could stand outside it with a flaming sword and make damn sure nobody else does either.

Oops double post

Yeah, I do that too sometimes (though not usually giving a reason why I raise an idea). Some of the responses from the church home group I go to border on the incredulous and oftentimes several of the group "jump" on me trying to say how wrong an idea is. I weigh their possible indoctrination/group think against everything I know from elsewhere. Other times, they think I am making some very wise comment. As a whole, although they are mature Christians of many years standing, with a deep love and confidence in God/LJC, they don't know as much of the Bible that most TWI folks that have been around only a few months would know. But they don't know it disjointedly either (like TWI folks). And I go to a really good church where I hear a lot of stuff that completely knocks out TWI teaching. For instance last week there was a teaching on humility and the heart of a leader and following a leader etc etc but the vicar is sooo humble and is always the first to point out his own errors and use them as a teaching point for what he is saying. The qas a Q&A session at the end and someone asked him how it would go if someone in the congregation disagreed with him. His answer was so kind and tender. And there are proper ways of sorting out disagreements within the church. That's washing with the Word. Seeing it lived in a different way. I don't always agree with what's taught, but I have the option to disagree, to think about it for myself, to see if there is anything from Waydaze that is relevant, and to make up my own mind[/i (now that I've got it back).