reproof was intended to bring us up to a matuer level..hhmmmm..yes I agree that we all need it. But what was the true intentions of the person giving it...Now I am a state that if your going to reprove me you better hit the nail on the head or I will contemplate it and just shut that person off...This is not the best side of me....I think its a result of spiritual abuse..a very tender side that is still healing. I left in 2000 and have found that I cannot let people think they can steamroll me.....there is a very difficult balance to all this..keeping my heart soft is a huge job at times...heres to healing and getting on with the real show...
Someone may need reproof in one area of their life but it wouldn't negate the value of what they share in another area. Kind of stating the obvious, I suppose.
Reproof in my family goes by so quickly and it's so not a big deal that we probably don't think about it much. It's always been my impression that in a loving environment, that's the way it should be. Just pointing out an "oops" and be done with it.
When I was 'in' the only way I would reprove someone was with book, chapter and verse. Otherwise, it's just my opinion and who cares about that?
In the later years of my internment, I was reproved by anyone's opinion, commanded to do the most outrageous things and the principle was if a WC grad said it, it was by relevation and God's Word and Will. An awful lot of abuse was perpetrated this way.
To this day, I am very, very put off by people in my church, who to my way of looking at things are no better than I am jumping on my case about something. My attitude nowadays is:
"If I want your opinion, I'LL BEAT IT OUT OF YOU! :o-->
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's like -- however I'm feeling today that's what will be -- and a leader can't be that way and be a good leader. It's almost reminds me of a "spoiled brat"
I don`t understand where we get the idea that there is a person on this planet that posesses the qualifications to *reprove* us....reproof indicates that they have judged me and then decided that it is up to them to *fix* me...thats God`s and my job...
No thanks...cast the beam outta your own eye first and just leave me the h--- alone.
The purpose of reproof is to get you to believe rightly and act accordingly. If someone offers you reproof, it's up to you to decide if there's merit to it. If so, change! (I guess we'll have to wait for the Vulcans to show up to handle Rascal!) :D-->
Lol George....ya think that they are a match for me ???
People have viewed me as a bit *stubborn* these days...lol it is a good thing that God undertsands.
I guess my beef is that sometimes a leader has a valid point....sometimes they are just having a bad day and are looking to make someone *pay*...it is a crap shoot whether or not their *reproof* is of any merit.
I have realised through the years.... that God is quite effective in being able to *reprove* me when needed without the help of some puffed up toad that *thinks* maybe they know what is best for me...
You hit it head on. That's what I am referring to. A leader's opinion of how they think you should be behaving and totally embarassing you and making comments. One thing I alwasy found was "you can eat whatever you want" but we're going to talk and make comments about it if it's not what we "approve" BUT - go ahead.....
In my observation, twi's common application of their bizarre notion of "reproof" was extremely overblown and way-out-of-line.
Even if one accepts the authenticity of the "Pastoral Epistles" (which btw, I personally do not, but perhaps that would be left for another discussion ), our introduction to the notion of "reproof" in 2 Tim.3:16 through PFAL had to do with issues relating to the area of "doctrine" - or as VPW asserted, "right" or "wrong" "believing", and the reproving and correction of "doctrine" gone wild.
But NO - that's not at all how I recall "REPROOF" being primarily exercised in twi.
More often than not, one was "reproved" for such anal-retentive things as accidently leaving a bottle of ketchup on the table, or showing up late for a meeting or class because some inconsiderate doltish leader didn't provide accurate road directions (a common occurrance,lol), or any number of trite, farty banal things hardly worth giving another human being the third-degree and scolding them as a lowlife under the delusional, mega-maniacal notion that one was supposedly exercising their godly duty.
The notion of "Reproof" was almost wholly overblown, misappropriated and abused in twi.
Ironically, it became a "doctrine" which itself should have "reproved" and "corrected" in its inexcusable misapplication for other than what was actually intended by pseudonymous writer of the "Pastoral" literature, within the context of "doctrinal" issues.
That's why I seldom "reproved" anyone unless they were flagrantly hurting themselves or others, and then only with a Bible in hand.
I certainly never considered myself to be perfect enough to tell anyone what to think, say or do.
I do think the LCM-wannabe's were the worst and saying vicious, mean, hurtful things to people and even to children. A nasty, hateful woman crawled all over my son once because she gave him a tiny sliver of cake and he asked after he ate it if there were seconds available. He was so embarrassed. She was the most self-righteous witch I've ever met and enjoyed raking over the coals those of us who didn't measure up to her exacting standards. (that was a lot of us). It's too bad people get that way. "Evil to him who evil thinks" is what I say.
I have friends and Family who periodically say to me "Mo, WHAT are you thinking?!?" or similar--but they know me very well and it is not so much I'm right and you're wrong ideology as a "Mo, you're going to regret this decision" kind of thing, and often they are right and often they change their minds after I explain my reasoning.
THis is not REPROOF at least not in the TWI sense
Reproof in TWI was akin to "I'm a total mess and so to make myself feel better I have to Jump all over you" Sometimes it was good correction but I'd make that a 98% vs 2% - 2%being the correct kind of reproof
But of course, da Bible has EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness and therefore everything in life has a doctrinal counterpart and is subject to a magnifying glass and painful inspections usually left for the proctologist. :o-->
For example...
Not telling leadership right away that I was mugged. I was almost thrown out for that one.
or...
Someone (without clue about color and design)coming into your house and telling you to change the color of your bathroom towels, and getting ....ed when you disagree. All because tha MAN put them in charge of set up , in my house.
You bring up a very valid point. If you get a Vines expositary dictionary of new testament words, it gets even murkier. For example, some words could be translated to any one of 4, 5,6,7, other words making everything more obscure. Suffice it to say, there is not need to be a word "genie".
The screaming, ranting, swearing MOGs certainly made it easy for the introduction of "Mark & Avoid" as the final form of reproof.
I remember it being taught like this:
1. Confront the individual.
2. If they don't change or have a second offence, confront them with someone in the household.
3. If they don't change or have a third offence, confront them with the household fellowship (twig).
I think I've only seen the third aspect of this once or twice. Funny that when it came to "multiple offenders" the words "Mark & Avoid" were quickly applied.
Also, is it really godly reproof if you have to "build people back up" after reproving them? To "build back up" means you've torn them down. Why would you do this to someone when you're supposed to be putting on the mind of Christ? Why did seem the "trend" in reproof was to have "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!" episodes every time someone needed correction?
quote:Also, the classic line of "we're all family" so let's just blast everyone's secrets and play "guess whose sin this is." This is where I am hurting through all the BIBLE stuff I was taught.
you're hurting because you're smart !!!!
family who blasts people and talk about their sins.... ain't no family of mine....
2. If they don't change or have a second offence, confront them with someone in the household.
3. If they don't change or have a third offence, confront them with the household fellowship (twig).
I often heard it taught this way, but very, very seldom saw it in action either, at least not when "leaders" were involved. Person-to-person it usually got resolved at stage 2.
When a "leader" was "reproving" you at stage one, it was often just his opinion or interpretation of what the bible said. Stage two was supposed to be take a witness or two, which was usually the "leader's" spouse. When it came to stage three, it was never the whole fellowship, but a handpicked group who could be counted on to back up the "leader", no matter what he said. By this time, the "sin" was not only what was originally confronted, but "disobedience" as well.
The only time I was ever brought "before the church" was when I was put on probation for six months. The decision had already been made, but we were dragged in front of our whole fellowship to be made an example of.
Wow! Deja Vu, Oak! Sounds like my ousting: drumhead tribunal there to validate a preconceived verdict...
On the other hand, Chas, if one has been reproved for good reason, then it was his faulty doctrine or practice that tore him down, not the reprover. That's why we are exhorted in Galatians to "restore" the wrongdoer.
I only saw this confrontation in front of the household fellowship one time. The other times people just disappeared or were kicked out with no notice, no money and no help getting their things out if they happened to be living with other TWI-ts.
I remember going to branch or limb meetings to hear about how stupid and ungodly people were and how they had to be M&A. They were already gone by this time and no one to stand up for them.
What say ye, Mr. Linder and Mr. Platig? Are you apologizing to anyone for condoning and promoting this behavior? Have you personally apologized to anyone? What do you think while you read these things knowing that you are accountable to God for your position in this kind of degredation of God's people?
I've been in fellowships where the whole teaching will STOP and the leader will scream at someone for shaking their leg or fidgeting. It only made everyone else feel MORE uncomfortable and then if the person was standoffish afterwards the leader would say, "You're slow to renew your mind aren't you?"
"reprove" has been ruined for me. I got to find another word that relates to what the Lord is talking about with "doctrine reproof and correction."
"reprove" of yelling,insulting, browbeating, discouraging, riding, belittling a tender soul is nothing like what the Lord wants to convey.
At this point I don't know what it is, but what goes with His teaching is kind, tender, gentle to be entreated -- Coming from the Lord, "reproof" wouldn't startle, shock, or frighten a gentle lamb.
I'm still looking for a good "reproof." I do know I didn't learn it in twi.
I like ex-cathedra's idea to replace reproof with love, or at least reprove with love. The "Reproof" I got was for really insignificant things like:
"Hi, Bob. How ya doin'?"
"I must reprove you. First my name is Robert..."
"Why did you buy coffee instead of letting me get some for you? I must reprove you for robbing me of the chance to bless you..."
"Gee, I don't know. Maybe I bought coffee because...you didn't tell me you had coffee...?
"You need reproof. Your car is dirty especially on the lower panels and doors and the tires have mud."
"I'm sorry. On my next blessing to drive you over 1200 miles to your Corps assignment, I'll be sure to stop every five miles or so and clean it with a paper towel."
Recommended Posts
likeaneagle
hi
reproof was intended to bring us up to a matuer level..hhmmmm..yes I agree that we all need it. But what was the true intentions of the person giving it...Now I am a state that if your going to reprove me you better hit the nail on the head or I will contemplate it and just shut that person off...This is not the best side of me....I think its a result of spiritual abuse..a very tender side that is still healing. I left in 2000 and have found that I cannot let people think they can steamroll me.....there is a very difficult balance to all this..keeping my heart soft is a huge job at times...heres to healing and getting on with the real show...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Hooner,
Someone may need reproof in one area of their life but it wouldn't negate the value of what they share in another area. Kind of stating the obvious, I suppose.
Reproof in my family goes by so quickly and it's so not a big deal that we probably don't think about it much. It's always been my impression that in a loving environment, that's the way it should be. Just pointing out an "oops" and be done with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
When I was 'in' the only way I would reprove someone was with book, chapter and verse. Otherwise, it's just my opinion and who cares about that?
In the later years of my internment, I was reproved by anyone's opinion, commanded to do the most outrageous things and the principle was if a WC grad said it, it was by relevation and God's Word and Will. An awful lot of abuse was perpetrated this way.
To this day, I am very, very put off by people in my church, who to my way of looking at things are no better than I am jumping on my case about something. My attitude nowadays is:
"If I want your opinion, I'LL BEAT IT OUT OF YOU!
:o-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooner
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's like -- however I'm feeling today that's what will be -- and a leader can't be that way and be a good leader. It's almost reminds me of a "spoiled brat"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I don`t understand where we get the idea that there is a person on this planet that posesses the qualifications to *reprove* us....reproof indicates that they have judged me and then decided that it is up to them to *fix* me...thats God`s and my job...
No thanks...cast the beam outta your own eye first and just leave me the h--- alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Hooner,
The purpose of reproof is to get you to believe rightly and act accordingly. If someone offers you reproof, it's up to you to decide if there's merit to it. If so, change! (I guess we'll have to wait for the Vulcans to show up to handle Rascal!)
:D-->
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Lol George....ya think that they are a match for me ???
People have viewed me as a bit *stubborn* these days...lol it is a good thing that God undertsands.
I guess my beef is that sometimes a leader has a valid point....sometimes they are just having a bad day and are looking to make someone *pay*...it is a crap shoot whether or not their *reproof* is of any merit.
I have realised through the years.... that God is quite effective in being able to *reprove* me when needed without the help of some puffed up toad that *thinks* maybe they know what is best for me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooner
Rascal --
You hit it head on. That's what I am referring to. A leader's opinion of how they think you should be behaving and totally embarassing you and making comments. One thing I alwasy found was "you can eat whatever you want" but we're going to talk and make comments about it if it's not what we "approve" BUT - go ahead.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In my observation, twi's common application of their bizarre notion of "reproof" was extremely overblown and way-out-of-line.
Even if one accepts the authenticity of the "Pastoral Epistles" (which btw, I personally do not, but perhaps that would be left for another discussion ), our introduction to the notion of "reproof" in 2 Tim.3:16 through PFAL had to do with issues relating to the area of "doctrine" - or as VPW asserted, "right" or "wrong" "believing", and the reproving and correction of "doctrine" gone wild.
But NO - that's not at all how I recall "REPROOF" being primarily exercised in twi.
More often than not, one was "reproved" for such anal-retentive things as accidently leaving a bottle of ketchup on the table, or showing up late for a meeting or class because some inconsiderate doltish leader didn't provide accurate road directions (a common occurrance,lol), or any number of trite, farty banal things hardly worth giving another human being the third-degree and scolding them as a lowlife under the delusional, mega-maniacal notion that one was supposedly exercising their godly duty.
The notion of "Reproof" was almost wholly overblown, misappropriated and abused in twi.
Ironically, it became a "doctrine" which itself should have "reproved" and "corrected" in its inexcusable misapplication for other than what was actually intended by pseudonymous writer of the "Pastoral" literature, within the context of "doctrinal" issues.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Thanks, Danny.
That's why I seldom "reproved" anyone unless they were flagrantly hurting themselves or others, and then only with a Bible in hand.
I certainly never considered myself to be perfect enough to tell anyone what to think, say or do.
I do think the LCM-wannabe's were the worst and saying vicious, mean, hurtful things to people and even to children. A nasty, hateful woman crawled all over my son once because she gave him a tiny sliver of cake and he asked after he ate it if there were seconds available. He was so embarrassed. She was the most self-righteous witch I've ever met and enjoyed raking over the coals those of us who didn't measure up to her exacting standards. (that was a lot of us). It's too bad people get that way. "Evil to him who evil thinks" is what I say.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I have friends and Family who periodically say to me "Mo, WHAT are you thinking?!?" or similar--but they know me very well and it is not so much I'm right and you're wrong ideology as a "Mo, you're going to regret this decision" kind of thing, and often they are right and often they change their minds after I explain my reasoning.
THis is not REPROOF at least not in the TWI sense
Reproof in TWI was akin to "I'm a total mess and so to make myself feel better I have to Jump all over you" Sometimes it was good correction but I'd make that a 98% vs 2% - 2%being the correct kind of reproof
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Very true, Danny.
But of course, da Bible has EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness and therefore everything in life has a doctrinal counterpart and is subject to a magnifying glass and painful inspections usually left for the proctologist.
:o-->
For example...
Not telling leadership right away that I was mugged. I was almost thrown out for that one.
or...
Someone (without clue about color and design)coming into your house and telling you to change the color of your bathroom towels, and getting ....ed when you disagree. All because tha MAN put them in charge of set up , in my house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lightside
Whatahyouthink??
II Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (1319), for reproof (1650).............
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (1319)
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (1650) of things not seen.
Question:
Should (1319) be translated "doctrine or learning"?
Should (1650) be translated "reproof or evidence (proof)"?
Did VPW, or Bullinger ever check this out in a concordance?
Does this possibly nullify some of Bullingers and VPW's foundational teachings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
You bring up a very valid point. If you get a Vines expositary dictionary of new testament words, it gets even murkier. For example, some words could be translated to any one of 4, 5,6,7, other words making everything more obscure. Suffice it to say, there is not need to be a word "genie".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
The screaming, ranting, swearing MOGs certainly made it easy for the introduction of "Mark & Avoid" as the final form of reproof.
I remember it being taught like this:
1. Confront the individual.
2. If they don't change or have a second offence, confront them with someone in the household.
3. If they don't change or have a third offence, confront them with the household fellowship (twig).
I think I've only seen the third aspect of this once or twice. Funny that when it came to "multiple offenders" the words "Mark & Avoid" were quickly applied.
Also, is it really godly reproof if you have to "build people back up" after reproving them? To "build back up" means you've torn them down. Why would you do this to someone when you're supposed to be putting on the mind of Christ? Why did seem the "trend" in reproof was to have "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!" episodes every time someone needed correction?
What a bunch of drama queens!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hooner said:
you're hurting because you're smart !!!!family who blasts people and talk about their sins.... ain't no family of mine....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Chas:
regarding the so-called stages of reproof -
1. Confront the individual.
2. If they don't change or have a second offence, confront them with someone in the household.
3. If they don't change or have a third offence, confront them with the household fellowship (twig).
I often heard it taught this way, but very, very seldom saw it in action either, at least not when "leaders" were involved. Person-to-person it usually got resolved at stage 2.
When a "leader" was "reproving" you at stage one, it was often just his opinion or interpretation of what the bible said. Stage two was supposed to be take a witness or two, which was usually the "leader's" spouse. When it came to stage three, it was never the whole fellowship, but a handpicked group who could be counted on to back up the "leader", no matter what he said. By this time, the "sin" was not only what was originally confronted, but "disobedience" as well.
The only time I was ever brought "before the church" was when I was put on probation for six months. The decision had already been made, but we were dragged in front of our whole fellowship to be made an example of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Wow! Deja Vu, Oak! Sounds like my ousting: drumhead tribunal there to validate a preconceived verdict...
On the other hand, Chas, if one has been reproved for good reason, then it was his faulty doctrine or practice that tore him down, not the reprover. That's why we are exhorted in Galatians to "restore" the wrongdoer.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I only saw this confrontation in front of the household fellowship one time. The other times people just disappeared or were kicked out with no notice, no money and no help getting their things out if they happened to be living with other TWI-ts.
I remember going to branch or limb meetings to hear about how stupid and ungodly people were and how they had to be M&A. They were already gone by this time and no one to stand up for them.
What say ye, Mr. Linder and Mr. Platig? Are you apologizing to anyone for condoning and promoting this behavior? Have you personally apologized to anyone? What do you think while you read these things knowing that you are accountable to God for your position in this kind of degredation of God's people?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hooner
I've been in fellowships where the whole teaching will STOP and the leader will scream at someone for shaking their leg or fidgeting. It only made everyone else feel MORE uncomfortable and then if the person was standoffish afterwards the leader would say, "You're slow to renew your mind aren't you?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i might get a big twitch in my leg then and kick him in the balls
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
"Reprove" the word.
At one time "gay" meant happy. No longer.
"reprove" has been ruined for me. I got to find another word that relates to what the Lord is talking about with "doctrine reproof and correction."
"reprove" of yelling,insulting, browbeating, discouraging, riding, belittling a tender soul is nothing like what the Lord wants to convey.
At this point I don't know what it is, but what goes with His teaching is kind, tender, gentle to be entreated -- Coming from the Lord, "reproof" wouldn't startle, shock, or frighten a gentle lamb.
I'm still looking for a good "reproof." I do know I didn't learn it in twi.
kit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i would replace reproof with the word love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I like ex-cathedra's idea to replace reproof with love, or at least reprove with love. The "Reproof" I got was for really insignificant things like:
"Hi, Bob. How ya doin'?"
"I must reprove you. First my name is Robert..."
"Why did you buy coffee instead of letting me get some for you? I must reprove you for robbing me of the chance to bless you..."
"Gee, I don't know. Maybe I bought coffee because...you didn't tell me you had coffee...?
"You need reproof. Your car is dirty especially on the lower panels and doors and the tires have mud."
"I'm sorry. On my next blessing to drive you over 1200 miles to your Corps assignment, I'll be sure to stop every five miles or so and clean it with a paper towel."
Stuff like that.
Steve
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.