Mark, that’s a great post. Your comment about “cracking the books” nails it very well.
I was reading your post in the prayer room. Are you still in Iraq? What happened to the little girl? Do you still want prayer about that?
Eyes: Yep. Funny how we all read about knowledge puffs up and never saw the forest for the trees. Right after leaving twi, I did get it about being “right,” the arrogance, etc. I just didn’t get it that it was still impacting me. Sort of like chopping at the roots without really seeing where they all were. That is really what I meant about the poison. Leaven would be another good description. Thinking you’ve gotten past something may not be the same as really getting past it. This I know now, loud and clear.
You mentioned on another thread about it’s almost easier to toss it all out and start over. I agree.
If men used as much care in uprooting vices and implanting virtues as they do in discussing problems, there would not be so much evil and scandal in the world, or such laxity in religious organizations. On the day of judgment, surely, we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken but how well we have lived.
Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for 7their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while.
How many there are who perish because of vain worldly knowledge and too little care for serving God. They became vain in their own conceits because they chose to be great rather than humble.
He is truly great who has great charity. He is truly great who is little in his own eyes and makes nothing of the highest honor. He is truly wise who looks upon all earthly things as folly that he may gain Christ. He who does God’s will and renounces his own is truly very learned.
From Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 3.
TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.
Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.
Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.
If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.
Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 8.
Just a couple of thoughts on the subject that I thought pertinent.
And, by the way, the thing in the Prayer Room forum was an e-mail that I received. I've been retired from the service for several years now. I also have not ever gotten any updates on it.
Wow, Mark. That’s some really profound stuff. Had I read that book before twi, my involvement would have been much shorter. (Maybe 2 minutes…) I looked up the book in Amazon.com. I would like to buy it. There are 3 others. Do you have them? If so, what do you think of them? I was having a hard time getting a feel for them based on what was at Amazon.
One other question: I have talked to two Catholics, briefly years ago. They both said they weren’t Christians. Do you know why that is?
I’m real glad you’re not in Iraq…My middle son was there (Army). I’m glad he’s back home…aside from the danger, it’s just not a fun place to be. Temperatures during the summer get to 130. The air conditioning in their qtrs. doesn’t work at all when temperatures exceed 120. He said the metal on his cot would get so hot it would literally burn him when he accidentally touched it. They have big problems with dehydration, as it is very difficult to drink enough fluids to keep up with what is being sweat off. The soldiers often get kidney stones because of it. For folks who don’t know, the hardship isn’t just the danger…
Wow, Mark. That’s some really profound stuff. Had I read that book before twi, my involvement would have been much shorter. (Maybe 2 minutes…) I looked up the book in Amazon.com. I would like to buy it. There are 3 others. Do you have them? If so, what do you think of them? I was having a hard time getting a feel for them based on what was at Amazon.
One other question: I have talked to two Catholics, briefly years ago. They both said they weren’t Christians. Do you know why that is?
I’m real glad you’re not in Iraq…My middle son was there (Army). I’m glad he’s back home…aside from the danger, it’s just not a fun place to be. Temperatures during the summer get to 130. The air conditioning in their qtrs. doesn’t work at all when temperatures exceed 120. He said the metal on his cot would get so hot it would literally burn him when he accidentally touched it. They have big problems with dehydration, as it is very difficult to drink enough fluids to keep up with what is being sweat off. The soldiers often get kidney stones because of it. For folks who don’t know, the hardship isn’t just the danger…
You can look at the book (along with a number of other classics) at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:
I would also suggest, along those lines, The Way of Perfection, by Teresa of Avila (also available there)
Catholics not being Christians, hmmmm....
I think a lot of people (both inside and out of the Church) have identified the term "Christian" with "Protestant/ Evangelical/ Charismatic/ Restorationist" types. The terms are sometimes used as mutually exclusive.
I would submit that the Catholics (both Latin Rite -- what a lot of folk call 'RCs' -- and Eastern Rite, such as Chaldean, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, Melkite, Syro-Malabar {from India}, etc) and Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Coptic, Antiochian, etc.) are Christians and follow the faith passed down from Christ and the Apostles.
Not to say that others aren't...but the liturgies and many/ most of the practices can be traced back to apostolic times.
Wow, Mark. That’s some really profound stuff. Had I read that book before twi, my involvement would have been much shorter. (Maybe 2 minutes…)
I would love to be able to say that with the right information I would have had more sense than to get involved with TWI. But the real rub with them was that they were able to bait the hook so well that it was disguised beneath the bait. I thought as many others did that they not only had the truth they were the truth. We thought that we were "uprooting vices and implanting virtues" and we thought that we were "living" the Word. So no I dont think that anything would have been different for me. I still would have done what I did. The really good thing is that I would still be where I am today. Which is a good place.
But the information is excellent Mark! It is wonderful for retrospect and for future teaching. Sometimes teaching ahead of time works, it just wouldn't have for me, not on this point anyway. Because I thought that TWI taught the scriptures, since I had no biblical basis myself I had to trust that someone else had it . That is how I was taught that only the man at the pulpit had the authority to interpret and therefore teach the bible. TWI use that against a lot of people. That was part of the bait. To be able to learn how to study it for yourself! Who could pass that up?
But then again I was raised in a church where females were not allowed behind the pulpit...still arent. So I felt that if I wanted to know I had no recourse but to learn from TWI. At least that is what I thought. But my heart was pure in that I wanted a personal relationship with God. So He honored my hearts desire and taught me sometimes despited TWI's best efforts to keep me in the dark. Which is why as much as I would sometimes like to do so I cannot just chuck it all out and start over. But I did in fact just put it all down for a number of years and prayed a lot. Eventually those things that never made any sense or little sense just fell away and I was left with a less cluttered understanding. Throught the years I have discarded a lot of old stuff, and rearranged others, but at this date I am still peeling back the layers and am now dealing with the most basic doctrines and habit patterns that were installed and instilled by TWI.
I cannot change my past but I can use what I learned from it to shape my future.
But then again I was raised in a church where females were not allowed behind the pulpit...still arent. So I felt that if I wanted to know I had no recourse but to learn from TWI.
Can you explain that a little bit more? I don't understand what females not being allowed behind the pulpit would have to do with learning about God. Can you expand on this a bit?
Can you explain that a little bit more? I don't understand what females not being allowed behind the pulpit would have to do with learning about God. Can you expand on this a bit?
"That is how I was taught that only the man at the pulpit had the authority to interpret and therefore teach the bible."
I was taught that only the man at the pulpit was allowed to learn the bible...women werent allowed to stand at the pulpit...
I am sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Sometimes I dont give someone all the information.
Eyes open--when I first got involved in TWI the fact that women appeared to be on the same level as men as far as teaching running fellowships etc was very appealing. Claudette Royal was ordained! Women could run fellowships and wow families, be leadership...that was not what I had seen in any Christian churches in my youth.
Eyes open--when I first got involved in TWI the fact that women appeared to be on the same level as men as far as teaching running fellowships etc was very appealing. Claudette Royal was ordained! Women could run fellowships and wow families, be leadership...that was not what I had seen in any Christian churches in my youth.
I know that it was a serious lure for me. Not that I really wanted to be a leader (that was a plus for me) but I really wanted to know the bible! I really wanted to know God and the Church that I had grown up in told me that I didnt need to bring my bible to church. I was told that some men that were smarter than me had already determined what was important out of the bible and provided the information in a denominational booklet. Which was really "short" on actual bible. It kind of made me wonder if the men at the pulpit actually read the bible or if they just read from the booklet.
I was taught that only the man at the pulpit was allowed to learn the bible...women werent allowed to stand at the pulpit...
I know that it was a serious lure for me. Not that I really wanted to be a leader (that was a plus for me) but I really wanted to know the bible! I really wanted to know God and the Church that I had grown up in told me that I didnt need to bring my bible to church. I was told that some men that were smarter than me had already determined what was important out of the bible and provided the information in a denominational booklet. Which was really "short" on actual bible. It kind of made me wonder if the men at the pulpit actually read the bible or if they just read from the booklet.
The church that I am a member of is a church where only men may be ordained. In addition, the readings (one from the OT, a psalm, a NT epistle, and a reading from the gospel) are done on a three-year cycle (two year cycle for daily worship). And thus they are able to print out the seasonal booklets (they generally print them four times a year).
And, although my church is not the only one where things are done that way, it is undoubtedly the best known for that.
I would submit that you are right, in part. Although by doing things that way, the congregants will be exposed to a good portion of the Bible, the worship service done in that type of format, in of itself, is not a truly effective way for studying the Bible.
On the other hand, I truly don't believe that anybody would say it is designed to be a Bible study class, either. It's designed to be a worship service.
The church that I am a member of is a church where only men may be ordained. In addition, the readings (one from the OT, a psalm, a NT epistle, and a reading from the gospel) are done on a three-year cycle (two year cycle for daily worship). And thus they are able to print out the seasonal booklets (they generally print them four times a year).
And, although my church is not the only one where things are done that way, it is undoubtedly the best known for that.
I would submit that you are right, in part. Although by doing things that way, the congregants will be exposed to a good portion of the Bible, the worship service done in that type of format, in of itself, is not a truly effective way for studying the Bible.
On the other hand, I truly don't believe that anybody would say it is designed to be a Bible study class, either. It's designed to be a worship service.
You are absolutely correct Mark, fellowship, service, mass whatever the particular church may call it isn't designed as a Bible study class it is designed to be a worship service that has a small teaching of some sort to exhort (hopefully) the followers. Which in and of itself is very effective and quite nice. Obviously worship service fulfills a need, not only biblically but emotionally and spiritually as well. Which is all many people need to have their entire lives.
But for me it just wasn't enough. I wanted to know more. I wanted somebody to help me learn the Bible. This was not available for women in the church that I had been brought up. So the lure of TWI for me was knowledge. And yes I know that knowledge puffs up, but only if it becomes your God. I use my knowledge to better know God so that I may better serve Him.
I guess that brings us full circle doesn't it? Back to the original topic that knowledge or the pursuit of it was for TWI some sort of special key into the kingdom. I believe that just as it is not required for His children to "study" to be approved it is not forbidden for His children to study for better understanding. All things are weighed by Him and He looks at a mans heart and a mans actions that are a reflection of what is in his heart.
On a side note I really feel sorry for those churches that dont allow women to be ordained. They IMHO are really missing out on the complete fullness that comes when men and women work together within the church. But as I said that is just my opinion.
I agree with you that more Bible/ religion studies should have been made available to those who were interested. In my church, there is an extensive religious education program that runs till around age 14, then that's about it. Yes, there are adult Bible studies in many places. Yes, the information is out there for those who want to study. But, IMO, it should be made more widely available to those who are interested in going deeper. The situation has improved in recent years; it still has a long way to go.
Something that I thought from the moment that I was exposed to TWI (and still think to this day) is that if the mainline churches did their jobs better, there would have never been a need out there to be filled by a cult group like TWI. And that's a shame.
As to women ordinands, I can understand why women are not ordained in the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches. This is a matter of their sacramental theology (the ordained minister of the sacrament acts in persona Christi capitis), but I don't understand why church groups who reject that sacramental theology would still not allow women ordinands (in a church without a sacramental theology, an ordained minister is nothing more than a preacher). But, to each their own.
Good perspective, Mark. I'm sure appreciative of your insights.
Eyes, you really write well, and you put a lot of heartfelt honesty in what you write. I’ve learned a lot from you. Like you, I got into it because I wanted to know more. My insides felt there is more that I was missing out on. I felt that very deeply. I think I was right about that.
I think there isn’t a thing wrong with knowledge. What was wrong with twi was the context. God desires all men to come unto a knowledge of the truth, the comforter will lead into the all truth, this is how you rightly divide so you don’t have error, which is all great if not joined with we are right and all others are wrong, the denominations are clueless and evil at the top, we are the true household, etc. Had it been true, it would have been ok. It really would have. Knowledge only puffs up when isolated from love or too heavily emphasized.
I don’t think any of us woke up one morning and decided to join a cult or decided to be arrogant in any way. The packaging gave us the attitudes we had and thus we took on the fruit of the one who taught us. It wasn’t a decision we were cognizant of. Maybe I shouldn’t say “we.” I don’t want to sound like I think I am speaking for everyone.
This all brings me to what is for me the core issue. I went looking for bread, and it really appears I got a stone. Since I don’t believe God would do that, there is another explanation. Is the answer I was simply deceived, or is the answer that I got enough bread to get me to the true bread along with some deception and error? Right now I think the latter, but I’m not sure. Maybe I’ve been on the right path all along, it is just proving to take longer and requiring more effort than I expected (and also a different ending to the story than I thought it was going to be).
MarkO, thanks for the quotes from The Imitation of Christ. I read that a long time ago – I think I still have a copy in my attic somewhere – now you‘ve got me wanting to read it again…
...Something that I thought from the moment that I was exposed to TWI (and still think to this day) is that if the mainline churches did their jobs better, there would have never been a need out there to be filled by a cult group like TWI. And that's a shame...
I agree…I recall a line from some book – think it’s from The Kingdom of the Cults – something about cults being the unpaid bills of the churches – basically goes along with what you said.
MarkO, thanks for the quotes from The Imitation of Christ. I read that a long time ago – I think I still have a copy in my attic somewhere – now you‘ve got me wanting to read it again…
Kempis is tough.
Kempis was counterculture 700 years ago. He is more counterculture now.
The mindset is utterly different than our post-modern, post-Christian culture. The mindset is also utterly different than the mindset taught by Word-Faith groups such as TWI.
I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives people more choice. I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason. But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long. For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right. So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change. Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea. But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened.
That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle.
As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that TWI filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing.
ASpot I think that you were then and are today exactly where God wants you to be. There was a lot of bad in TWI, but just like a fairy tail about sea monsters, their is truth in there somewhere it's just well hidden. My advice to you is to ask questions, on the board or in PM's read and listen to everyone's argument and above all think for yourself, prove everything to see if it is true and if it is true then change your mind (once again see my tag line). I admire your tenacity and honesty and I thank you for the compliment. I am glad that I could help you in some small way, if I can assist further then please let me know.
My apologies for the brevity of my response. I would like to say more but just don't have time this morning, as I am running late.
I would submit, though, that you should consider that true freedom comes only when you abandon yourself to God. You can be enslaved by many things in this life, including your own will.
I'll try to write more later, but felt that I should respond to your fine post, at least briefly, in a timely fashion.
I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives people more choice.
I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is considered a supplement to the regular service.
I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason.
And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12.
But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long.
Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably.
1 Cor 12:18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did?
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain) If Jesus did not come down from heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own satisfaction/ self-fulfillment.
So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be the best that they can be where God placed them?
For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body.
1 Cor 12:20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
Not multiple bodies, just one.
1 Cor 12:24b-26 But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord (or schism) in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
1 Cor 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
It is a shame that the 'major churches' monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies (churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little better than idolatry.
monopolized ... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom 1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that formation)
For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right.
Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant. However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of private property?
So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change.
Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St. Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages, many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in 1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was published in 1611).
One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have been out of reach of all but the most wealthy.
Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea.
This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you to Luther's 95 Theses, though, and ask you to show me which one of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it)
But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened.
Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to this day)
That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle.
2 Pe 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the "Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that.
As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that TWI filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing.
I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a slightly different perspective than some others.
This may be slightly off topic, but can you tell me more about Kempis and Imitation of Christ. Thanks!
As Another Spot noted, you can read the document here (hopefully this link works for you).
It is written in a number of short chapters, each of which can be treated as a devotional-type reading. As I pointed out to t-bone, the document is challenging...not in a bad way, but challenges you to examine your own life against a no-compromise standard.
"I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups
of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives
people more choice"
I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small
group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is
considered a supplement to the regular service.
Well I wasnt sure how to respond to that post (taking the length into consideration so I'll try this. First off I understand your desire to use the word "supplement" instead of 'choice" Perhaps in the church that you attend that word is more correct but in the context that I was speaking "Choice" was correct. I was referring to choices between those Churches that offer a more diverse "package" as opposed to those that do not.
"I think that the body of Christ actually
works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing.
(I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular).
The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason."
And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12
Funny that is the scripture that I was thinking of when I wrote that line. I do not feel compelled to quote scripture for every comment that I make that reflects or echoes the scripture. I'm sorry if this confuses anyone.
"But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long."
Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably
1 Cor 12:18
But now God has placed the members, each one
of them, in the body, just as He
desired
You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the
members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of
the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who
want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and
where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in
the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did?
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do
My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me
How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How
about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, <span style="FONT-STYLE:italic">For to me, to
live is Christ and to die is gain</span>) If Jesus did not come down from
heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I
should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own
satisfaction/ self-fulfillment.
So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to
become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be
the best that they can be where God placed them?
Actually the reference was not to the people stifleing themselves but rather being stifled by the Churches that would not offer a more diverse manner in which to know God. IMHO a church that only teaches men for example how to study the Bible or how to minister to people or whatever the man behind the pulpit is supposed to do and does not offer that same instruction to women does in fact "stifle" the members of the body. God put them there we know that, but he also gave them free will to walk away from the Church or Churches that do not fullfill their needs (in former years they would have been and were murdered for doing just that but today women have rights as well). In this manner I think that the Churches that offer a more diverse program often are the places for those that are seeking more, such as myself, ASpot and Bramble and many others. None of us could have taken our rightful places in the body had TWI or others who were willing to teach women were not available. I know that you are not saying for us to just be happy with "our lot in life" so I will not come unglued at how abrasive that comment was to me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning that comment.
"For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the
basic thought processes and decision making processes of people."
Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body.
As it is, thereare many parts, yet one body.
Not multiple bodies, just one
1 Cor 12:24b-26
But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior
part that there may be no discord (or schism) in the body but that the members may have
the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together;
if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am ofApollos," are you not carnal?
"It is a shame that the 'major churches monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE
body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies
(churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from
each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will
of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little
better than idolatry monopolized... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of
people"
A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form
and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the
will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom
1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making
process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would
submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the
content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about
the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that
formation)
We agree here that organizations such as TWI would not even have a true marketplace had the Churches been doing their jobs adequitely.
"For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that
only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only
attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more
womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing
it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but
they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right."
Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant.
However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If
a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal
pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of
private property?
It was just an example, and one that was supposed to be obsurd enough to draw a point.
"So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at
Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written
in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change."
Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the
vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the
translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those
people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St.
Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages
into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the
Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the
vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages,
many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally
printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century.
In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in
1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was
published in 1611).
I didnt say he was the first example just an example. I thought that others who might read this thread would have a better understanding of a man that is at least fairly commonly known by all.
One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type
printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have
been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have
been out of reach of all but the most wealthy.
Availability was not the point. The point was that it took someone breaking away from the dominant Christian Church of the time to bring about a change that IMO should have been initiated by the Church.
"Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea."
This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy
to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you
of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the
Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it)
I have my own copy of the 95 thesis thank you. I know what they do and do not say. Again...not the point.
"But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in
this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain
that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the
Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what
happened."
Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if
they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't
fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who
responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the
middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and
the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward
universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to
this day)
I think that you will find that a huge portion of the world is still illiterate but does this stop missionaries from trying to teach?
"That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but
ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly
interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of
thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of
many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical
study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the
ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the
middle."
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation
It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of
discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one
body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result
of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will
Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General
Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the
"Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I
could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that.
There has been much discussion on this board concerning that little bit of scripture. The bottom line was that VP did not present a correct translation of it. Besides as you and I have both know God wants us to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. As far as separate denominations and many Churches is concerned...I dont disagree with you in the slightest. But you might disagree with me when I say that not one religion today is the ONE that has all the truth.
"As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems
like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am
glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so
eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See
my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we
had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the
teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile
concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent
selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that
filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either
correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination
thing."
I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also
recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in
regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a
slightly different perspective than some others.
You do offer a different perspective that I really do welcome. Your knowledge of history is impressive. I would love to sit and talk with you about it someday. Although I do realize that this is not the time or the place for such a thing. I hope that you do not take any of my responses as a direct insult to you or what you said, mostly I just wanted to clarify what I had said.
You might notice that I have no denominational ties at the moment and dont see any on the horizon. I am just enjoying learning about all of them. A quest that began before I entered TWI, that can now continue....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
31
17
27
32
Popular Days
Jul 15
24
Jul 11
12
Jul 10
11
Jun 21
11
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 31 posts
T-Bone 17 posts
Eyesopen 27 posts
another spot 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2007
24 posts
Jul 11 2007
12 posts
Jul 10 2007
11 posts
Jun 21 2007
11 posts
another spot
Mark, that’s a great post. Your comment about “cracking the books” nails it very well.
I was reading your post in the prayer room. Are you still in Iraq? What happened to the little girl? Do you still want prayer about that?
Eyes: Yep. Funny how we all read about knowledge puffs up and never saw the forest for the trees. Right after leaving twi, I did get it about being “right,” the arrogance, etc. I just didn’t get it that it was still impacting me. Sort of like chopping at the roots without really seeing where they all were. That is really what I meant about the poison. Leaven would be another good description. Thinking you’ve gotten past something may not be the same as really getting past it. This I know now, loud and clear.
You mentioned on another thread about it’s almost easier to toss it all out and start over. I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Spot,
From Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 3.
Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 8.
Just a couple of thoughts on the subject that I thought pertinent.
And, by the way, the thing in the Prayer Room forum was an e-mail that I received. I've been retired from the service for several years now. I also have not ever gotten any updates on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Wow, Mark. That’s some really profound stuff. Had I read that book before twi, my involvement would have been much shorter. (Maybe 2 minutes…) I looked up the book in Amazon.com. I would like to buy it. There are 3 others. Do you have them? If so, what do you think of them? I was having a hard time getting a feel for them based on what was at Amazon.
One other question: I have talked to two Catholics, briefly years ago. They both said they weren’t Christians. Do you know why that is?
I’m real glad you’re not in Iraq…My middle son was there (Army). I’m glad he’s back home…aside from the danger, it’s just not a fun place to be. Temperatures during the summer get to 130. The air conditioning in their qtrs. doesn’t work at all when temperatures exceed 120. He said the metal on his cot would get so hot it would literally burn him when he accidentally touched it. They have big problems with dehydration, as it is very difficult to drink enough fluids to keep up with what is being sweat off. The soldiers often get kidney stones because of it. For folks who don’t know, the hardship isn’t just the danger…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You can look at the book (along with a number of other classics) at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:
http://www.ccel.org (a non-Catholic source, too, btw, if that matters)
I would also suggest, along those lines, The Way of Perfection, by Teresa of Avila (also available there)
Catholics not being Christians, hmmmm....
I think a lot of people (both inside and out of the Church) have identified the term "Christian" with "Protestant/ Evangelical/ Charismatic/ Restorationist" types. The terms are sometimes used as mutually exclusive.
I would submit that the Catholics (both Latin Rite -- what a lot of folk call 'RCs' -- and Eastern Rite, such as Chaldean, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, Melkite, Syro-Malabar {from India}, etc) and Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Coptic, Antiochian, etc.) are Christians and follow the faith passed down from Christ and the Apostles.
Not to say that others aren't...but the liturgies and many/ most of the practices can be traced back to apostolic times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I would love to be able to say that with the right information I would have had more sense than to get involved with TWI. But the real rub with them was that they were able to bait the hook so well that it was disguised beneath the bait. I thought as many others did that they not only had the truth they were the truth. We thought that we were "uprooting vices and implanting virtues" and we thought that we were "living" the Word. So no I dont think that anything would have been different for me. I still would have done what I did. The really good thing is that I would still be where I am today. Which is a good place.
But the information is excellent Mark! It is wonderful for retrospect and for future teaching. Sometimes teaching ahead of time works, it just wouldn't have for me, not on this point anyway. Because I thought that TWI taught the scriptures, since I had no biblical basis myself I had to trust that someone else had it . That is how I was taught that only the man at the pulpit had the authority to interpret and therefore teach the bible. TWI use that against a lot of people. That was part of the bait. To be able to learn how to study it for yourself! Who could pass that up?
But then again I was raised in a church where females were not allowed behind the pulpit...still arent. So I felt that if I wanted to know I had no recourse but to learn from TWI. At least that is what I thought. But my heart was pure in that I wanted a personal relationship with God. So He honored my hearts desire and taught me sometimes despited TWI's best efforts to keep me in the dark. Which is why as much as I would sometimes like to do so I cannot just chuck it all out and start over. But I did in fact just put it all down for a number of years and prayed a lot. Eventually those things that never made any sense or little sense just fell away and I was left with a less cluttered understanding. Throught the years I have discarded a lot of old stuff, and rearranged others, but at this date I am still peeling back the layers and am now dealing with the most basic doctrines and habit patterns that were installed and instilled by TWI.
I cannot change my past but I can use what I learned from it to shape my future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Can you explain that a little bit more? I don't understand what females not being allowed behind the pulpit would have to do with learning about God. Can you expand on this a bit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
"That is how I was taught that only the man at the pulpit had the authority to interpret and therefore teach the bible."
I was taught that only the man at the pulpit was allowed to learn the bible...women werent allowed to stand at the pulpit...
I am sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Sometimes I dont give someone all the information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Eyes open--when I first got involved in TWI the fact that women appeared to be on the same level as men as far as teaching running fellowships etc was very appealing. Claudette Royal was ordained! Women could run fellowships and wow families, be leadership...that was not what I had seen in any Christian churches in my youth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I know that it was a serious lure for me. Not that I really wanted to be a leader (that was a plus for me) but I really wanted to know the bible! I really wanted to know God and the Church that I had grown up in told me that I didnt need to bring my bible to church. I was told that some men that were smarter than me had already determined what was important out of the bible and provided the information in a denominational booklet. Which was really "short" on actual bible. It kind of made me wonder if the men at the pulpit actually read the bible or if they just read from the booklet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I was taught that only the man at the pulpit was allowed to learn the bible...women werent allowed to stand at the pulpit...
I know that it was a serious lure for me. Not that I really wanted to be a leader (that was a plus for me) but I really wanted to know the bible! I really wanted to know God and the Church that I had grown up in told me that I didnt need to bring my bible to church. I was told that some men that were smarter than me had already determined what was important out of the bible and provided the information in a denominational booklet. Which was really "short" on actual bible. It kind of made me wonder if the men at the pulpit actually read the bible or if they just read from the booklet.
The church that I am a member of is a church where only men may be ordained. In addition, the readings (one from the OT, a psalm, a NT epistle, and a reading from the gospel) are done on a three-year cycle (two year cycle for daily worship). And thus they are able to print out the seasonal booklets (they generally print them four times a year).
And, although my church is not the only one where things are done that way, it is undoubtedly the best known for that.
I would submit that you are right, in part. Although by doing things that way, the congregants will be exposed to a good portion of the Bible, the worship service done in that type of format, in of itself, is not a truly effective way for studying the Bible.
On the other hand, I truly don't believe that anybody would say it is designed to be a Bible study class, either. It's designed to be a worship service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You are absolutely correct Mark, fellowship, service, mass whatever the particular church may call it isn't designed as a Bible study class it is designed to be a worship service that has a small teaching of some sort to exhort (hopefully) the followers. Which in and of itself is very effective and quite nice. Obviously worship service fulfills a need, not only biblically but emotionally and spiritually as well. Which is all many people need to have their entire lives.
But for me it just wasn't enough. I wanted to know more. I wanted somebody to help me learn the Bible. This was not available for women in the church that I had been brought up. So the lure of TWI for me was knowledge. And yes I know that knowledge puffs up, but only if it becomes your God. I use my knowledge to better know God so that I may better serve Him.
I guess that brings us full circle doesn't it? Back to the original topic that knowledge or the pursuit of it was for TWI some sort of special key into the kingdom. I believe that just as it is not required for His children to "study" to be approved it is not forbidden for His children to study for better understanding. All things are weighed by Him and He looks at a mans heart and a mans actions that are a reflection of what is in his heart.
On a side note I really feel sorry for those churches that dont allow women to be ordained. They IMHO are really missing out on the complete fullness that comes when men and women work together within the church. But as I said that is just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Eyes,
I agree with you that more Bible/ religion studies should have been made available to those who were interested. In my church, there is an extensive religious education program that runs till around age 14, then that's about it. Yes, there are adult Bible studies in many places. Yes, the information is out there for those who want to study. But, IMO, it should be made more widely available to those who are interested in going deeper. The situation has improved in recent years; it still has a long way to go.
Something that I thought from the moment that I was exposed to TWI (and still think to this day) is that if the mainline churches did their jobs better, there would have never been a need out there to be filled by a cult group like TWI. And that's a shame.
As to women ordinands, I can understand why women are not ordained in the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches. This is a matter of their sacramental theology (the ordained minister of the sacrament acts in persona Christi capitis), but I don't understand why church groups who reject that sacramental theology would still not allow women ordinands (in a church without a sacramental theology, an ordained minister is nothing more than a preacher). But, to each their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Good perspective, Mark. I'm sure appreciative of your insights.
Eyes, you really write well, and you put a lot of heartfelt honesty in what you write. I’ve learned a lot from you. Like you, I got into it because I wanted to know more. My insides felt there is more that I was missing out on. I felt that very deeply. I think I was right about that.
I think there isn’t a thing wrong with knowledge. What was wrong with twi was the context. God desires all men to come unto a knowledge of the truth, the comforter will lead into the all truth, this is how you rightly divide so you don’t have error, which is all great if not joined with we are right and all others are wrong, the denominations are clueless and evil at the top, we are the true household, etc. Had it been true, it would have been ok. It really would have. Knowledge only puffs up when isolated from love or too heavily emphasized.
I don’t think any of us woke up one morning and decided to join a cult or decided to be arrogant in any way. The packaging gave us the attitudes we had and thus we took on the fruit of the one who taught us. It wasn’t a decision we were cognizant of. Maybe I shouldn’t say “we.” I don’t want to sound like I think I am speaking for everyone.
This all brings me to what is for me the core issue. I went looking for bread, and it really appears I got a stone. Since I don’t believe God would do that, there is another explanation. Is the answer I was simply deceived, or is the answer that I got enough bread to get me to the true bread along with some deception and error? Right now I think the latter, but I’m not sure. Maybe I’ve been on the right path all along, it is just proving to take longer and requiring more effort than I expected (and also a different ending to the story than I thought it was going to be).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
MarkO, thanks for the quotes from The Imitation of Christ. I read that a long time ago – I think I still have a copy in my attic somewhere – now you‘ve got me wanting to read it again…
I agree…I recall a line from some book – think it’s from The Kingdom of the Cults – something about cults being the unpaid bills of the churches – basically goes along with what you said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Kempis is tough.
Kempis was counterculture 700 years ago. He is more counterculture now.
The mindset is utterly different than our post-modern, post-Christian culture. The mindset is also utterly different than the mindset taught by Word-Faith groups such as TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives people more choice. I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason. But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long. For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right. So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change. Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea. But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened.
That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle.
As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that TWI filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing.
ASpot I think that you were then and are today exactly where God wants you to be. There was a lot of bad in TWI, but just like a fairy tail about sea monsters, their is truth in there somewhere it's just well hidden. My advice to you is to ask questions, on the board or in PM's read and listen to everyone's argument and above all think for yourself, prove everything to see if it is true and if it is true then change your mind (once again see my tag line). I admire your tenacity and honesty and I thank you for the compliment. I am glad that I could help you in some small way, if I can assist further then please let me know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Eyes,
My apologies for the brevity of my response. I would like to say more but just don't have time this morning, as I am running late.
I would submit, though, that you should consider that true freedom comes only when you abandon yourself to God. You can be enslaved by many things in this life, including your own will.
I'll try to write more later, but felt that I should respond to your fine post, at least briefly, in a timely fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Heeheheheeheee...I'm sorry I find it amusing that you apologize for a short post and I apologized for such a long one. What a pair we are. Hahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Mark,
This may be slightly off topic, but can you tell me more about Kempis and Imitation of Christ. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is considered a supplement to the regular service.
I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason.
And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12.
But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long.
Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably.
You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did?
How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain) If Jesus did not come down from heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own satisfaction/ self-fulfillment.
So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be the best that they can be where God placed them?
For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body.
Not multiple bodies, just one.
It is a shame that the 'major churches' monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies (churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little better than idolatry.
monopolized ... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people.
A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom 1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that formation)
For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right.
Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant. However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of private property?
So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change.
Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St. Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages, many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in 1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was published in 1611).
One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have been out of reach of all but the most wealthy.
Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea.
This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you to Luther's 95 Theses, though, and ask you to show me which one of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it)
But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened.
Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to this day)
That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle.
It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the "Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that.
As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that TWI filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing.
I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a slightly different perspective than some others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As Another Spot noted, you can read the document here (hopefully this link works for you).
It is written in a number of short chapters, each of which can be treated as a devotional-type reading. As I pointed out to t-bone, the document is challenging...not in a bad way, but challenges you to examine your own life against a no-compromise standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
"I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups
of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives
people more choice"
I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small
group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is
considered a supplement to the regular service.
Well I wasnt sure how to respond to that post (taking the length into consideration so I'll try this. First off I understand your desire to use the word "supplement" instead of 'choice" Perhaps in the church that you attend that word is more correct but in the context that I was speaking "Choice" was correct. I was referring to choices between those Churches that offer a more diverse "package" as opposed to those that do not.
"I think that the body of Christ actually
works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing.
(I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular).
The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason."
And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12
Funny that is the scripture that I was thinking of when I wrote that line. I do not feel compelled to quote scripture for every comment that I make that reflects or echoes the scripture. I'm sorry if this confuses anyone.
"But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long."
Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably
1 Cor 12:18
But now God has placed the members, each one
of them, in the body, just as He
desired
You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the
members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of
the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who
want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and
where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in
the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did?
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do
My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me
How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How
about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, <span style="FONT-STYLE:italic">For to me, to
live is Christ and to die is gain</span>) If Jesus did not come down from
heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I
should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own
satisfaction/ self-fulfillment.
So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to
become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be
the best that they can be where God placed them?
Actually the reference was not to the people stifleing themselves but rather being stifled by the Churches that would not offer a more diverse manner in which to know God. IMHO a church that only teaches men for example how to study the Bible or how to minister to people or whatever the man behind the pulpit is supposed to do and does not offer that same instruction to women does in fact "stifle" the members of the body. God put them there we know that, but he also gave them free will to walk away from the Church or Churches that do not fullfill their needs (in former years they would have been and were murdered for doing just that but today women have rights as well). In this manner I think that the Churches that offer a more diverse program often are the places for those that are seeking more, such as myself, ASpot and Bramble and many others. None of us could have taken our rightful places in the body had TWI or others who were willing to teach women were not available. I know that you are not saying for us to just be happy with "our lot in life" so I will not come unglued at how abrasive that comment was to me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning that comment.
"For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the
basic thought processes and decision making processes of people."
Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body.
As it is, thereare many parts, yet one body.
Not multiple bodies, just one
1 Cor 12:24b-26
But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior
part that there may be no discord (or schism) in the body but that the members may have
the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together;
if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am ofApollos," are you not carnal?
"It is a shame that the 'major churches monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE
body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies
(churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from
each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will
of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little
better than idolatry monopolized... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of
people"
A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form
and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the
will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom
1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making
process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would
submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the
content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about
the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that
formation)
We agree here that organizations such as TWI would not even have a true marketplace had the Churches been doing their jobs adequitely.
"For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that
only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only
attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more
womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing
it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but
they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right."
Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant.
However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If
a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal
pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of
private property?
It was just an example, and one that was supposed to be obsurd enough to draw a point.
"So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at
Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written
in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change."
Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the
vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the
translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those
people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St.
Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages
into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the
Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the
vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages,
many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally
printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century.
In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in
1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was
published in 1611).
I didnt say he was the first example just an example. I thought that others who might read this thread would have a better understanding of a man that is at least fairly commonly known by all.
One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type
printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have
been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have
been out of reach of all but the most wealthy.
Availability was not the point. The point was that it took someone breaking away from the dominant Christian Church of the time to bring about a change that IMO should have been initiated by the Church.
"Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea."
This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy
to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you
to
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/w...five.html" target="_blank" title="Luther's 95 Theses">Luther's 95 Theses though, and ask you to show me which one
of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the
Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it)
I have my own copy of the 95 thesis thank you. I know what they do and do not say. Again...not the point.
"But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in
this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain
that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the
Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what
happened."
Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if
they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't
fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who
responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the
middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and
the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward
universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to
this day)
I think that you will find that a huge portion of the world is still illiterate but does this stop missionaries from trying to teach?
"That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but
ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly
interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of
thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of
many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical
study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the
ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the
middle."
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation
It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of
discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one
body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result
of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will
Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General
Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the
"Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I
could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that.
There has been much discussion on this board concerning that little bit of scripture. The bottom line was that VP did not present a correct translation of it. Besides as you and I have both know God wants us to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. As far as separate denominations and many Churches is concerned...I dont disagree with you in the slightest. But you might disagree with me when I say that not one religion today is the ONE that has all the truth.
"As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems
like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am
glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so
eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See
my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we
had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the
teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile
concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent
selves.
Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that
filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either
correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination
thing."
I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also
recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in
regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a
slightly different perspective than some others.
You do offer a different perspective that I really do welcome. Your knowledge of history is impressive. I would love to sit and talk with you about it someday. Although I do realize that this is not the time or the place for such a thing. I hope that you do not take any of my responses as a direct insult to you or what you said, mostly I just wanted to clarify what I had said.
You might notice that I have no denominational ties at the moment and dont see any on the horizon. I am just enjoying learning about all of them. A quest that began before I entered TWI, that can now continue....
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Just had to sneak in here to let Mark and Eyes know that their conversation is most interesting to follow. Thank you both!
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.