Some great thoughts there. I am thinking, that is probably what Paul had in mind too, when they went from house to house. Not some "tree" with "limbs" and "branches".
In Judaism it is the family unit first. Then the family works in the community. They may do community work through a temple or they may go out in the community in a different area. There is no one leader. Sure, there are Rabbi's, but the Rabbi holds no real power over you - they don't excommunicate you or demand obedience. (unless you get involved with an ultra orthodox group, then you may see some of this.)
There is room to debate - in fact, debate is encouraged. There are books upon books filled with debates between different Rabbis regarding what it all means and how it is to be practiced. The individual studies and decides for him/herself.
I imagine there are Christian organizations that operate this way too, particularly among the more mainstream churches. You go to church because it is part of your community, not because you will always get the "rightly divided word". You may get something akin to that sometimes, but ultimately is it the churches job to teach you, really? Or is it up to you and God for you to study and learn?
Perhaps that is where we dropped the ball regarding churches when we joined TWI. We were looking for someone to give us all the answers when we really should have been looking for a community we could share with/give to/and even go to when we had a need. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity . . .
but ultimately is it the churches job to teach you, really? Or is it up to you and God for you to study and learn?
Perhaps that is where we dropped the ball regarding churches when we joined TWI. We were looking for someone to give us all the answers when we really should have been looking for a community we could share with/give to/and even go to when we had a need.
Without a doubt, the basic unit of worship is the family. No argument there at all.
The Apostle Paul is likewise a tremendous example. But I don't think it's reasonable to call on each and every Christian to model himself after the apostle. He was called on to live a life on the road. Likewise, I see no evidence that he had a wife and/ or children as a responsibility. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that he was single and remained so throughout his ministry. I think the implications provided in your statement, Paul is supposed to be our example as Christians and I never see Paul congregating with the same old bunch of believers day in and day out, year after year. He taught, ministered, and then moved on, keeping in touch by letter and the rare visit, when possible, puts unrealistic and, in fact, unscriptural pressures on individual Christians and on Christian families, as a unit.
Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, there are numerous examples of families being evangelized and converted with no mention of them beginning to live as transients, moving from place to place. There are specific references in the apostles letters to the churches in Corinth and Ephesus that also outline relationships within family units. Likewise, no mention of living as vagrants, not having any consistent fellowship with other Christians. On the contrary, there is a hierarchy identified within the apostles letters: bishops, presbyters, and deacons being specifically called out and serving the Christian body in each city. The apostle's letters to Timothy and Titus list extensive qualifications for those called to serve in those positions. Again, no specific call in any of these qualifications to be itinerants.
Having said that, I do believe that it is incumbent upon parents to be the primary teachers of the faith to their children. I also believe that it is the primary job of the husband to teach his wife (I know that this is not politically correct, so sorry if that offends). Exercising those responsibilities implies that it is ultimately the responsibility of each Christian to have as full an understanding of the faith as is possible, given the Christian's individual ability. However, I do not know any of us who has gained a full understanding of his faith by direct revelation from God. All of us have learned from somebody, in some fashion. Even somebody who only knows the faith via a Gideon's Bible stolen from a hotel room. The typesetter who works in the print shop used by Gideon's ministry, the Sunday School teacher, the theological text author, the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the translator of the English Bible version used, the instructor in an adult class: somebody, somewhere has had an influence. Has taught something, either directly or indirectly. And that person, no matter what role filled, has a grave responsibility before God for what he imparts. Parents are the primary teachers (in word, in deed, or both). But to say that parents are the sole teachers is ridiculous. And unscriptural.
Do you have a Strong's Concordance? Do you have a Companion Bible? Do you use an online scripture site? Then to say that you have solely taught yourself is not exactly accurate. Yes, you would have done more than being spoon fed information in a class repeated 10-20 times, but you're not truly a "lone wolf." The only way that you'd truly be a "lone wolf" is to have received the sum total of your knowledge by direct revelation...
Don't get me wrong. I agree that each of us must be responsible for what we know and what we teach. We must evaluate what we're taught before inculcating that information as "veritas." But none of us can truly say that we are completely self-sufficient, totally non-dependent upon others, including others outside our own family. But there is a middle ground between unrealistic arrogance and surrendering one's own free will.
Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, there are numerous examples of families being evangelized and converted with no mention of them beginning to live as transients, moving from place to place.
I wasn't at all trying to imply that we all move from city to city. I know Paul was called to teach and spread the Word. And in the 1st century Christianity was brand new so he had to go from city to city to get the message going. My only point was that because he moved around a lot, he certainly didn't stick around at the same fellowship for years. And it's that point that I think we should model, unless that fellowship is your own family.
I remember saying to myself sometimes sitting in twig, "sheesh, I'm tired of looking at the same old people". Maybe that was a character flaw on my part. But it's easy to slip into spiritual weakness when it's the same routine over and over. Meeting new Christians in life helps you to grow and helps you to learn new perspectives with new people and circumstances to challenge you.
But if you did stay at the same fellowship with the same people for 20 years, I certainly don't think it would be sin, not at all.
Thanks markomalley for pointing out what I should have clarified better.
Do you have a Strong's Concordance? Do you have a Companion Bible? Do you use an online scripture site? Then to say that you have solely taught yourself is not exactly accurate.
Yes, you are quite right. But at least when your main fellowship is your family, when you hear the Word being taught by some organization, you are free to think and ponder it's meaning and are free to accept it or reject it and everything's fine as you go home to your family and get their input. It's a lot better IMO than belonging to some group where you are taught the Word, and you find it becomes a "my way or the highway", getting kicked out of something you may have spent the last 30 years giving your life to only to be "voted out".
I always wondered why twi didn't move at the grass roots. Why they were so insistant on leaders and root locales and the way tree. Why do we need to gather some people, make them sign an agreement and send the off to bang on doors for months to find one or two people willing to hang around.
If what twi had was so good, why didn't people just naturally share the Word? Why don't fellowships just "spring up" from nowhere?
The lack of emphasis on family is probably a big reason for this. IMO, the man in twi is supposed to lord over his household so as to keep the adversary out. Families are not inspired to love each other but to control each other. Then again there is a lot of family "splitting" that happens in twi.
It would be easier and more graceful for needs to be met locally, one-on-one, and personally than having every resource and need be filtered up to some almighty leader who has all the answers.
Christians gathering out of a desire to be together and ministers be selected to simply meet needs that come up as a natural part of this would make more sense. Isn't that what happened in Acts when the seven were chosen?
I can't really speak for other forms of organized christians, twi's all I know.
You asked why The Word did not move at the grass roots level, where people shared The Word spontaneously and why fellowships didn't just sprout forth of their own accord. ( sorry, I'm paraphrasing.) That is a very keen observation. In fact, this is exactly what did happen in the early days of The Way. You didn't have to tell people to "witness". In fact, you couldn't STOP them from witnessing. Everyone was so excited, it was infectious. Of course, most of us were representatives of a generation that felt we could change the world and make it a better place. How much better, some of us thought, if we could not only change the world, but we could do it with Gods' blessing.(or so we thought).
At some point, of course, the emphasis on business superceeded the excitement that had sparked the fire.
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, I wish some of you young people could have seen what it was and on the other hand, I'm glad you didn't. You can see now what it became and that is something I don't think any of us would have imagined.
Most of my family was in TWI so I definately see what you are driving at with the family concept.
When you read through the OT, it becomes clear that one of God's top priorities was making sure his Word was carried over to the next generation. Well, that's a cinch when you get married and have kids. You teach your kids, BOOM, the Word is carried on to the next generation.
How many times did God get angry because with every generation he had to start over again? Why would he have to start over again? Because the parents never taught the children.
Malachi 2:15, 16
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel...
Why does God hate divorce? Mostly because it interferes with the chance of yielding godly offspring. That is such a concern for God. How many families were ruined because Dad was off serving the ministry instead of just keeping it simple, loving his wife, staying around the house and teaching his children the Word?
Marriage is about companionship, a very special kind of companionship. Part of that companionship is about sex. Some of it is about raising children. Some of it is about helping each other through hard times and sickness. And some of it is about parameters that two people set for themselves that are unique to their special relationship.
If Gods' word is a factor in what you as a couple use to set those parameters, the generational carry-over will take care of itself
Yes, you are quite right. But at least when your main fellowship is your family, when you hear the Word being taught by some organization, you are free to think and ponder it's meaning and are free to accept it or reject it and everything's fine as you go home to your family and get their input. It's a lot better IMO than belonging to some group where you are taught the Word, and you find it becomes a "my way or the highway", getting kicked out of something you may have spent the last 30 years giving your life to only to be "voted out".
Lone Wolf
In any organizational setting you are free to evaluate what you are taught. As to being involved in an organization that practiced M&A, shunning, or the like for committing 'thought crime,' well, I am not trying to justify that organizational behavior.
Consider university education. The majority of instructors that I've run into are such that you are free to conclude differently than what they have, provided you have a logical and factual basis for your disagreement. Having said that, I've run into a couple (literally the vast minority) who demand students parrot them. Does the behavior of the minority of instructors mean we should scrap higher education?
When you read through the OT, it becomes clear that one of God's top priorities was making sure his Word was carried over to the next generation. Well, that's a cinch when you get married and have kids. You teach your kids, BOOM, the Word is carried on to the next generation.
How many times did God get angry because with every generation he had to start over again? Why would he have to start over again? Because the parents never taught the children.
Oh, the parents DEFINITELY taught the children. The question is not did the parents teach the children, but WHAT did the parents teach the children.
If you are a God-fearing, Bible-believing parent who teaches your children the depths of God's Word every day, but live in a manner that is in direct opposition to Sacred Scripture, you are teaching your children.
If you have some contorted form of personal theology that twists the will of God into knots, you are teaching your children.
If you keep porn around your house for your children to peruse, you are teaching your children.
If you have multiple sex partners and parade them around your children, you are teaching your children.
If you have no respect for the property of stores or the property of your neighbors, you are teaching your children.
OR if you take up your cross and follow Christ, loving God and your neighbor with all your heart, you are also teaching your children.
But what is the lesson?
Malachi 2:15, 16
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel...
Why does God hate divorce? Mostly because it interferes with the chance of yielding godly offspring.
First, it would be helpful to look the context of the quote:
Mal 2:14 ... Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Mal 2:15 Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."
The overall context of Malachi 2 is talking about the faithlessness of Israel. Given the context of Malachi 2, it's apparent that the answer to "Why does God hate divorce?" is that it breaks a covenant...and has huge spiritual implications that go far and beyond the loss of the relationship. The impact on the kids is an impact, but it is hardly the full impact.
That is such a concern for God. How many families were ruined because Dad was off serving the ministry instead of just keeping it simple, loving his wife, staying around the house and teaching his children the Word?
In any organizational setting you are free to evaluate what you are taught. As to being involved in an organization that practiced M&A, shunning, or the like for committing 'thought crime,' well, I am not trying to justify that organizational behavior.
Consider university education. The majority of instructors that I've run into are such that you are free to conclude differently than what they have, provided you have a logical and factual basis for your disagreement. Having said that, I've run into a couple (literally the vast minority) who demand students parrot them. Does the behavior of the minority of instructors mean we should scrap higher education?
I understand this is a rhetorical question, I'm just thinking aloud,
Math, anatomy, opinions can be difficult to have, some classes are just designed for regurgitation. Others the complete opposite. I guess it all depends on the goal. A lot of courses have a goal or purpose stated when you enter. Same for the university or college. Same for businesses. What are you setting out to accomplish?
Twi led people to think the goal was one thing and then took them somewhere else.
I think of the organized christianity like I do the government. What is it's purpose? Who serves who for what reason? How much power does who get and why? People need to gather and communicate for the general welfare of all. but this gets out of bounds at times.
I found it irritating that twi was not our ministry. It is leadership's. We couldn't defend it, change it, help it, or, well we couldn't do the things for it that we needed it to do for us.
Perhaps these other churches I hear about work better because there is a two way street. The church belongs to all who are a part of it. So they work for it and it works for them. (Didn't vpw, when he was young, have to get voted in to be a minister at a church?)
Yes, the basic unit of worship is the family, but right now my family and I are involved with Rev. Geer and his ministry and I enjoy the way he has things set up; no 'root' locale, just many small groups of people that are completely independant. The abundant sharing stays in each area rather than being sent to 'headquarters', and is used to address needs in each area as they arise (i.e. one family has an unexpected medical expense, another family has a fire in their home, etc. etc.). It seems to me that was the way TWI first started out but later turned into a big corporation.
Yes, the basic unit of worship is the family, but right now my family and I are involved with Rev. Geer and his ministry and I enjoy the way he has things set up; no 'root' locale, just many small groups of people that are completely independant. The abundant sharing stays in each area rather than being sent to 'headquarters', and is used to address needs in each area as they arise (i.e. one family has an unexpected medical expense, another family has a fire in their home, etc. etc.). It seems to me that was the way TWI first started out but later turned into a big corporation.
I've always thought the basic unit for worshipping God is the individual, and the basic unit of a society, or church, is the family.
I've always thought the basic unit for worshipping God is the individual, and the basic unit of a society, or church, is the family.
A valid point, but right now I am not just an individual who wants to worship God; I am also a member of a family, having taken on the role of wife and mother.
Consider that the first humans were a married couple who later became a family. I think there's a point where children are capable of forming their own intentions independently of whatever their parents' example is (Samuel's kids) but it is also noteworthy that in the literal first family, the first kid killed the second.
I think both in society and in stuff like TWI the parents have first right of refusal in matters dealing with their kids, yet we've lived in communities where overly aggressive social workers wanted to take away that right from us. TWI leaders certainly did the same.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
Some great thoughts there. I am thinking, that is probably what Paul had in mind too, when they went from house to house. Not some "tree" with "limbs" and "branches".
In Judaism it is the family unit first. Then the family works in the community. They may do community work through a temple or they may go out in the community in a different area. There is no one leader. Sure, there are Rabbi's, but the Rabbi holds no real power over you - they don't excommunicate you or demand obedience. (unless you get involved with an ultra orthodox group, then you may see some of this.)
There is room to debate - in fact, debate is encouraged. There are books upon books filled with debates between different Rabbis regarding what it all means and how it is to be practiced. The individual studies and decides for him/herself.
I imagine there are Christian organizations that operate this way too, particularly among the more mainstream churches. You go to church because it is part of your community, not because you will always get the "rightly divided word". You may get something akin to that sometimes, but ultimately is it the churches job to teach you, really? Or is it up to you and God for you to study and learn?
Perhaps that is where we dropped the ball regarding churches when we joined TWI. We were looking for someone to give us all the answers when we really should have been looking for a community we could share with/give to/and even go to when we had a need. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Abigail, you said...
Great point. I would agree whole-heartedly.
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Say it ain't so!! We couldn't possibly agree on something!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Lone Wolf,
You bring up some interesting points,
Without a doubt, the basic unit of worship is the family. No argument there at all.
The Apostle Paul is likewise a tremendous example. But I don't think it's reasonable to call on each and every Christian to model himself after the apostle. He was called on to live a life on the road. Likewise, I see no evidence that he had a wife and/ or children as a responsibility. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that he was single and remained so throughout his ministry. I think the implications provided in your statement, Paul is supposed to be our example as Christians and I never see Paul congregating with the same old bunch of believers day in and day out, year after year. He taught, ministered, and then moved on, keeping in touch by letter and the rare visit, when possible, puts unrealistic and, in fact, unscriptural pressures on individual Christians and on Christian families, as a unit.
Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, there are numerous examples of families being evangelized and converted with no mention of them beginning to live as transients, moving from place to place. There are specific references in the apostles letters to the churches in Corinth and Ephesus that also outline relationships within family units. Likewise, no mention of living as vagrants, not having any consistent fellowship with other Christians. On the contrary, there is a hierarchy identified within the apostles letters: bishops, presbyters, and deacons being specifically called out and serving the Christian body in each city. The apostle's letters to Timothy and Titus list extensive qualifications for those called to serve in those positions. Again, no specific call in any of these qualifications to be itinerants.
Having said that, I do believe that it is incumbent upon parents to be the primary teachers of the faith to their children. I also believe that it is the primary job of the husband to teach his wife (I know that this is not politically correct, so sorry if that offends). Exercising those responsibilities implies that it is ultimately the responsibility of each Christian to have as full an understanding of the faith as is possible, given the Christian's individual ability. However, I do not know any of us who has gained a full understanding of his faith by direct revelation from God. All of us have learned from somebody, in some fashion. Even somebody who only knows the faith via a Gideon's Bible stolen from a hotel room. The typesetter who works in the print shop used by Gideon's ministry, the Sunday School teacher, the theological text author, the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the translator of the English Bible version used, the instructor in an adult class: somebody, somewhere has had an influence. Has taught something, either directly or indirectly. And that person, no matter what role filled, has a grave responsibility before God for what he imparts. Parents are the primary teachers (in word, in deed, or both). But to say that parents are the sole teachers is ridiculous. And unscriptural.
Do you have a Strong's Concordance? Do you have a Companion Bible? Do you use an online scripture site? Then to say that you have solely taught yourself is not exactly accurate. Yes, you would have done more than being spoon fed information in a class repeated 10-20 times, but you're not truly a "lone wolf." The only way that you'd truly be a "lone wolf" is to have received the sum total of your knowledge by direct revelation...
Don't get me wrong. I agree that each of us must be responsible for what we know and what we teach. We must evaluate what we're taught before inculcating that information as "veritas." But none of us can truly say that we are completely self-sufficient, totally non-dependent upon others, including others outside our own family. But there is a middle ground between unrealistic arrogance and surrendering one's own free will.
FWIW
IMHO
YMMV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
O'Malleys back!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
I wasn't at all trying to imply that we all move from city to city. I know Paul was called to teach and spread the Word. And in the 1st century Christianity was brand new so he had to go from city to city to get the message going. My only point was that because he moved around a lot, he certainly didn't stick around at the same fellowship for years. And it's that point that I think we should model, unless that fellowship is your own family.
I remember saying to myself sometimes sitting in twig, "sheesh, I'm tired of looking at the same old people". Maybe that was a character flaw on my part. But it's easy to slip into spiritual weakness when it's the same routine over and over. Meeting new Christians in life helps you to grow and helps you to learn new perspectives with new people and circumstances to challenge you.
But if you did stay at the same fellowship with the same people for 20 years, I certainly don't think it would be sin, not at all.
Thanks markomalley for pointing out what I should have clarified better.
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Yes, you are quite right. But at least when your main fellowship is your family, when you hear the Word being taught by some organization, you are free to think and ponder it's meaning and are free to accept it or reject it and everything's fine as you go home to your family and get their input. It's a lot better IMO than belonging to some group where you are taught the Word, and you find it becomes a "my way or the highway", getting kicked out of something you may have spent the last 30 years giving your life to only to be "voted out".
Lone Wolf
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
awesome topic Lone Wolf
I always wondered why twi didn't move at the grass roots. Why they were so insistant on leaders and root locales and the way tree. Why do we need to gather some people, make them sign an agreement and send the off to bang on doors for months to find one or two people willing to hang around.
If what twi had was so good, why didn't people just naturally share the Word? Why don't fellowships just "spring up" from nowhere?
The lack of emphasis on family is probably a big reason for this. IMO, the man in twi is supposed to lord over his household so as to keep the adversary out. Families are not inspired to love each other but to control each other. Then again there is a lot of family "splitting" that happens in twi.
It would be easier and more graceful for needs to be met locally, one-on-one, and personally than having every resource and need be filtered up to some almighty leader who has all the answers.
Christians gathering out of a desire to be together and ministers be selected to simply meet needs that come up as a natural part of this would make more sense. Isn't that what happened in Acts when the seven were chosen?
I can't really speak for other forms of organized christians, twi's all I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImSunny2
Organized Christians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
polar bear
I agree. When you read through the Word you see God working with men and their families all the way through.
fIf people want study and research there is plenty of research that people have freely offered on the net or you local library.
Reminds me of a song-"We are a family"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Maybe churches DIDN`T fail...maybe we were just TOLD that they had by a guy who wanted to take us down the toilet with him spiritually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
good points mcquade
now there, you are lucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Bolshevik
You asked why The Word did not move at the grass roots level, where people shared The Word spontaneously and why fellowships didn't just sprout forth of their own accord. ( sorry, I'm paraphrasing.) That is a very keen observation. In fact, this is exactly what did happen in the early days of The Way. You didn't have to tell people to "witness". In fact, you couldn't STOP them from witnessing. Everyone was so excited, it was infectious. Of course, most of us were representatives of a generation that felt we could change the world and make it a better place. How much better, some of us thought, if we could not only change the world, but we could do it with Gods' blessing.(or so we thought).
At some point, of course, the emphasis on business superceeded the excitement that had sparked the fire.
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, I wish some of you young people could have seen what it was and on the other hand, I'm glad you didn't. You can see now what it became and that is something I don't think any of us would have imagined.
Most of my family was in TWI so I definately see what you are driving at with the family concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
When you read through the OT, it becomes clear that one of God's top priorities was making sure his Word was carried over to the next generation. Well, that's a cinch when you get married and have kids. You teach your kids, BOOM, the Word is carried on to the next generation.
How many times did God get angry because with every generation he had to start over again? Why would he have to start over again? Because the parents never taught the children.
Malachi 2:15, 16
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel...
Why does God hate divorce? Mostly because it interferes with the chance of yielding godly offspring. That is such a concern for God. How many families were ruined because Dad was off serving the ministry instead of just keeping it simple, loving his wife, staying around the house and teaching his children the Word?
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So is marriage really just for making and raising babies? Sounds like another thread. . .
Yeah, but The Word moving from generation to generation would be more effective if focus was more on the family, and not the Outreach Services Center.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Marriage is about companionship, a very special kind of companionship. Part of that companionship is about sex. Some of it is about raising children. Some of it is about helping each other through hard times and sickness. And some of it is about parameters that two people set for themselves that are unique to their special relationship.
If Gods' word is a factor in what you as a couple use to set those parameters, the generational carry-over will take care of itself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
In any organizational setting you are free to evaluate what you are taught. As to being involved in an organization that practiced M&A, shunning, or the like for committing 'thought crime,' well, I am not trying to justify that organizational behavior.
Consider university education. The majority of instructors that I've run into are such that you are free to conclude differently than what they have, provided you have a logical and factual basis for your disagreement. Having said that, I've run into a couple (literally the vast minority) who demand students parrot them. Does the behavior of the minority of instructors mean we should scrap higher education?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, the parents DEFINITELY taught the children. The question is not did the parents teach the children, but WHAT did the parents teach the children.
If you are a God-fearing, Bible-believing parent who teaches your children the depths of God's Word every day, but live in a manner that is in direct opposition to Sacred Scripture, you are teaching your children.
If you have some contorted form of personal theology that twists the will of God into knots, you are teaching your children.
If you keep porn around your house for your children to peruse, you are teaching your children.
If you have multiple sex partners and parade them around your children, you are teaching your children.
If you have no respect for the property of stores or the property of your neighbors, you are teaching your children.
OR if you take up your cross and follow Christ, loving God and your neighbor with all your heart, you are also teaching your children.
But what is the lesson?
First, it would be helpful to look the context of the quote:
Mal 2:14 ... Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Mal 2:15 Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."
The overall context of Malachi 2 is talking about the faithlessness of Israel. Given the context of Malachi 2, it's apparent that the answer to "Why does God hate divorce?" is that it breaks a covenant...and has huge spiritual implications that go far and beyond the loss of the relationship. The impact on the kids is an impact, but it is hardly the full impact.
On this part, we are in full agreement!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I understand this is a rhetorical question, I'm just thinking aloud,
Math, anatomy, opinions can be difficult to have, some classes are just designed for regurgitation. Others the complete opposite. I guess it all depends on the goal. A lot of courses have a goal or purpose stated when you enter. Same for the university or college. Same for businesses. What are you setting out to accomplish?
Twi led people to think the goal was one thing and then took them somewhere else.
I think of the organized christianity like I do the government. What is it's purpose? Who serves who for what reason? How much power does who get and why? People need to gather and communicate for the general welfare of all. but this gets out of bounds at times.
I found it irritating that twi was not our ministry. It is leadership's. We couldn't defend it, change it, help it, or, well we couldn't do the things for it that we needed it to do for us.
Perhaps these other churches I hear about work better because there is a two way street. The church belongs to all who are a part of it. So they work for it and it works for them. (Didn't vpw, when he was young, have to get voted in to be a minister at a church?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Yes, the basic unit of worship is the family, but right now my family and I are involved with Rev. Geer and his ministry and I enjoy the way he has things set up; no 'root' locale, just many small groups of people that are completely independant. The abundant sharing stays in each area rather than being sent to 'headquarters', and is used to address needs in each area as they arise (i.e. one family has an unexpected medical expense, another family has a fire in their home, etc. etc.). It seems to me that was the way TWI first started out but later turned into a big corporation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
my apologies :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
I've always thought the basic unit for worshipping God is the individual, and the basic unit of a society, or church, is the family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
A valid point, but right now I am not just an individual who wants to worship God; I am also a member of a family, having taken on the role of wife and mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Consider that the first humans were a married couple who later became a family. I think there's a point where children are capable of forming their own intentions independently of whatever their parents' example is (Samuel's kids) but it is also noteworthy that in the literal first family, the first kid killed the second.
I think both in society and in stuff like TWI the parents have first right of refusal in matters dealing with their kids, yet we've lived in communities where overly aggressive social workers wanted to take away that right from us. TWI leaders certainly did the same.
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.