Remember in PFAL VP sitting at his desk talking about the Pastor who worked a little on his sermon all week then put it in his desk drawer then took it out and worked on it and put it back and took it out? Then came Sunday and it seemed the people in his church were all set against what he was teaching?
Was it VP that explained to him that the devil came and read the man's sermon and then went and visited the congregation to turn them against it?
The moral of VP's story was that you had to keep the devil guessing and not let him know what you were going to teach?
(how many actually did that or referred back to that during their TWI tenure)
I guess the moral of the story should have been don't let the devil sit in your class either or read your books, because he would steal that as well.
I remember when I was at Craig's new Advanced Class in '98. He told the audience that he believed the Devil did not know anything that was written in the new syllabus because of the "spritual protection" around HQ.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing, the fact that someone would actually believe that, or the fact that he wanted us to think his new syllabus would need to be concealed from the adversary because of "never before seen, ground-breaking spiritual light" that was going to be held forth in his class.
"I wonder what's going on in there, I can't see! The light is so bright!"
You are correct. It's just, well, it's mystifying. Why go through all the work of composing a book as thick as JCOP and not take a moment and phrase things you have learned from others in your own words or if you can't because they coined a great statement, just cite them and give them credit. The guy was educated, much more than I. I have a hard time believing he couldn't do that. It is disappointing.
Lone Wolf
That's one of the things that makes it difficult for some people to accept that the evidence
is that he did what he did.
That is, it doesn't make sense to reasonable, honest people to act in this manner.
And he was put forth as a reasonable, honest person.
Therefore, if he was a reasonable, honest person, he wouldn't have done that.
Since he did that, he wasn't a reasonable, honest person after all, and we were all
hoodwinked! Bamboozled!
WHY he did it is secondary to THAT he did it, and some people can't even get
past THAT he did it, and continue to insist on excusing him somehow,
using any means they can find.
I think the evidence strongly suggests that the reason he did it was twofold:
A) primarily to make twi the sole source of "nourishment" for innies, cementing loyalty
B) secondarily to make himself the sole source of knowledge for innies,
inflating his image and putting forth that himself was some great one
Others may disagree, but I think the evidence supports that much without any
leaps.
Now, why he had those 2 reasons are 2 more questions, and I'm not going to
trail off into those at the moment.
But, yes, it's confusing and shocking to see all this, isn't it?
I mean, the first time I saw it all, it seemed ridiculous, ludicrous that it all
could be true, too outrageous to be literally true without embellishment.
Yeah. For years I was in the "so what" crowd, and to a large extent (this will shock many) I still am. I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. In seeking to be a better Christian, I read a bunch of stuff and I try to discern prayerfully what fits and what doesn't. I question, I debate, I discuss: I try to learn. But I pay little attention to authorship until and unless it becomes an issue; then I try to follow Biblical directives to watch out for "wolves on sheeps' clothing."
Was Wierwille a wolf in sheeps' clothing (no offense intended toward wolves)? Yup. I think his behavior proved that. I admire some of the clothing, though.
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere. :)
I speak for myself. The more proof of plagiarism helps me distance from vpw mentally. He was our "Father in The Word". He's not here for me to ask him if he's really my father.
and when leaving twi, what's reality? twi was it for so long. If these other guys came up with these things maybe I do know something truthful.
Would these doctrines have gone farther w/o vpw? Perhaps had these men's works not been associated with twi more of mainstream christianity would have taken hold of it? Do these works continue to circulate? Should we advertise them (as the works of the original men)?
Yeah. For years I was in the "so what" crowd, and to a large extent (this will shock many) I still am. I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. ...
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere. :)
In other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones?
In other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones?
Not to knock the way you put it, Oldies, but I personally prefer the way Raf put it (at the end of your quote of him); I like his source.
As far as seperating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced strongly by my wife and her family years ago, specifically back in 1987 when Billy Graham brought his crusade to our town.
Not to knock the way you put it, Oldies, but I personally prefer the way Raf put it (at the end of your quote of him); I like his source.
As far as seperating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced strongly by my wife and her family years ago, specifically back in 1987 when Billy Graham brought his crusade to our town.
Not to knock the way you put it, Oldies, but I personally prefer the way Raf put it (at the end of your quote of him); I like his source.
As far as seperating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced strongly by my wife and her family years ago, specifically back in 1987 when Billy Graham brought his crusade to our town.
What lesson?
As far as separating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced
Reading what is written, I get that the lesson was to
No problem with that. But there were past suggestions to throw out everything VPW taught and start from scratch.
here's a quote from Raf last year:
Better to reject everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy, and start the search for truth from scratch. Those things that are true will resurface independently of VPW's "work."
Now this recent one:
I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. ...
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere.
One says throw out everything VP says as untrustworthy, the other says what VP says contains some truth, so "hold it fast" (the truth part).
If one separates what was taught from who taught it, one doesn't need or even shouldn't throw all of it out as untrustworthy.
So, my question was, "in other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones"?
Reading what is written, I get that the lesson was to
separate the teaching from the teacher.
(At least when it comes to the Bible.)
WW is right. Going into the details here would derail this thread, and I dont feel right now like starting a seperate thread on it. However until/if I do, I will be happy to explain to anyone who wants to know enough to PM or e-mail me (my e-mail is on my profile I believe).
In line with this thread, and RAF's original comments, I think people do themselves a great disservice when they reject (or accept) something only because VPW taught it.
Just a question.. how does entitlement fit into this?
Entitled, to what?
What's supposedly owed to the victim? I don't see it..
Are you trying to say that if a person had a rotten abusive enough relationship with der "verdmeister" that they have the mindset of being "entitled" if they simply throw away everything they ever learned from the lousy scumbag?
Or that they are forever destined to sort through the bottom of twi's outhouse, trying to find some kind of treasure?
Really, I don't see where "entitlement" is relevant.
I just don't get it..
I've seen the attitudee of "entitlement" on the other foot a few times though. Several I know who left der vey, feel that they are entitled that you agree with them. After all, "we all know the same word, do we not?"
Or are you trying to say that upon leaving the clutches of der vey, a person doesn't have the right to dump twi doctrine like yesterday's garbage? Just trying to understand this..
Personally, I think the guy was so unclean he contaminated everything he touched..
I would have to consider the source to take anything seriously that a person said.
That holds doubly true when it comes to matters concerning eternal life, spirituality and how to live your life as Christ would have you.
If the source proves himself to be of ill repute and a shining example of HOW not to live the way it's supposed to be nevertheless finding out he had a hidden agenda behind his teachings, I wouldn't give that man, nor his sharings the time of day after finding out what he was, unless I wanted to document line by line and book by book and statement by statement where he falsified and twisted and copied to show others.
But as for learning anything from him? Or holding onto 'precious truths?' I don't think so, not for one nanno second.
The reason I personally decided to just throw out the fish, to stick with the analogy that Oldiesman used, is that I can't trust the guy who cooked the fish.
I personally do not think that everything that Wierwille taught was wrong, I haven't even given much thought to what percentage of it was wrong. The problem that I personally have with using Wierwille's teaching as a jumping off point and weeding through it trying to determine truth and error, is that so much of what he taught is dependent on other things that he taught, and that even many of our assumption about how to do biblical research are tangled up with Wierwille's errors. For example, the fundamental TWI understanding of the "manifestations" is tied up in Wierwille's questionable use of grammar, the whole concept of "to receive" is based on his faulty translations of Greek words, his explanation of believing vs. faith, on which so much Way theology is based, is wrong as well.
It's the rare wayfer who has the wherewithal to do some actual biblical research, and to spot Wierwille's errors.
Everyone who took PFAL and didn't leave the room during session accepted a lot because they trusted that Wierwille knew what he was talking about.
I got to the point in my life where I no longer trusted that Wierwille knew what he what talking about.
Doctrines and issues I can think of off the cuff that were taught long before VP was born and was taught when he was a toddler not to mention also doctrines that were not new to the Christian world.
Fellowship and sonship--Larkin and Bullinger and The Rightly Divided Word
Witness of the Stars
Four crucified
Law or Magic of believing (trace that under the magic of believing)
Jesus Christ our passover--the bible and even Reader's Digest had a book on Jesus that mentioned that there were two passovers because of the dispora, one Gallilean and one Judean. Jesus kept one, the Gallilean one and died on the Judean passover.
Numerology or numbers in the bible
Once saved always saved
Grace apart from Works--good old reformer Martin Luther tried to get the book of James thrown out because it mentioned works
Harmony of the gospels
Do I need to go on? Just because VP may have introduced us to these doctrines does not give him or those who hold to his memory exclusive rights and credits. If VP had honestly set forth all the men's works and made instead of just HIS class on PFAL but had different ways to study these particular men instead of finding one way or another to discredit them (oh he's a trinitarian, he never progressed far enough in his research--Bullinger), and open OUR horizons to Bible knowledge outside of himself, instead of VP being the all in one MOG, then he would have done something to his credit.
Certainly seminaries (and how did TWI, VP and LCM treat schools of thought and wisdom) and students there learning like we should have been learning, taking in many many different ideas and approaches allow people to go beyond what they are being taught and open to them new vistas where a person can explore for themselves, we were left in a group that could not go outside of itself in teachers, unless pre approved and we were stuck in an organization that would ban you and slander you if you dared to come up with biblical study that contradicted what VP taught.
We're supposed to cling to that? To remain narrowed minded, closed minded and think VP and co was all that when they weren't even 1/4 of being that????? It's time to take the blinders off and smell the roses in the coffee or something.
Nothing good VP ever taught originated with himself. He took it from others and package up his own bent desires with it to hide it and called it biblical research.
I think there is one simple point that is frequently overlooked when discussing vp's "teaching" ministry. He often used scripture to backup and justify HIS statements...not the other way around. He would make unsubstantiated statements, then use scripture to explain it. He would teach staff and corps "life lessons" using scriptural references to justify his reasoning. More often than not, the approach he used was to use the Word to backup what HE said, or believed. Oh, he would start off quoting verse after verse to set the spiritual mood, but by the conclusion, HIS premise was supported by the Word...not the Word being supported, or upheld, through his teaching.
Because of this approach, he often infiltrated the logic systems of the believers with hidden meanings and concepts, as have been discussed before. THESE are the things that made me mistrust even the "Word" he taught. How on God's green earth could I trust that what he taught was actually "rightly-divided"?!?!?!? I could not!! I still can't. It's been said before...one can prove anything one wants to, by using scripture quotes. Of course, to the few who truely study scripture, that effort would likely be fruitless. But, as far as the common man/youth was concerned, who would know any different? That was vp's "ace in the hole", his "open door" into our lives...our ignorance of the Word...which he declared HE could teach us "rightly divided".
So, where does that leave me now! If I can't trust the Word I was taught, or the principles, or even the "common sense" lessons I learned, because of the real potential of faulty underlying logic, what am I left with. Well, the only solution I could think of was to trash everything TWI taught...as much as is humanly possible...and after a considerable time, start fresh with a meek heart just reading the bible and praying to God to teach me what HE wanted me to know and live by. I no longer trust any man to know what God's will is for me. I believe God can, and does, use any available means to teach, help, inform, heal and meet the needs of, His kids. That often involves others' in the body of Christ, but NEVER in a MOG capacity. God already has THE Man of God, Jesus Christ, employed in that position...and I think that is a permanent position. So, I have my Saviour, brother, and confidant, Jesus, to guide me, and his Father, God Almighty to back him up, as the leaders in my life. If that's not good enough, then I guess I'm doomed...because I'm sticking with them, come hell or high water!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
12
17
Popular Days
Apr 13
44
Apr 9
28
Apr 12
22
Apr 8
21
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Ham 16 posts
FullCircle 12 posts
Bolshevik 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 13 2007
44 posts
Apr 9 2007
28 posts
Apr 12 2007
22 posts
Apr 8 2007
21 posts
FullCircle
*tongue in cheek*
Remember in PFAL VP sitting at his desk talking about the Pastor who worked a little on his sermon all week then put it in his desk drawer then took it out and worked on it and put it back and took it out? Then came Sunday and it seemed the people in his church were all set against what he was teaching?
Was it VP that explained to him that the devil came and read the man's sermon and then went and visited the congregation to turn them against it?
The moral of VP's story was that you had to keep the devil guessing and not let him know what you were going to teach?
(how many actually did that or referred back to that during their TWI tenure)
I guess the moral of the story should have been don't let the devil sit in your class either or read your books, because he would steal that as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The devil already knows the Word better than we anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
I remember when I was at Craig's new Advanced Class in '98. He told the audience that he believed the Devil did not know anything that was written in the new syllabus because of the "spritual protection" around HQ.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing, the fact that someone would actually believe that, or the fact that he wanted us to think his new syllabus would need to be concealed from the adversary because of "never before seen, ground-breaking spiritual light" that was going to be held forth in his class.
Lone Wolf
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I second that Harumpppffff!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's one of the things that makes it difficult for some people to accept that the evidence
is that he did what he did.
That is, it doesn't make sense to reasonable, honest people to act in this manner.
And he was put forth as a reasonable, honest person.
Therefore, if he was a reasonable, honest person, he wouldn't have done that.
Since he did that, he wasn't a reasonable, honest person after all, and we were all
hoodwinked! Bamboozled!
WHY he did it is secondary to THAT he did it, and some people can't even get
past THAT he did it, and continue to insist on excusing him somehow,
using any means they can find.
I think the evidence strongly suggests that the reason he did it was twofold:
A) primarily to make twi the sole source of "nourishment" for innies, cementing loyalty
B) secondarily to make himself the sole source of knowledge for innies,
inflating his image and putting forth that himself was some great one
Others may disagree, but I think the evidence supports that much without any
leaps.
Now, why he had those 2 reasons are 2 more questions, and I'm not going to
trail off into those at the moment.
But, yes, it's confusing and shocking to see all this, isn't it?
I mean, the first time I saw it all, it seemed ridiculous, ludicrous that it all
could be true, too outrageous to be literally true without embellishment.
Sadly, I was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah. For years I was in the "so what" crowd, and to a large extent (this will shock many) I still am. I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. In seeking to be a better Christian, I read a bunch of stuff and I try to discern prayerfully what fits and what doesn't. I question, I debate, I discuss: I try to learn. But I pay little attention to authorship until and unless it becomes an issue; then I try to follow Biblical directives to watch out for "wolves on sheeps' clothing."
Was Wierwille a wolf in sheeps' clothing (no offense intended toward wolves)? Yup. I think his behavior proved that. I admire some of the clothing, though.
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I speak for myself. The more proof of plagiarism helps me distance from vpw mentally. He was our "Father in The Word". He's not here for me to ask him if he's really my father.
and when leaving twi, what's reality? twi was it for so long. If these other guys came up with these things maybe I do know something truthful.
Would these doctrines have gone farther w/o vpw? Perhaps had these men's works not been associated with twi more of mainstream christianity would have taken hold of it? Do these works continue to circulate? Should we advertise them (as the works of the original men)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
In other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Unless that fish was swimming around in the sewage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Not to knock the way you put it, Oldies, but I personally prefer the way Raf put it (at the end of your quote of him); I like his source.
As far as seperating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced strongly by my wife and her family years ago, specifically back in 1987 when Billy Graham brought his crusade to our town.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What lesson?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Reading what is written, I get that the lesson was to
separate the teaching from the teacher.
(At least when it comes to the Bible.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
No problem with that. But there were past suggestions to throw out everything VPW taught and start from scratch.
here's a quote from Raf last year:
Now this recent one:One says throw out everything VP says as untrustworthy, the other says what VP says contains some truth, so "hold it fast" (the truth part).
If one separates what was taught from who taught it, one doesn't need or even shouldn't throw all of it out as untrustworthy.
So, my question was, "in other words, eat the fish, and spit out the bones"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
WW is right. Going into the details here would derail this thread, and I dont feel right now like starting a seperate thread on it. However until/if I do, I will be happy to explain to anyone who wants to know enough to PM or e-mail me (my e-mail is on my profile I believe).
In line with this thread, and RAF's original comments, I think people do themselves a great disservice when they reject (or accept) something only because VPW taught it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I concur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
However, if a persons experience was toxic enough, that may be the only option.
For them, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I am forced to disagree as I don't believe in that kind of victim entitlement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just a question.. how does entitlement fit into this?
Entitled, to what?
What's supposedly owed to the victim? I don't see it..
Are you trying to say that if a person had a rotten abusive enough relationship with der "verdmeister" that they have the mindset of being "entitled" if they simply throw away everything they ever learned from the lousy scumbag?
Or that they are forever destined to sort through the bottom of twi's outhouse, trying to find some kind of treasure?
Really, I don't see where "entitlement" is relevant.
I just don't get it..
I've seen the attitudee of "entitlement" on the other foot a few times though. Several I know who left der vey, feel that they are entitled that you agree with them. After all, "we all know the same word, do we not?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Or are you trying to say that upon leaving the clutches of der vey, a person doesn't have the right to dump twi doctrine like yesterday's garbage? Just trying to understand this..
Personally, I think the guy was so unclean he contaminated everything he touched..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
I would have to consider the source to take anything seriously that a person said.
That holds doubly true when it comes to matters concerning eternal life, spirituality and how to live your life as Christ would have you.
If the source proves himself to be of ill repute and a shining example of HOW not to live the way it's supposed to be nevertheless finding out he had a hidden agenda behind his teachings, I wouldn't give that man, nor his sharings the time of day after finding out what he was, unless I wanted to document line by line and book by book and statement by statement where he falsified and twisted and copied to show others.
But as for learning anything from him? Or holding onto 'precious truths?' I don't think so, not for one nanno second.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The reason I personally decided to just throw out the fish, to stick with the analogy that Oldiesman used, is that I can't trust the guy who cooked the fish.
I personally do not think that everything that Wierwille taught was wrong, I haven't even given much thought to what percentage of it was wrong. The problem that I personally have with using Wierwille's teaching as a jumping off point and weeding through it trying to determine truth and error, is that so much of what he taught is dependent on other things that he taught, and that even many of our assumption about how to do biblical research are tangled up with Wierwille's errors. For example, the fundamental TWI understanding of the "manifestations" is tied up in Wierwille's questionable use of grammar, the whole concept of "to receive" is based on his faulty translations of Greek words, his explanation of believing vs. faith, on which so much Way theology is based, is wrong as well.
It's the rare wayfer who has the wherewithal to do some actual biblical research, and to spot Wierwille's errors.
Everyone who took PFAL and didn't leave the room during session accepted a lot because they trusted that Wierwille knew what he was talking about.
I got to the point in my life where I no longer trusted that Wierwille knew what he what talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
Doctrines and issues I can think of off the cuff that were taught long before VP was born and was taught when he was a toddler not to mention also doctrines that were not new to the Christian world.
Fellowship and sonship--Larkin and Bullinger and The Rightly Divided Word
Witness of the Stars
Four crucified
Law or Magic of believing (trace that under the magic of believing)
Jesus Christ our passover--the bible and even Reader's Digest had a book on Jesus that mentioned that there were two passovers because of the dispora, one Gallilean and one Judean. Jesus kept one, the Gallilean one and died on the Judean passover.
Numerology or numbers in the bible
Once saved always saved
Grace apart from Works--good old reformer Martin Luther tried to get the book of James thrown out because it mentioned works
Harmony of the gospels
Do I need to go on? Just because VP may have introduced us to these doctrines does not give him or those who hold to his memory exclusive rights and credits. If VP had honestly set forth all the men's works and made instead of just HIS class on PFAL but had different ways to study these particular men instead of finding one way or another to discredit them (oh he's a trinitarian, he never progressed far enough in his research--Bullinger), and open OUR horizons to Bible knowledge outside of himself, instead of VP being the all in one MOG, then he would have done something to his credit.
Certainly seminaries (and how did TWI, VP and LCM treat schools of thought and wisdom) and students there learning like we should have been learning, taking in many many different ideas and approaches allow people to go beyond what they are being taught and open to them new vistas where a person can explore for themselves, we were left in a group that could not go outside of itself in teachers, unless pre approved and we were stuck in an organization that would ban you and slander you if you dared to come up with biblical study that contradicted what VP taught.
We're supposed to cling to that? To remain narrowed minded, closed minded and think VP and co was all that when they weren't even 1/4 of being that????? It's time to take the blinders off and smell the roses in the coffee or something.
Nothing good VP ever taught originated with himself. He took it from others and package up his own bent desires with it to hide it and called it biblical research.
Edited by FullCircleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I got to the point where I didn't trust what I'm talking about.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
I think there is one simple point that is frequently overlooked when discussing vp's "teaching" ministry. He often used scripture to backup and justify HIS statements...not the other way around. He would make unsubstantiated statements, then use scripture to explain it. He would teach staff and corps "life lessons" using scriptural references to justify his reasoning. More often than not, the approach he used was to use the Word to backup what HE said, or believed. Oh, he would start off quoting verse after verse to set the spiritual mood, but by the conclusion, HIS premise was supported by the Word...not the Word being supported, or upheld, through his teaching.
Because of this approach, he often infiltrated the logic systems of the believers with hidden meanings and concepts, as have been discussed before. THESE are the things that made me mistrust even the "Word" he taught. How on God's green earth could I trust that what he taught was actually "rightly-divided"?!?!?!? I could not!! I still can't. It's been said before...one can prove anything one wants to, by using scripture quotes. Of course, to the few who truely study scripture, that effort would likely be fruitless. But, as far as the common man/youth was concerned, who would know any different? That was vp's "ace in the hole", his "open door" into our lives...our ignorance of the Word...which he declared HE could teach us "rightly divided".
So, where does that leave me now! If I can't trust the Word I was taught, or the principles, or even the "common sense" lessons I learned, because of the real potential of faulty underlying logic, what am I left with. Well, the only solution I could think of was to trash everything TWI taught...as much as is humanly possible...and after a considerable time, start fresh with a meek heart just reading the bible and praying to God to teach me what HE wanted me to know and live by. I no longer trust any man to know what God's will is for me. I believe God can, and does, use any available means to teach, help, inform, heal and meet the needs of, His kids. That often involves others' in the body of Christ, but NEVER in a MOG capacity. God already has THE Man of God, Jesus Christ, employed in that position...and I think that is a permanent position. So, I have my Saviour, brother, and confidant, Jesus, to guide me, and his Father, God Almighty to back him up, as the leaders in my life. If that's not good enough, then I guess I'm doomed...because I'm sticking with them, come hell or high water!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.