NT Church Proliferation Digest Sunday, October 21 2001 Vol 01 : 080
Re: [ntcp] Discipling 'Cousins'
[ntcp] A todos
Re: [ntcp] A todos
Re: [ntcp] A todos
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:58:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [ntcp] Discipling 'Cousins'
>Link to Jay
>>I think I said what I needed to say the best I could say it for the present.
>>My point is, just in case you missed it, that even if we get rid of Bin
>>Laden, if we don't stop making war on each other in the Name of the Lord, we
>>will have missed the point.
>I don't see discussing an issue like this as making war on one another. This
>>conversation seems to be going fine, and people seem to be learning.
This is your first response on the subject. that addresses me personally. Thank
you. I think it is helpful when we look each other in the eye when we are
having a discussion, even it's only cyberspace. To attend the wedding feast we
must have on the proper attire, and what we are wearing is seen in our eye. The
look of love is the only outer garment allowed. Collossians 3:14.
I have not been talking about our discussion when I talk about what Christians
do to each other. I have been talking about the attitudes that dominate the
religious community, and which come out of trying to live according to law. The
leadership is full of it, but it does not have to be the result of bad
leadership as witness the problem that Jesus had with his own disciples,
"calling fire down", etc.
This is not to say that there isn't plenty of law on this list, but, at least
there is a willingness to discuss it. It's not so easy to get into a pulpit to
discuss it. Although occasionally there are those in ICs that are desperate
enough for the truth to allow an honest and open discussion. This is very very
rare, however, at least in my almost 30 years of living in the "house church"
dimension of our inheritence.
As for "the people learning", it is very important that what they are learning
is really "who" they are learning. It is a "Who" that we need to learn, not a
what, even "Christ, and Him crucified".
>>Putting ourselves under law is the the wrong sacrifice. It has to do with
>>wrong attitude, and that attitude, whether success or failure, like that of
>>Cain, ends up being a killer.
>I think where we disagree is with the idea that _suggesting_ or giving someone
>an example of regular prayer times is supposedly putting people under the Law.
>I don't see where the Bible teaches that having regular habits is the same
>thing as being under the Law. Mike M. Has made a case for the eariest
>Christians following a set prayer pattern.
I have not suggest that being in Christ, and allowing Him to express Himself
through us, precludes the possibility of "regular" or "disciplined" or
"habitual" or "etc." anything. What I am, and have been saying is that, what
ever we do, if it is going to please God, it must be born out of a new nature.
It must be the work of Christ in us, not the "work of our own hands".
If we have come to know the redemptive, (not alienated) Love of the Lord, and
we are in love with Him, ("We love because He first loved us.") then we will
want to know Him better. Coming to know the Bible and talking to Him about it,
is the best way I know of to get to know Him better. Going through religious
motions will only get us killed. That's ok, because we have to be crucified
with Christ anyway, and that is what the Law is for. Our old man is just not
relationally qualified to go to the wedding feast. Law cannot qualify us to go
there. All Law can do is make us sew leaves, and hide in the bushes. We do this
quite well, even in HC meetings.
You have assumed in your responses on this subject that those who see it my
way, presumably including me, may not even gather together, and if we do, there
is no prayer, no Scripture, no centrality of Christ in the meeting. I need to
tell you that Christ in us knows how to behave in the household of God. If we
are willing to allow people into our lives rather than get them to come to our
meetings, they will get to know the Christ who is our life, as distinct from
the one who is the subject of our meetings. I rather think, due to Jesus
example, that this is what Jesus was talking about when He talked about
"discipling the nations". This is a much more costly discipleship, however.
Perhaps that's why it's not very popular among the religious. In fact yesterday
as I was thinking about this in the context of the religious war on the local
level, this is to say, where I live, it ocurred to me that the present pastoral
system "counts equality with God a thing to be grasped". It loves to be stage
center, and anything that threatens that is anti-christ. We need to be very
careful here, because there is plenty of this stage center attitude in each of
us. Attitude is bigger than anger, much bigger, and religion is built on
attitude. In the wake of the twin towers, I believe we need to reconsider what
we are really about, even consider the possibility of not "letting the sun go
down on our religion, lest we make a place for the devil."
When Jesus was nailed to the tree, religion was nailed to the tree, and the
devil was disarmed in the process, Hello? Hasn't it been long enough by now so
that we should be able to get the point? Isn't it time for us to stop selling
snake oil in the Name of The Lord? Our problem seems to be that there are more
people in the family business than there are in the family, and there is very
little understanding of the difference.
As for the practice of the early church. I should say that the Scriptures have
preserved for us a record of a very rapid transition in response to what Jesus
had done at the cross. Believing Jews were in the process of going from the
wrong side of the veil, the dead side, to the life side, the side where God
lives, they were in the process of going from "ough oh" to "Abba" that is the
critical change. Only in Christ is the "ough oh" taken away, and the "Abba"
made possible. "Ough oh" is what makes a killer out of us, beginning with Cain.
We need to preach and live more Christ, and less "ough oh". What we have done
is to take the early part of the transition, even the pre-transition practice,
and made it all a basis for faith and practice. (Sorry Mike, but there is
another perspective on the evidence you cite.)
If I have not made myself clear enough, there was a tremendous war in the early
church between the circumcision and the free. In case you haven't noticed, it
is still going on, and the circumcision still appears to be winning, (Thank
God for the encouragement of knowing that "the Kingdom of God doesn't come by
appearances.") At some point, the "first cousin" noticed that war, was
offended, and started another religion based on offense. On and on it goes...)
>I think it's possible to get 'legalistic' about not being under the Law. I've
>been on HC lists for several years, soo I've got to read the thoughts of a
>variety of HC people. Some HC people are really reactionary.
Absulutely! Reaction is religion; redemption is Christ. Jesus was never
alienated by human weakness, and failure. I know, because "He first loved me."
I read the mail too, I even go to some of the meetings of those who write it,
and we don't need another movement based on alienation.
>The 'IC' has programs, and so they think programs are bad.
And they are right.
>The IC is organized, and so they say organization is bad.
And they are right. Jesus came that we might have life, not programs and
orgainzation. Why not take a look at the old creation to ge an idea of how God
>The 'IC' has salaried ministers,
Yes it does.
>so some HC people even believe that evangelists should not be supported.
Probably because they would prefer to be stage center thamselves.
>I even read a post from someone who didn't want to go to a wedding because,
>for him, going into a church building was like going into an idols temple.
Clearly someone who is weak in the faith.
>This type of thinking can lead to a 'touch not, taste not' mentality.
Actually, "this type of thing" is born out of a "touch not, taste not
mentality." Speaking of which you mentioned in one of your previous responses,
the matter of head covering, our "cousins" have supplied us with some marvelous
graphics in this connection. In the beginning Gon made us male and female in
his image. Religion's reponse is to throw a sheet over the female rather than
seeing in her attractiveness a picture and reminder of what He is after in us.
There is a lot of testosterone generated faith and practice out there.
>I don't see any reason to think that saying set prayers or having set prayer
>times is putting oneself under the Law.
It all depends on what Jesus happens to be doing at the time, in the life of
that believer. If Jesus isn't doing it, then they are carrying on with another
husband, Romasn 7:4
>In fact, it is likely that some early Christians did have set prayer times and
I think some of them were in enough trouble so that they were in constant
>I agree that we need a new creation. That doesn't preclude set prayer times
>or other disciplines.
I never said that it did, only that the source of our customs, habits,
practices, and everything else, for that matter is very important. Let's stop
getting these things from hanging around the wrong tree, the one that only
Yours in Christ,
------- <><><> -------
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:04:53 +0200
Subject: [ntcp] A todos
1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you
judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
be measured to you.
3Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother&Mac226;s eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your
brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye,&Mac226; when all the time
there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank
out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck
from your brother&Mac226;s eye.
Some time ago,I presented a group of Christian Leaders with an oil
painting. It portrayed two christian brothers, one of them was
carefully taking the speck out of his brothers eye, unfortunately
whilst he was doing it he was battering that same brother to death with
the plank in his own eye. I am the first to defend mature debate over
theological themes, but sometimes I get the idea that we're trying to
preach each other to death with the same doctrine. Having read all that
has been writen in the law -v- grace discussion under "discipling
cousins", I want to say "where's the beef?" I agree with you all. I
totally reject religion and totally submit to the grace of God in all
things. But I also accept the paradox that the law is there as God's
schoolmaster to do us good. What is really sad is if in defending one
thing that is important to us, we trash the equally strongly held views
of others. The brethren should respect one another.
Jesus bids me shine with a pure clear light,
Like a tiny candle burning in the night,
He looks down from heaven
To see us shine
You in your small corner
And I in (Mine)IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM!
------- <><><> -------
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:02:28 -0700
Subject: Re: [ntcp] A todos
>1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you
>judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
>be measured to you.
>3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
>no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your
>brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time
>there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank
>out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck
>from your brother's eye.
>Some time ago,I presented a group of Christian Leaders with an oil
>painting. It portrayed two christian brothers, one of them was
>carefully taking the speck out of his brothers eye, unfortunately
>whilst he was doing it he was battering that same brother to death with
>the plank in his own eye. I am the first to defend mature debate over
>theological themes, but sometimes I get the idea that we're trying to
>preach each other to death with the same doctrine. Having read all that
>has been writen in the law -v- grace discussion under "discipling
>cousins", I want to say "where's the beef?" I agree with you all. I
>totally reject religion and totally submit to the grace of God in all
>things. But I also accept the paradox that the law is there as God's
>schoolmaster to do us good. what is really sad is if in defending one
>thing that is important to us, we trash the equally strongly held views
>of others. The brethren should respect one another.
In deed, "Where's the beef?" If we cannot speak the truth in love here,
then where can it be spoken? I for one do not see our discussion being
directed at each other so much as at some long standing problems in
connection with "church". I think you know that there are as many more
passages on judging that could be quoted in defense of our discussion,
as you have quoted against it.
The fact is that there is so much posturing and show business going on
in the Name of the Lord, that it has been very difficult for "our
cousins" to see the reality, to say nothing of the rest of the world.
Fraud is never good, but when it is practiced in the Name of The Lord,
its consequences are deadly. (Again, I'm not speaking of those on this
list who or involved in this discussion. I am making observations about
religion in general, and false religion in the Name of Christ in
Yours in Christ,
------- <><><> -------
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:38:35 +0200
Subject: Re: [ntcp] A todos
Whilst I fully accept your points, I reiterate that motes are best
left alone until we have dealt with our planks.
A few months ago here, we had a visit form a well known,
razamataz, Healing and Deliverance, tele-evangelist type. The local
pastors (for the most past ic's), specifically asked me to attend. When
I arrived I was ushered to a seat on the platform, which I politely
refused, prefering to sit at the back where I could see what was
happening. I was appalled, as a psychologist I have rarely seen such
blatant manipulation of the masses. it took them 20 minutes to take the
offering, using every trick in the book. The preaching was non
existant, and the "healings" unconvincing. One woman who testified to
healing on the Friday night,and had her pictures in the local papers,
was in my office on the tuesday night, saying that the "healing" hadn't
worked and could I pray with her. At the end there was much selling of
books, tapes etc. It was aufull. BUT!!! God did use this mess. Several
were saved, one was added to my church. When my fellow pastors asked
for my comments, I made some constructive comments about how the
meeting could have been more apt to a spanish situation, with less
razamataz etc. butI did not rubbish the minister or his style, "BY ALL
MEANS TO WIN SOME" seems reasonable to me.None of my fellow ministers
here will know my gut feelings about "the show". But I know this, my
quiet uncritical approach, together with the respect that others have
for my point of view, will mean that this man will never be invited
again, or if he is, things will be very different. I hope that in this
I am following the Jesus way.
By the way, before I calmed down I was not adverse to white suited
razamataz. Perhaps I've just got older and wiser.....
Keith (P.S. Havn't got a whit suit anymore. Or ties come to that)
End of New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V1 #80