quote: But if you are a REGULAR DONOR, why does CES, and all the other organizations they unconsciously imitate, use such a falsely empowering word as "partner"?
Think about that the next time you shop at Walmart, Target, Sears, Penney's, Barnes and Noble etc,. ad naseum --- especially when you hear the manager request for an associate to help in aisle.....
Ask the manager of the store the same question. Is that worker really an associate, or is it a falsely empowering title? -->
If one lies in wait in the doctrinal forum using each topic to eventually enlist sympathizers to 1)some ancient slighting, 2)personal disagreement with encounter group's exercises 3)the evils of dispensationalism...
...would the word "contributor" be a falsely empowering title?
............................................
Also, Tzaia's most recent post reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry offends Kathy Griffith's character. When he finds out he feels bad and tries to apologize. Each private apology becomes public fodder for her show. Eventually her whole routine is "How many ways is Jerry Seinfeld the devil?"
quote: Also, Tzaia's most recent post reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry offends Kathy Griffith's character. When he finds out he feels bad and tries to apologize. Each private apology becomes public fodder for her show. Eventually her whole routine is "How many ways is Jerry Seinfeld the devil?"
quote:It may well seem that way to you, Raf, but "partner" seems like a pretty deceptive and manipulative way to say "free-will regular donor" to me.
Nonsense. Show me ONE PERSON who is deceived about the meaning of "partnership" in the CES partnership plan, and I MAY reconsider your point (after administering an IQ test to your find).
I think that in the case of CES' partnership program, if you are located locally to them then you do have a far greater chance of being 'more' of a partner than those located far away from them. We were listening to their teachings years ago, and it was obvious that while they were first 'forming' their doctrine, they did allow nearly everyone to teach and share. We recall this because listening to their tapes we were amazed at the variety of doctrines. It was more like a 'consortium of Biblical students' than a ministry. But this faze faded years ago.
If you are located at any great distance, where you will likely never 'see' their leaders in person, then 'partnership' will more likely be just the flow of money in exchange for tapes/CDs/mailings.
Even today their websites are fairly 'open' to submitting anything that you have been working on. Presuming that it conforms to their general standards. So you really do have an opportunity to be a far greater 'partner' than you would in some other ministrys.
An organization ran by commitee, rarely gets anything done. but on the other hand if you are overly concerned of abuse or tyranical behavior than this is exactly what you want.
Looking at things they have done in past years, trying to 'define' who they are and what they want to accomplish. Makes it very much opvious that a group of people gathered, and each person had 2 or 3 different objectives. During their 'steering commitee' meetings every possible objective was noted and included in their mission statement and goals. I have been in large organizations, and I recognized it immediately as the outcome of a commitee without direction. But they dearly did not want to offend or insult anyone. So they included everything.
Is it better to be an by commitee, or by a single director? It all depends on what you wanted to accomplish. To be so overly sensitive as to hold the line that a single man can not court a female from within the congregation, is in my eyes way over-board. By they were terribly sensitive to the possibility of offending anyone, so that was the line they held to. If a single leader wants to court, he must either leave the ministry, or he must date from outside of the body of Christ. Ouch.
This is merely the nature of the beast. [obviously not calling CES a beast, but rather using the expression]. Being a ministry of this form, calling each follower a 'partner' is not out of line.
With regard to teaching doctrine that is not biblical. CES makes a big deal about not teaching the Trinity because this word is not in the bible. O.K. I can see their point of view on this. However, they also teach something that is not biblical. They teach an unbiblical usage of the word translated in the King James Version as dispensation or "oikonomia" in the Greek. They teach that this is a period of time. It is not. If you check the usages of this word and look up a lexical definition (see the Thayer's below) you will see that this means stewardship.
So why does CES teach the Trinity because it is not biblical, yet teach an unbiblical usage of the word oikonomia? Perhaps they too have their traditions of men that have been passed down from their forefathers. Just like many denominational churches teach the Trinity because this has been passed down from their forefathers from the 4th century.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
I am not a partner of CES. However, I do know some of the things that they teach. I am not trying to discredit their teaching ministry with my above post. And frankly if I had a little more time I would write John S. and John L. directly and give them some of my views. I have done this in the past with their teaching on personal prophecy. In fact, I wrote them a number of times on this subject and talked to John Schoenheit a few times about this face to face.
I like John and think he is a good bible student and teacher, but he definitely has a group think mentality about him with CES. This means he is very slow to change teachings unless he gets the approval of the other top CES people. I think that would be Mark G. and John L. Even if this would simply mean eliminating teachings that are not biblical such as their view on dispensationalism. Really, it would not hurt them to just not teach this. They have plenty of other material that they can teach that is biblically based. But some how with dispensationalism they have the same mind set with this doctrine that a trinitarian has with the trinity. It appears that some how they think that it is like a stack of cards, that if they lose this doctrine that some how other teachings will have less effect or fall apart. Actually, I think just the opposite is true. If they would simply not teach material that was unsupported from the scriptures this would gain them credibility with their other teachings that they have that are scripturally supported.
Look at it this way. How can they one night tell someone not to teach the trinity because it is not in the bible then turn around the next night and teach people dispensationalism based on "oikonomia" being a period of time? I know they are much smarter than this.
You have so many valid and important criticisms of CES, many of which have given me great pause and have me wondering how well I understand God's Word. It's a shame to see you ranting about something so inconsequential as the word "partner."
A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done.
I am not aware of CES changing anything you've brought up.
Raf - Perhaps I have been too sarcastic, but I don't back down from the truth of what I've said about "partnership". If I see a person in need (and sometimes just in "want"), and I have the money to give, I give. If I go to someone's service, I'll kick a few bucks into the collection plate to help cover expenses.
But it was due to my experience with CES that I have pledged never again to pledge money to an organization where I can't cast a vote to throw out the leaders in charge.
You guys pledged money to CES. What did they pledge to you in return? Copies of the Contender? Copies of teaching tapes?
Did you read what Tzaia posted the other day?
quote: ...I have had to wage some major ethical wars with the CES home office...
...
Part of one person's job was to spam all the seminaries with the BU website. Here it is, MY website, and now it's associated with spam...
So yes, your contributions have been used to pay some person to spend several hours every week to spend spam.
...
I kept talking about them needing to be squeaky clean. Quit using pirated software, quit downloading music & software from P2P places like Kazaa and LimeWire... and quit spamming people with email for a site that belongs to me.
Some of you are partners. Notice that you didn't get a Contender until recently? Did you notice how you didn't get a teaching of the month for awhile? Have you noticed the erratic publication of The Sower? It's hard to get anything done when you p!$$ the majority of time away surfing the internet and playing with stuff on the computer... This has been a top down problem that they know exists, but after all folks, it's them and there's more important things to do than meet deadlines.
...
Your ABS... er... free-will regular donations at work.
Raf, you wrote, "A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done."
Is this the job you teamed up with Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser to get done?
Are the things they are spending your money on any more ethical than Wierwille's plagiarism?
Are you partners or accessories?
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I hold you in very high regard, Raf. My pop was a professional newspaperman, and it was his love for the truth in the work he did that set the example for me to love the truth.
Hey there Steve. Aren't those two *entities* one and the same thing? Methinks they be. :)-->
And if I want to find out what my PARTNERS are teaching, all I have to do is go to TRUTH OR TRADITION, and see the latest articles they have put up for folks to read.
Now -- with that being said, I became an accesory (partner - whatever), a while back, simply because I believed in their effort to move the Word, as they saw fit. So the blame for my support, now falls back on me, for believing in what they were/are doing.
FYI -- I do not agree with EVERYTHING they teach, nor do I agree (totally) with their method of delivery -- but I look at what I am doing, vs. what they are doing, and concede that they are doing a far better job of promoting Jesus Christ than I ever have, or could hope to do -- thus my support (meager though it is).
Perhaps Tzaia could give some enlightenment as to why JAL was forced to abdicate the *presidency* of CES for that year or so. All I am aware of - is something happened, *management* there caught it, and took steps to correct the situation, and he was given LOA. While something remiss had happened, it was obvious that steps were being taken to correct, so as to eradicate the *situation*, and retain the "squeaky clean status" you demand they keep intact.
Perhaps someone was *spamming* while on company time. I personally received several e-mails from them (I am an AOL customer), and thought I had received them from CES because I was a *partner*. But to me it was obvious that once Dan G. showed up, this practice stopped. Again -- corrective action was being taken, to eliminate something happening that would degrade them as a ministry.
However -- it is going to take more than that and my lack of *input*, to get me to withdraw support. What does bother me, is the way I am hearing that the BIBLICAL UNITARIAN site got *commandeered* (sp?), and taken over.
I appreciate Tzaia's input on how that site came to be, and how it was one thing at one time, yet is now something totally different, with different folks running the show, and without her permission -- doing things she never would have done, had she retained site ownership.
And I appreciate your questions, etc., as well --- because they make me think, evaluate, and question that which I might not have done otherwise.
So --- the long of the short of it is (imho) --- there is nothing wrong with sponsorship, partnership, *tossing a buck or two on the plate to help defray expenses*. It is the reasoning behind doing so, that falls more into question, than the actual practice.
quote: (Heck, I remember hearing a John Schoenheit teaching about 8 years ago where he really went off about stealing paper clips. I kinda thought "Whoa, John boy. Get a life.")
With all due respect Garth, John S. was talking about stealing from employers, and yes -- he mentioned paper clips -- but he also mentioned using other company property for one's private uses.
I happen to agree with him 100% about this, as I see a lot of this going on in my own job site. Some of my co-workers look at anything in the office and say "whatever is here is for me to use". They take everything from stamps, to paper clips, to toilet paper, to internet time, from *the company* for their own use, using the justification that the "company" can afford it, while they feel they cannot afford it for themselves, or should I say -- choose not to. -->
Well -- if money were taken from the company -- it would be called stealing. Money was spent on these items (no matter how small, or insignificant) for company use, so indirectly -- money was stolen from the company. To me there is no difference. You see a difference in this?? If you do, I wonder how you can justify it? -->
I have decided I am going to send my posts on oikonomia with a bit of editing and additional material to John Schoenheit via e-mail. I really do want their ministry to offer good biblical teaching. And frankly if I did not care I would not even bother to send him this.
Tzaia asked for an example of unbiblical teaching and I have produced it. I am sorry about her negative experiences and wish her the best. I think she also does care about CES' practices and wants to help them. That is all I have to say. If someone wants to start another dispensational thread I will participate, but we did have one already not to long ago.
quote: (edited to remove an unwarrented outburst of snideness - Steve)
Awww come on Steve. You know you wanna let loose. ;)-->
Dmiller,
I got the central idea about theft from a company, so with all due respect to you -- Please. Don't even go there.
But he put a rather intense focus on those damn paper clips. Its like focusing on the small things almost at the expense of the larger overall theme. Kinda like the pharisees putting all their emphasis on the washing of pots and stuff, almost to the ignoring of greater matters -- that kind of thing. Maybe he wasn't going that far, but it sure sounded like it.
And then you have John Lynn's 'year probation' a couple of years back over some ((cough)) 'sexual indiscretion' -- which wound up beinng no more than a broken engagement or mild inappropriate touch or something.
Ie., going overboard about avoiding 'the appearance of evil'. Even stealing paper clips, while theft, sure as hell isn't 'evil'.
quote: Perhaps Tzaia could give some enlightenment as to why JAL was forced to abdicate the *presidency* of CES for that year or so.
He was not forced. That was his own free-will decision. CES has taken a pretty zero-tolerance stance on certain things and John didn't play by the rules. In the process of him getting his head from out of dark places, he realized that he had to live what he preached and he had to suffer consequences for failure to do so. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for him doing so, because he paid dearly for the decision to step down.
I have much respect for the Johns and Mark. None of them are business men and none of them had any business running the business side of CES. They needed someone to step in and do that. That has happened. I was the first "casualty" of the new paradigm. They want me to feel hunky-dory about the whole thing as it was a "personel" decision not a "personal" one, but I don't, because they left someone who is ethically challenged there and for whatever reason, they can't see where this person is the problem and he is a much bigger "problem" than I ever was.
Ethics are not a la carte and as I said before, he would have been shown the door had I been in charge.
I was less peraonally entangled with the group. I don't live, worship, or socialize with them. But I did provide something that they now don't have: balance and perspective.
But before getting into that, I perceive that I need to clarify my thesis.
1. The actions that the leaders of CES take do not line up with the words that they speak.
2. The leaders of CES seem to be oblivious to the truth that their actions do not line up with their words.
3. This blindness to their own incongruity disqualifies them from exercising responsible leadership, the same way a big dose of pain killer disqualifies a person from operating heavy machinery.
Back to the paperclips:
This particular teaching, published on the CES bimonthly audiotape for Sep/Oct '96, was entitled "The Mystery Revisited", and was intended to defend the traditional scheme of "administrations" CES inherited from Wierwille.
Here are some notes I made at the time:
quote: Schoenheit spends the first quarter of this tape discussing three main points. First, that ALL scripture, without exception, is God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16). Second, that God cares about details so small that we don't even notice them (Titus 2:10). And third, that we can fall into error, and EVEN SIN, if we don't pay attention to the smallest details of Scripture...
Schoenheit used the example of stealing paperclips from the office to illustrate his interpretation of the word "purloin" in Titus 2:10.
It was not a teaching on ethics. It was a teaching on how we need to pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture. In that very teaching Schoenheit used II Timothy 3:16 to point out that it says ALL Scripture, WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed.
Now, let's apply a little bit of logic, since the CES leaders magnify it so much.
If II Timothy 3:16 means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed, then it also means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for doctrine, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for reproof, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for correction, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for instruction.
Schoenheit says we can fall into error, EVEN SIN, if we don't pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture, yet he fails to pay attention to the detail that CES Principle #15.c. contradicts II Timothy 3:16.
Hey... you reader... out there in cyberland... can YOU see the contradiction?
The contradiction may seem like a puny, picky thing, but the BIG THING is, why a man who professes to be a Biblical scholar CAN'T see the contradiction??????????????
quote: but the BIG THING is, why a man who professes to be a Biblical scholar CAN'T see the contradiction?
Do you really want the answer to that or are you just asking a rhetorical question?
There comes a time in most scholar's lives where they don't spend so much time learning as refining. Rather than go back and revisit every jot and tittle of what they have previously learned, they just try to preserve and refine what they accept. Is this good? Is this right? Is this reality?
What you are seeing is the result of being more driven to know about Jesus rather being driven to be more like Jesus.
To some extent, you have the same spirit and you don't see a problem with that any more than John sees a problem with how he thinks.
My point being is what good does all this right thinking do if it doesn't bring people to Jesus?
Jesus and Peter clashed and Peter even denied knowing Jesus, but who was there when Jesus was caught up? Peter. Paul murdered believers and even as an apostle did things that weren't totally about Jesus, but we continue today to receive the good news that he taught and argue about whether it was a continuation of Jesus' good news or whether some of his own ideas about the good news slipped in (dispensationalism).
The point I'm trying to make is that you are trying to apply a standard that not even Jesus himself expected out of his personally chosen disciples. And if he didn't do it, I'm not real sure what grounds you have to do it.
Quit worrying about whether their doctrine lines up with yours. If you don't like it, so be it. No one is forcing you to agree. God himself will decide whether to bless and increase their ministry.
Do you believe that God has sent you as a personal messenger to correct their version of the truth?
Hopefully this doesn't come out as harsh. I'm just trying to figure out how long you are going to keep chewing and regurgitating the same old stuff? This has been going on for years and nothing has changed. You've made this your own personal "Ground Hog's Day". The only problem is that the outcome will remain the same because the other players have nothing invested in this situation with you. They moved on long ago and they are not going to revisit any of your concerns. At least not on your terms. That's the reality. Maybe what you don't realize is that they only speak highly of you. I've never heard them speak a disparaging word about you. Let's leave it at that.
You have some wonderful insight at times, but my gosh...
I received a jolt of "sunesis" last Thurday. I've spent the intervening time developing an articulation of it. It applies to the theme of this thread, but I need to start another thread just for that topic, before returning to this thread. I'm going to start the new thread tomorrow. It's title will be "Internalization".
but I don't back down from the truth of what I've said about "partnership".
Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth. It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it.
quote:
If I see a person in need (and sometimes just in "want"), and I have the money to give, I give. If I go to someone's service, I'll kick a few bucks into the collection plate to help cover expenses.
Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception?
quote:
But it was due to my experience with CES that I have pledged never again to pledge money to an organization where I can't cast a vote to throw out the leaders in charge.
Fair enough.
quote:
You guys pledged money to CES. What did they pledge to you in return? Copies of the Contender?
Yes.
quote:
Copies of teaching tapes?
Yes.
quote:
Did you read what Tzaia posted the other day?
Yes.
...
quote:
Your ABS... er... free-will regular donations at work.
Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare.
quote:
Raf, you wrote, "A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done."
Is this the job you teamed up with Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser to get done?
No.
quote:
Are the things they are spending your money on any more ethical than Wierwille's plagiarism?
Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no.
quote:
Are you partners or accessories?
If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know.
quote:
P.S. - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I hold you in very high regard, Raf. My pop was a professional newspaperman, and it was his love for the truth in the work he did that set the example for me to love the truth.
:)--> I really appreciate what you're saying here. If I may offer a bit of public critique, sometimes your criticism of CES appears perfectly sound and well-reasoned, while other times it just seems overly critical and bitter. I think your concerns on doctrine are valuable. Your concerns on the meaning of partnership baffle me. But that's just me. Don't worry: if I don't agree with you on that point, it doesn't mean I'm not listening on the others. K?
Garth - My post wasn't intended as a complete response to Raf's post. I intend to address his points, but I'm not going to until after I've developed my full thought on the "Internalization" thread. I didn't want Raf to think I was high-hatting him.
You wrote, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
Au contrare, my dear friend. Here is where rational logic fits into the scheme of things:
Mental Action - Simple Apprehension
Verbal Expression - Term
Mental Action - Judgment
Verbal Expression - Proposition
Mental Action - Deductive Inference
Verbal Expression - Syllogism
Mental Action - Rhetoric
Verbal Expression - Thesis
Judgment precedes logic. If your logic is based on flawed judgment, your syllogism may be logically valid, yet in reality, unsound.
An assumption is a guess that a person makes when he needs to take a decision, yet has incomplete knowledge. None of us have complete knowledge. There is an element of blind faith at the foundation of every logical system.
Many words have more than one meaning. Partner is such a word. You're using it to mean one thing. They're using it to mean something else. The way they're using the word, there's absolutely no deception involved.
I don't presume, because it's called the "partnership plan," that the principals of CES and I are homosexual lovers. However, partner is the word used of homosexual lovers. Words have meanings. Maybe they should avoid using that word so that no one will think they're implying that we're all lovers.
I do not presume, because of the CES partnership plan, that I am a manager or policy maker of CES.
This is neither stated nor implied in CES' use of the word partner," anymore than they are stating or implying that they are my homosexual lovers.
You may decide all you want to focus on one meaning of the word partner, and call CES deceptive based on their failure to adhere to the meaning YOU'RE using, but if the meaning THEY'RE using is just as valid, what's the problem?
Whatever it was that JAL did, it was very apparent that he humbled himself when approached for it, very unlike LCM. While whatever it was that he did was not to his credit, the fact that he abdicated his position because of it and was still willing to help this ministry says volumes.
I believe JAL can take the position later if offered, because it appears he was godly about taking responsibility for his actions. If whatever this was happened again, he would step down again.
Somehow, I believe, JAL will not repeat the error. After seeing howw he handled it, I sure can't throw a stone. After looking at my life, I can sure arrange to throw something at myself.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
dmiller
Think about that the next time you shop at Walmart, Target, Sears, Penney's, Barnes and Noble etc,. ad naseum --- especially when you hear the manager request for an associate to help in aisle.....
Ask the manager of the store the same question. Is that worker really an associate, or is it a falsely empowering title?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
If one lies in wait in the doctrinal forum using each topic to eventually enlist sympathizers to 1)some ancient slighting, 2)personal disagreement with encounter group's exercises 3)the evils of dispensationalism...
...would the word "contributor" be a falsely empowering title?
............................................
Also, Tzaia's most recent post reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry offends Kathy Griffith's character. When he finds out he feels bad and tries to apologize. Each private apology becomes public fodder for her show. Eventually her whole routine is "How many ways is Jerry Seinfeld the devil?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Does that make me a good witch or a bad witch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nonsense. Show me ONE PERSON who is deceived about the meaning of "partnership" in the CES partnership plan, and I MAY reconsider your point (after administering an IQ test to your find).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I think that in the case of CES' partnership program, if you are located locally to them then you do have a far greater chance of being 'more' of a partner than those located far away from them. We were listening to their teachings years ago, and it was obvious that while they were first 'forming' their doctrine, they did allow nearly everyone to teach and share. We recall this because listening to their tapes we were amazed at the variety of doctrines. It was more like a 'consortium of Biblical students' than a ministry. But this faze faded years ago.
If you are located at any great distance, where you will likely never 'see' their leaders in person, then 'partnership' will more likely be just the flow of money in exchange for tapes/CDs/mailings.
Even today their websites are fairly 'open' to submitting anything that you have been working on. Presuming that it conforms to their general standards. So you really do have an opportunity to be a far greater 'partner' than you would in some other ministrys.
An organization ran by commitee, rarely gets anything done. but on the other hand if you are overly concerned of abuse or tyranical behavior than this is exactly what you want.
Looking at things they have done in past years, trying to 'define' who they are and what they want to accomplish. Makes it very much opvious that a group of people gathered, and each person had 2 or 3 different objectives. During their 'steering commitee' meetings every possible objective was noted and included in their mission statement and goals. I have been in large organizations, and I recognized it immediately as the outcome of a commitee without direction. But they dearly did not want to offend or insult anyone. So they included everything.
Is it better to be an by commitee, or by a single director? It all depends on what you wanted to accomplish. To be so overly sensitive as to hold the line that a single man can not court a female from within the congregation, is in my eyes way over-board. By they were terribly sensitive to the possibility of offending anyone, so that was the line they held to. If a single leader wants to court, he must either leave the ministry, or he must date from outside of the body of Christ. Ouch.
This is merely the nature of the beast. [obviously not calling CES a beast, but rather using the expression]. Being a ministry of this form, calling each follower a 'partner' is not out of line.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
With regard to teaching doctrine that is not biblical. CES makes a big deal about not teaching the Trinity because this word is not in the bible. O.K. I can see their point of view on this. However, they also teach something that is not biblical. They teach an unbiblical usage of the word translated in the King James Version as dispensation or "oikonomia" in the Greek. They teach that this is a period of time. It is not. If you check the usages of this word and look up a lexical definition (see the Thayer's below) you will see that this means stewardship.
So why does CES teach the Trinity because it is not biblical, yet teach an unbiblical usage of the word oikonomia? Perhaps they too have their traditions of men that have been passed down from their forefathers. Just like many denominational churches teach the Trinity because this has been passed down from their forefathers from the 4th century.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
C'mon all you PARTNERS out there!
Can't even one of you find out what your PARTNERS are currently teaching!?!
Love,
Steve
(edited to remove an unwarrented outburst of snideness - Steve)
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I am not a partner of CES. However, I do know some of the things that they teach. I am not trying to discredit their teaching ministry with my above post. And frankly if I had a little more time I would write John S. and John L. directly and give them some of my views. I have done this in the past with their teaching on personal prophecy. In fact, I wrote them a number of times on this subject and talked to John Schoenheit a few times about this face to face.
I like John and think he is a good bible student and teacher, but he definitely has a group think mentality about him with CES. This means he is very slow to change teachings unless he gets the approval of the other top CES people. I think that would be Mark G. and John L. Even if this would simply mean eliminating teachings that are not biblical such as their view on dispensationalism. Really, it would not hurt them to just not teach this. They have plenty of other material that they can teach that is biblically based. But some how with dispensationalism they have the same mind set with this doctrine that a trinitarian has with the trinity. It appears that some how they think that it is like a stack of cards, that if they lose this doctrine that some how other teachings will have less effect or fall apart. Actually, I think just the opposite is true. If they would simply not teach material that was unsupported from the scriptures this would gain them credibility with their other teachings that they have that are scripturally supported.
Look at it this way. How can they one night tell someone not to teach the trinity because it is not in the bible then turn around the next night and teach people dispensationalism based on "oikonomia" being a period of time? I know they are much smarter than this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve,
You have so many valid and important criticisms of CES, many of which have given me great pause and have me wondering how well I understand God's Word. It's a shame to see you ranting about something so inconsequential as the word "partner."
A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done.
I am not aware of CES changing anything you've brought up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf - Perhaps I have been too sarcastic, but I don't back down from the truth of what I've said about "partnership". If I see a person in need (and sometimes just in "want"), and I have the money to give, I give. If I go to someone's service, I'll kick a few bucks into the collection plate to help cover expenses.
But it was due to my experience with CES that I have pledged never again to pledge money to an organization where I can't cast a vote to throw out the leaders in charge.
You guys pledged money to CES. What did they pledge to you in return? Copies of the Contender? Copies of teaching tapes?
Did you read what Tzaia posted the other day?
Your ABS... er... free-will regular donations at work.
Raf, you wrote, "A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done."
Is this the job you teamed up with Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser to get done?
Are the things they are spending your money on any more ethical than Wierwille's plagiarism?
Are you partners or accessories?
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I hold you in very high regard, Raf. My pop was a professional newspaperman, and it was his love for the truth in the work he did that set the example for me to love the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Steve. Aren't those two *entities* one and the same thing? Methinks they be.
:)-->
And if I want to find out what my PARTNERS are teaching, all I have to do is go to TRUTH OR TRADITION, and see the latest articles they have put up for folks to read.
Now -- with that being said, I became an accesory (partner - whatever), a while back, simply because I believed in their effort to move the Word, as they saw fit. So the blame for my support, now falls back on me, for believing in what they were/are doing.
FYI -- I do not agree with EVERYTHING they teach, nor do I agree (totally) with their method of delivery -- but I look at what I am doing, vs. what they are doing, and concede that they are doing a far better job of promoting Jesus Christ than I ever have, or could hope to do -- thus my support (meager though it is).
Perhaps Tzaia could give some enlightenment as to why JAL was forced to abdicate the *presidency* of CES for that year or so. All I am aware of - is something happened, *management* there caught it, and took steps to correct the situation, and he was given LOA. While something remiss had happened, it was obvious that steps were being taken to correct, so as to eradicate the *situation*, and retain the "squeaky clean status" you demand they keep intact.
Perhaps someone was *spamming* while on company time. I personally received several e-mails from them (I am an AOL customer), and thought I had received them from CES because I was a *partner*. But to me it was obvious that once Dan G. showed up, this practice stopped. Again -- corrective action was being taken, to eliminate something happening that would degrade them as a ministry.
However -- it is going to take more than that and my lack of *input*, to get me to withdraw support. What does bother me, is the way I am hearing that the BIBLICAL UNITARIAN site got *commandeered* (sp?), and taken over.
I appreciate Tzaia's input on how that site came to be, and how it was one thing at one time, yet is now something totally different, with different folks running the show, and without her permission -- doing things she never would have done, had she retained site ownership.
And I appreciate your questions, etc., as well --- because they make me think, evaluate, and question that which I might not have done otherwise.
So --- the long of the short of it is (imho) --- there is nothing wrong with sponsorship, partnership, *tossing a buck or two on the plate to help defray expenses*. It is the reasoning behind doing so, that falls more into question, than the actual practice.
God bless.
:)-->
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And then there is this ----
With all due respect Garth, John S. was talking about stealing from employers, and yes -- he mentioned paper clips -- but he also mentioned using other company property for one's private uses.
I happen to agree with him 100% about this, as I see a lot of this going on in my own job site. Some of my co-workers look at anything in the office and say "whatever is here is for me to use". They take everything from stamps, to paper clips, to toilet paper, to internet time, from *the company* for their own use, using the justification that the "company" can afford it, while they feel they cannot afford it for themselves, or should I say -- choose not to.
-->
Well -- if money were taken from the company -- it would be called stealing. Money was spent on these items (no matter how small, or insignificant) for company use, so indirectly -- money was stolen from the company. To me there is no difference. You see a difference in this?? If you do, I wonder how you can justify it?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I have decided I am going to send my posts on oikonomia with a bit of editing and additional material to John Schoenheit via e-mail. I really do want their ministry to offer good biblical teaching. And frankly if I did not care I would not even bother to send him this.
Tzaia asked for an example of unbiblical teaching and I have produced it. I am sorry about her negative experiences and wish her the best. I think she also does care about CES' practices and wants to help them. That is all I have to say. If someone wants to start another dispensational thread I will participate, but we did have one already not to long ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Awww come on Steve. You know you wanna let loose.
;)-->
Dmiller,
I got the central idea about theft from a company, so with all due respect to you -- Please. Don't even go there.
But he put a rather intense focus on those damn paper clips. Its like focusing on the small things almost at the expense of the larger overall theme. Kinda like the pharisees putting all their emphasis on the washing of pots and stuff, almost to the ignoring of greater matters -- that kind of thing. Maybe he wasn't going that far, but it sure sounded like it.
And then you have John Lynn's 'year probation' a couple of years back over some ((cough)) 'sexual indiscretion' -- which wound up beinng no more than a broken engagement or mild inappropriate touch or something.
Ie., going overboard about avoiding 'the appearance of evil'. Even stealing paper clips, while theft, sure as hell isn't 'evil'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
He was not forced. That was his own free-will decision. CES has taken a pretty zero-tolerance stance on certain things and John didn't play by the rules. In the process of him getting his head from out of dark places, he realized that he had to live what he preached and he had to suffer consequences for failure to do so. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for him doing so, because he paid dearly for the decision to step down.
I have much respect for the Johns and Mark. None of them are business men and none of them had any business running the business side of CES. They needed someone to step in and do that. That has happened. I was the first "casualty" of the new paradigm. They want me to feel hunky-dory about the whole thing as it was a "personel" decision not a "personal" one, but I don't, because they left someone who is ethically challenged there and for whatever reason, they can't see where this person is the problem and he is a much bigger "problem" than I ever was.
Ethics are not a la carte and as I said before, he would have been shown the door had I been in charge.
I was less peraonally entangled with the group. I don't live, worship, or socialize with them. But I did provide something that they now don't have: balance and perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The paperclips... ah, yes... the paperclips...
But before getting into that, I perceive that I need to clarify my thesis.
1. The actions that the leaders of CES take do not line up with the words that they speak.
2. The leaders of CES seem to be oblivious to the truth that their actions do not line up with their words.
3. This blindness to their own incongruity disqualifies them from exercising responsible leadership, the same way a big dose of pain killer disqualifies a person from operating heavy machinery.
Back to the paperclips:
This particular teaching, published on the CES bimonthly audiotape for Sep/Oct '96, was entitled "The Mystery Revisited", and was intended to defend the traditional scheme of "administrations" CES inherited from Wierwille.
Here are some notes I made at the time:
Schoenheit used the example of stealing paperclips from the office to illustrate his interpretation of the word "purloin" in Titus 2:10.
It was not a teaching on ethics. It was a teaching on how we need to pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture. In that very teaching Schoenheit used II Timothy 3:16 to point out that it says ALL Scripture, WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed.
Now, let's apply a little bit of logic, since the CES leaders magnify it so much.
If II Timothy 3:16 means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed, then it also means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for doctrine, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for reproof, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for correction, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for instruction.
Schoenheit says we can fall into error, EVEN SIN, if we don't pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture, yet he fails to pay attention to the detail that CES Principle #15.c. contradicts II Timothy 3:16.
Hey... you reader... out there in cyberland... can YOU see the contradiction?
The contradiction may seem like a puny, picky thing, but the BIG THING is, why a man who professes to be a Biblical scholar CAN'T see the contradiction??????????????
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Do you really want the answer to that or are you just asking a rhetorical question?
There comes a time in most scholar's lives where they don't spend so much time learning as refining. Rather than go back and revisit every jot and tittle of what they have previously learned, they just try to preserve and refine what they accept. Is this good? Is this right? Is this reality?
What you are seeing is the result of being more driven to know about Jesus rather being driven to be more like Jesus.
To some extent, you have the same spirit and you don't see a problem with that any more than John sees a problem with how he thinks.
My point being is what good does all this right thinking do if it doesn't bring people to Jesus?
Jesus and Peter clashed and Peter even denied knowing Jesus, but who was there when Jesus was caught up? Peter. Paul murdered believers and even as an apostle did things that weren't totally about Jesus, but we continue today to receive the good news that he taught and argue about whether it was a continuation of Jesus' good news or whether some of his own ideas about the good news slipped in (dispensationalism).
The point I'm trying to make is that you are trying to apply a standard that not even Jesus himself expected out of his personally chosen disciples. And if he didn't do it, I'm not real sure what grounds you have to do it.
Quit worrying about whether their doctrine lines up with yours. If you don't like it, so be it. No one is forcing you to agree. God himself will decide whether to bless and increase their ministry.
Do you believe that God has sent you as a personal messenger to correct their version of the truth?
Hopefully this doesn't come out as harsh. I'm just trying to figure out how long you are going to keep chewing and regurgitating the same old stuff? This has been going on for years and nothing has changed. You've made this your own personal "Ground Hog's Day". The only problem is that the outcome will remain the same because the other players have nothing invested in this situation with you. They moved on long ago and they are not going to revisit any of your concerns. At least not on your terms. That's the reality. Maybe what you don't realize is that they only speak highly of you. I've never heard them speak a disparaging word about you. Let's leave it at that.
You have some wonderful insight at times, but my gosh...
Whew...sorry guys. Blame it on PMS
;)-->
Tzaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I received a jolt of "sunesis" last Thurday. I've spent the intervening time developing an articulation of it. It applies to the theme of this thread, but I need to start another thread just for that topic, before returning to this thread. I'm going to start the new thread tomorrow. It's title will be "Internalization".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A tad.
Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth. It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it.
Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception?
Fair enough.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
...
Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare.
No.
Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no.
If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf - I need to complete my thought on the "Internalization" thread before returning to the topic here, but let me say this:
Words have meanings.
Meanings lead to thoughts.
Thoughts lead to actions.
Actions have consequences.
This is something we teach our students over and over again, in ALL their classes.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Does that mean that EVERY word leads to meanings, ... actions, ... consequences, .... etc. ad nauseum?
And how does your 4 line point discard what Raf posted? Or the points he raised, or the facts that he brought up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Garth - My post wasn't intended as a complete response to Raf's post. I intend to address his points, but I'm not going to until after I've developed my full thought on the "Internalization" thread. I didn't want Raf to think I was high-hatting him.
You wrote, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
Au contrare, my dear friend. Here is where rational logic fits into the scheme of things:
Mental Action - Simple Apprehension
Verbal Expression - Term
Mental Action - Judgment
Verbal Expression - Proposition
Mental Action - Deductive Inference
Verbal Expression - Syllogism
Mental Action - Rhetoric
Verbal Expression - Thesis
Judgment precedes logic. If your logic is based on flawed judgment, your syllogism may be logically valid, yet in reality, unsound.
An assumption is a guess that a person makes when he needs to take a decision, yet has incomplete knowledge. None of us have complete knowledge. There is an element of blind faith at the foundation of every logical system.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Many words have more than one meaning. Partner is such a word. You're using it to mean one thing. They're using it to mean something else. The way they're using the word, there's absolutely no deception involved.
I don't presume, because it's called the "partnership plan," that the principals of CES and I are homosexual lovers. However, partner is the word used of homosexual lovers. Words have meanings. Maybe they should avoid using that word so that no one will think they're implying that we're all lovers.
I do not presume, because of the CES partnership plan, that I am a manager or policy maker of CES.
This is neither stated nor implied in CES' use of the word partner," anymore than they are stating or implying that they are my homosexual lovers.
You may decide all you want to focus on one meaning of the word partner, and call CES deceptive based on their failure to adhere to the meaning YOU'RE using, but if the meaning THEY'RE using is just as valid, what's the problem?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Whatever it was that JAL did, it was very apparent that he humbled himself when approached for it, very unlike LCM. While whatever it was that he did was not to his credit, the fact that he abdicated his position because of it and was still willing to help this ministry says volumes.
I believe JAL can take the position later if offered, because it appears he was godly about taking responsibility for his actions. If whatever this was happened again, he would step down again.
Somehow, I believe, JAL will not repeat the error. After seeing howw he handled it, I sure can't throw a stone. After looking at my life, I can sure arrange to throw something at myself.
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.