New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

 

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches

 


New Testament Church Proliferation Digest Monday, January 7 2002 Vol 02 : 005
Re: [NTCP] Mentoring
Re: [NTCP] Mentoring
[NTCP] New Testament Church Proliferation Efforts
[NTCP] Urgent Prayer Request
[NTCP]
Re: [NTCP] How should the house church relate to the institutional church ?

Re: [NTCP] Upon what do we base our UNITY?
Re: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?
RE: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?
Re: [NTCP] Mentoring
Re: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?
Re: RE: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:42:55 -0500
From: David Anderson
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring

>One of the first things that has to be done is to minister deliverance from
>hurts and bitterness from past experience with earthly fathers. I understand
>why Paul said we dont have many fathers, it is the same today as it was back
>then. Satan is busy destroying the family unit and emasculating men. women are
>now taking on the role of fathers in the home because men in the natural are
>not fathered.
>
>
>David Jaggernauth

Hi all,

True but sad, David. Confessing Christians seem to be just as guilty of these
charges as any one else. May God help us.

Mal. 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the
heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a
curse.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to
turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the
wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

BTW, Mike S, I much appreciate your judgments. Do these passages above, in
their natural context, refer specifically to domestic matters or was this a
generational thing. Great emphasis today is put on the former view. Much
thanks, my brother.

David Anderson
Bristol, TN


------- <><><> -------


Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:16:19 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring

castillofuerte(--AT--)airtel.net wrote:

>My beef with mentoring as I have seen it (mainly through my mad friend here),
>is that many of those in the "mentoring movement" that I have seen, haven't
>got their own act together yet and are passing on a flawed model. Some go out
>seeking "spiritual children", to pass on thier own oddball ideas.

Dear Keith,

Something else struck me in connection with leading disciples away after
ourselves.

In order to avoid doing that, we need to maintain contact with the Body of
Christ such as it presently exists.

In looking at this problem it is perhaps helpful to think of the Church in one
or the other of two forms, the Church scattered, or the Church gathered. It is
difficult to establish or maintain contact with the Church scattered, the
alternative then is to try to establish or maintain contact with the Church
gathered in its present gatherings.

This is not to suggest that there is no room for the household dimension of our
gathered inheritence in Christ, but to set up house meetings, either as a
supernatural expressions of our spiritual parenthood, or for any other reason,
and do so with out reference to the Body of Christ which may already be
gathering in the same locality, only creates more division.

Having said that, what I have found over the years, is that when we encourage
those who are ours from the Lord, to attend existing gatherings, either house
church or institutional church , their attendance tends to be very threatening
to those who are in control of those gatherings. Present leadership has a
tendency to only want a unity that it can control. If we can't control it, we
tend to make war against it.

God help us!

Yours in Christ,

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 15:56:33 -0700
From: "David Cummings"
Subject: [NTCP] New Testament Church Proliferation Efforts

God is calling His Chosen People to come home. God is rebuilding His Temple,
which is the temple of the holy spirit.

I am looking for a group of people in Israel, and abroad who have a passion for
the People of Israel,and the Jews who believe that God is calling them to
return to Israel and to also return their hearts to God. And when their hearts
are returned they can see God and see that He is the Messiah. The deliverer
from violence and wars, the deliverer of bondage from the Law,and the deliverer
of life everlasting from death.

It takes a very special person to be able to minister to the Jews.
Unconditional love is the key. The Love of Jesus. The Love of the Messiah. God
is calling......Calling His Children to come home......

David Cummings
www.thechurch.uni.cc The Primitive Christian Network


------- <><><> -------


Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:43:01 -0700
From: "David Cummings"
Subject: [NTCP] Urgent Prayer Request

A Christian Lady in the Denver Area who just recently has been very interested
in the house church concept called me tonight crying and frantic and I am a
believer in sharing each others burdens. So I pray that you might Pray for the
her family. Pray that God might use this family in the future to be a
foundation in the Denver Area. Pray also that they might be healed.

Carmen Bapple and her granddaughter Esther. Carmen has cancer, lymphoma. And
her grand-daughter was rushed to the hospital with uncontrolable seizures as a
result of a bad vegal nerve. Her family doesn't have insurance.

Please pass this along as a prayer request to your house churches.

David Cummings
www.thechurch.uni.cc The Primitive Christian Network


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:35:11 +0700
From: Link
Subject: [NTCP]

Michael Millier, on the NTCP list, is currently in Israel. He and his wife
Deborah live there and have a heart for the Jewish people.

Deborah


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:31:15 +0200
From: "Deborah"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] How
should the house church relate to the institutional church ?

Dave Jaggernauth (I just LOVE that last name!) wrote:

>The point is this, can we find a place of common ground and work from there?

That is the point, isn't it? When we focus on ecclesiology ("the study of the
Church"-- a topic which has historically yielded no hard-and-fast set of rules)
rather than on Christology (a matter whose orthodoxy was settled fairly
decisively, fairly early on), then we are prone to disintegrate as a body.
Therefore I conclude that ecclesiology should NOT be the ground from which we
seek to build or maintain our fellowship (KOINONIA). We can (and should) have
discussions on the subject-- even heated ones-- but they must not determine
whether or not we'll take communion together. Or come to each other's church
buildings/houses for worship. Or just hang out together. It is only by
majoring on the minors that we have allowed ourselves to fragment so. And it
reflects poorly on God's unity and on our testimony as Christ's one body to the
world. So let's please find our center (Christ) and keep our primary attention
fixed there. "In *him* all things hold together" (Col. 1:17, emphasis mine),
... not in our differing perceptions of how his one body should be manifested
on the earth.

Sammy ("too much in your face") Buick wrote:

>Who says division is bad. Jesus came with a sword and to bring division!
>This is biblical. Why the fear of division or the concern about it? Paul
>himself said in 1 Corinthians about believers who "left" and who "were not of
>us". Division is a present reality, and much division is found because of the
>debate over doctrine and other issues. If we valued relationship, then we
>would find a way to keep relationships alive even though we may have differing
>views on things.

Thank you for helping to illustrate my point in your Jan. 5th post, Sammy. We
still need to tone down the rhetoric in order to honestly and respectfully
communicate. Your defensive display shows that we indeed have a long way to go
in this quest for "real relationship" between what you call the institutional
church and the house church. When you use phrases like "denominational noses"
and "their four walls," then seek to defend such AD HOMINEM volleys as "my
[your] reality," well ... let's just say it detracts from the central issue(s)
in our discussion.

In answer to your question, Jesus says that division is bad in that he says
that unity is good. The two are antithetical. It is true that Jesus came to
bring division within the ranks of Israel-- an unfortunate aspect of its
judgment ... a judgment which brought tears to the Savior's eyes (Luk.
19:41-44). Are there tears in your eyes, Sam?

However, Jesus did not want the Church, purchased with his own blood, to be
divided. This is abundantly clear from what we have of his prayer in John 17.
Paul likewise took up the banner of Christian unity and sought to re-emphasize
our one-ness in Christ to the congregations under his care (eg. Rom. 16:17; 1
Cor. 11:10). Paul did reluctantly admit that divisions (Gk. HEIRESEIS--
"heresies") were necessary in order to expose who were true believers and who
were not (1 Cor. 11:18, 19). John wrote of a similar phenomenon (1 Joh. 2:19).

Is this the kind of "division" you are advocating? Please understand that the
verses to which you were alluding speak of much more than people holding
"differing views on things". The common denominator of those passages is the
issue of light vs. darkness. Vital truth vs. mortal error. Do you think that
there *should* be division between those in the house church and those in the
institutional church ? Then you need to be more consistent along the path your
house church friends you mentioned are heading, and declare that those of us
who remain in the institutional church are not true believers in Jesus. That
we are not Christians. That we are on our way to Hell. This is the only
legitiimate biblical reason for division: to manifest who is spiritually alive
and who is still dead in trespasses and sins. Are you willing to do that,
Sammy? Separate entirely from those of us in the institutional church because
(you believe) we are not saved and are propogating a false belief system? If
your answer is yes, then do it. Consistency in logic, please. If no, then
enough with this glorification of division! Since the time of the Tower of
Babel, division has been known as a symptom of divine judgment. It is neither
pretty nor desirable. It is ugly and it paints a false picture for the world
of the nature of God and of the blessings of life in the Spirit.

I had written:

>>I again refer the readers of this list to a full range of scriptural and
>>historical *evidence* (not just assertions) on the thread begun on June 25
>>2001 called "First Century Meeting Places". The evidence suggests that house
>>churches were the predominant-- but not the only-- places the church of the
>>first century met. There were times when they met in religious buildings.
>>Why can't we also allow for both?

To which Sam responded:

>Simple. I don't believe in your evidence as I see the distinctions that Paul
>went to the Jews to win them to Christ, and he used the synagogues which were
>imported from Babylon no less, to communicate with them until they kicked them
>out. He met there because he was reaching out to them. That's it. It was an
>outreach to the Jews.

Sammy, you wrote a stinging indictment about many in the institutional church .
Don't let your own words condemn you:

>>Many people whom I have shared my understanding with do not want to
examine anything that may unhinge or rattle what they believe. They have
everything neatly figured out, and anything that comes against it or contrasts
something different, well, let's just say, they do one of two things, they
avoid it and pretend it is not there, or worse, they 'demonize' it and attack
it as being 'unorthodox'! In other places they met in homes. Christianity
>is about relationship and family. It is about being restored to our Father.
>Family. Relationship. Intimacy. Why don't you see that?

I do see that, Sam. But these things can also be expressed in other settings
beside a house. Are we as natural families limited in such expressions
("Family. Relationship. Intimacy") to one kind of building (house) alone?
Then neither should God's family be.

>The Temple was never intended as the permanent form or expression of body
>life. It was temporal and temporary. We, the saints are the living stones
>within the spiritual temple of God. It is about relationship, and everyone
>participating equally and be subject to one another. It is about body life
>and expression and ministry that WILL NOT and CANNOT take place within the
>structure of religious buildings and the institutional church structures. IT
>WON'T WORK BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO WORK IN BUILDINGS!!!

What a limited view of congregational life you have! I feel compelled to
remind you that houses too are buildings. And from what I understand of body
life, it can find intimate expression in the woods (without a building, ala the
once-persecuted French Huguenots) or in a cathedral. There are optimum
settings in which members of a family may relate, but sometimes a cafe is just
such a place-- not a house. Even an amusement park is best for some family
times together. Why not in a building constructed to accomodate congregational
gatherings? Why only in a house?

Also, if the present tenses referring to the Jerusalem priestly ministry in the
book of Hebrews mean anything (and even if they don't), a permanent sanctuary,
of which the tabernacle and temple were but copies, has existed in heaven since
before the creation (Heb. 8:1, 5; 9:11). That doesn't seem to impede intimacy
between the Father and the Son. I refer the readers to my June 28 2001 post
("First-Century Meeting Places" thread) in which I provide evidence (not just
assertions) that Paul did not envision a replacement of the Jerusalem temple
with the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). Both did and will
again co-exist.

>To go and say that they used liturgy witht the Gentiles is a HUGE STRETCH!
>They wanted the Gentile converts to express body life according to their own
>culture, just as he respected the Jewish culture of those he was attempting to
>reach. Why else did they have the Jerusalem Council????

We should all try to distinguish between how we think things ought to have been
and how they actually were as recorded in the inspired record. Please remember
that Paul and Barnabas were already in gentile territory (Antioch, Syria), yet
were nevertheless performing some sort of liturgy (Gk. LEITOURGOUNTON) when
they were separated by the Holy Spirit for their appointed task (Act 13:2).
The word "LEITOURGOUNTON" (from which we derive the word "liturgy") with its
variously inflected forms at the very *least* denotes offices with prescribed
duties. They weren't just "winging it" in Antioch! "Free in the Spirit".

It is true this Greek word can be applied to both religious and secular
"ministries," but by far the root word appears in the NT within sacramental
contexts (16 occurences: 4 as aid to private individuals, once of a government
official, twice to the LORD in contexts which are not necessarily sacramental
... but could be, 9 in tabernacle/temple contexts), as you might expect. Not
to mention how it is used in the LXX (Greek OT-- 93 occurences: 6 referring to
ministering to the king, once to a prophet, once to an idol [sacramental]-- the
rest to the Lord in the tabernacle/temple). It almost always has sacramental
undertones in both testaments, and there exists no good reason why *not* to see
it the same way in Act 13:2.

The Jerusalem Council had nothing to do with liturgy-- a set order of service.
It had to do with how gentiles become members of the one people of God. This
one people of God-- focused on Jesus Christ-- had/has room for both Jews and
gentiles worshipping together in unity. As it has room for both those who meet
in houses and those who find freedom to meet in purchased buildings on
purchased property. In unity.

Michael
Jerusalem


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 08:42:10 -0500
From: "Samuel Buick"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Upon what do we base our UNITY?

Hi All:

On what do we base our UNITY?

As all have read and re-read various threads since last summer, the burning
question that needs to be addressed is "Upon what do we base our unity?"

Michael did a recent post in which he argued that we should discuss
ecclessiology but remember that we are one body, and that division is 'bad'.

Yesterday the people within our house church network had a joint gathering with
an institutional church congregation in town. I was asked to speak, and I
spoke a message on receiving prophetic revelation for the year 2002 (Prov.
29:18a "Without prophetic revelation (Heb. hazon) the people are
unrestrained"). In my discussion I spoke at one point about Paul in Acts 15-17
who had just experienced conflict and division with Barnabas and how both went
their separate ways. This division (which Michael says is 'bad')actually was
what led Paul and Silas on Paul's Second Missionary journey. The result of
this 'bad' division was good. Paul had issues with John Mark and refused to
have him go on a mission to strengthen the brethren in Cyprus (site of First
Missionary journey) and so he and Barnabas parted ways. The division between
the two was even blessed by the elders and leaders of the church at Antioch.
So, there is 'good' division, as well as 'bad' division. The distinctions can
spring up out of issues that arise, such as Paul's issues with John Mark. The
point is that I do not believe all division is 'bad' as Michael would like me
to believe.

Division is a reality of how the church has expanded throughout the ages. The
mixture of personalities and beliefs and how to apply belief and prioritize
ministries activities have all led to division, a division of what people hold
to and want to express. This can be expressed in one extreme in violent
opposition to others, such as the attack of Lutherans, Reformed, and Roman
Catholics against Anabaptists during the Reformation. This is a most regretable
aspect of division that has been a blot on the history of the church. The
division here was not as much on the essentials of doctrine,other than the
whole issue of infant baptism and believer's baptism being the obvious issue.

The bulk of the division during the Reformation between Anabaptists and the
others were issues relating to the taking of oaths, of non-resistance, of
holding things in common (Acts 4:32 ff), of state church versus free church
(separation of church and state), of freedom of conscience versus compliance to
things unconscionable. The bulk of all these dealt with who is the Body of
Christ, and who is the head of the church on the earth, and how should the Body
of Christ express itself. It was ecclessiology which brought the martyrdom of
thousands of Anabaptists. It was division gone mad!

Since the separation of church and state has evolved over the last five
centuries, much more understanding has come as to what ecclessiology is and how
diverse all the expressions of church and cummunity actually are. Division is
seen as disagreement and a recognition that others may have a different
revelation and understand on a given aspect of church life and ministry. It
has softened considerably in many areas over the last few decades in
particular. A large part of that has been due to the mediation between various
expressions of Christianity to attempt to understand what UNITES us and DIVIDES
us.

For me a given assumption is the simplest form of a creed, the Apostle's Creed,
commonly unites most Christians, regardless of affiliation and expression. It
is considered one of the oldest statements of faith, or creedal statements of
the Church.

The other Creeds, the Athanasian Creed and the Nicean Creed, they do not have
as wide agreement or ascent throughout the world of Christendom.

Our UNITY in a set of beliefs is not the unity Jesus was speaking about. There
was a presumption of understanding on beliefs that FLOWED from the relationship
they each had in the Father through Christ. Does that mean doctrinal purity is
not important? No, it simply means that it flows from the RELATIONSHIP we have
with the Father.

According to John 17, our unity is in the Father, and this UNITY is not a
theological one, but a RELATIONAL one, just as Jesus is one with the Father,
and as the head of the Body, we too are one with the Father, just as He is. Our
UNITY then, should be a relational one that takes the road of humility and
understanding in order to dialogue about what belief and agreement there is.
Our doctrine may enhance the depth of relationship, and it most certainly
stifle it as well. We need to realize that UNITY in the Father is the
foundation upon which our understanding of who we are relationally in the Son,
and our understanding of what the Kingdom is and our role in it, and the fabric
of salvation, as well as the essence of the EKKLESIA all flow from that
relationship. The hardest thing, and this includes me is to not take offence
at those who undermine or ridicule what I believe and practice. Most of the
ridicule comes from those who will not even "walk a mile in my moccasins". I
already know and understand where they walk and why. I only wish that they
would attempt to gain a degree of understanding.

The gathering we were a part of yesterday was tremendous. It reinforced my
understanding of the relational unity I have with other believers in the
Father. It reinforced our understanding of the city or regional church and
that we who uphold and exalt Christ, and are born again by grace through faith,
we are one in the Father. Our unity is based on relationship, and the
doctrines we hold flow from that and enhance our unity.

We were INVITED, and this is a first for us, by an institutional church ,
because the pastor of the institutional church and I go a long way back
RELATIONALLY. We have been friends for almost 20 years. We have both
struggled ministry wise within the institutional church structure. Both of us
were part of the same credentialling organization before I transferred mine to
a traditional Pentecostal denomination which supports house church. Both of us
were part of the Vineyard movement, and both of us were part of the renewal
that broke out through the 'Toronto Blessing' ( we only live 40 minutes from
there). This brother has come to our house church for refreshing and renewal
and to be built up and encouraged and strengthened. He has enjoyed much joy and
liberty in the Holy Spirit, and as such he asked us as a fellowship to come and
join with their fellowship and usher in the New Year together.

He asked me to share about house church and the vision God has given us, and
asked that we pray for their fellowship to experience the love and joy we have
and the freedom we have in body life and ministry.

We gathered in the community centre where they meet and gather. It was a 'pot
blessing' meal and fellowship time as well. Their worship team led us in some
worship which was the 'way' they 'did' worship and we jumped right in with
them. It was great! Then the pastor introduced me and asked me to simply go
with what I sensed the Spirit was saying. We took the chairs and made one huge
inverted 'U' shape and I sat among them and walked amongst them and interacted
with them in my discussion on vision/prophetic revelation. They dialogued back
and participated with us. It was interactive and you could feel the freedom
and liberty coming to many in expressing what they thought and felt. Several
people asked to share a prophetic word, and they did. Some shared an insight
they had just had that "piggy-backed" on the prophetic word.

My wife asked a gentleman to help her set up a large table in the middle of the
inverted 'U' and there she placed the bread and the juice. She sensed to put
the juice in a bowl, so that we could physically partake in faith in the blood
of Christ by placing our cups in the bowl and taking out that which we needed.
It was a very powerful picture and it blessed and stirred many to both joy and
tears. People took the bread and cup and went to others from the other
fellowship and broke bread and drank the cup together.

We put one our 'worship tape' ( which is a tape of worship with song sheets we
prepare for our large weekly house church gathering ), and I invited everyone
to mill around and minister and share with one another. It was truly
remarkable what happened.

Worship broke out! Banners and streamers were everywhere! The tamborines and
the smacking of sticks could be heard! There was a united rhythym came
together! The singing and joy was awesome and people embraced each other,
dancing and jumping, some falling on their faces before the Lord! The worship
was intense and very precious.

Some of our people took anointing oil and went to others from the other
fellowship and prayed for them and ministered to them, and all of a sudden,
these people who had not known one another, they were weeping and laughing
together and they were embracing each other. Then, these same people went to
others and ministered to others in the same way. People were slain in the
Spirit and many were moved to joy and testified to one another of the grace of
God.

Many from the institutional church spoke out how the message that was shared
was exactly what was needed for them at this time! They also shared how they
had not experience such joy and freedom, and a few said they had not known this
freedom since they were first saved! They wanted the joy and freedom to
continue. They also confessed that they needed to open up body ministry in
their gatherings, and that how we had arranged the setting and how the Lord led
the meeting was a demonstration to them that they could have a greater degree
of intimacy and interaction than they had thought possible. Their paradigm box
had been broken! They also confessed that they needed to have house
fellowships, if they could not have house church, then they wanted to get as
close to it as possible. This was a demonstration to all of us of our UNITY IN
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON IN OUR CITY.

What struck me was that it was our relationship with several of the couples
from the institutional church that opened the door for a greater relationship.
We had prayed for this particular institutional church and we had supported
other meetings that they had organized. We had demonstrated our unity with
them by supporting those things which we had in common. Both our fellowships
want greater intimacy. Both of our fellowships want revival and pray for the
church in the city. Both of our fellowships desire to honour and prefer one
another. Perhaps even greater here, is that we recognize the stamp of God upon
each of our fellowships. We do not question each other's validity. They
recognize our desire to move in what the Lord is doing in the house church, and
we recognize in them, the good there is in the institutional church and that
this institutional church is willing to stretch their wineskin, because they
want more of God and body life in their gatherings.

That kind of unity and understanding will go a long way to remove obstacles to
greater unity and fellowship. Both this institutional church and ourselves
had bad experiences with the wider ministerial. The ministerial had unity
based on events and outreaches and not in relationship. The pastor and people
of this institutional church took the time to develop relationship with us and
allowed us to minister to their spiritual needs, and in turn they saw an
opportunity to expose their people to a different expression of body life and
ministry. All in all it is my fervent hope that as we take time to develop
relationships, these in turn will open opportunities to be a blessing to one
another, where we recognize our uniqueness and differences but we hold unto our
UNITY and ONENESS with the Father in deep intimate relationship as our
foundation for unity in the church in our city.

So, on what do you base your UNITY?

Thanks,

Sammy Buick


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:05:53 EST
From: AWillia486
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?

In a message dated 1/3/02 4:44:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jferris154(--AT--)mac.com writes:

>The trouble is, Spiritual fathering is much more costly than spiritual
>mentoring. "...

I have a question for you Jay. What do you see as the difference between
mentoring and fathering? I am pastoring a new church that is all home groups
and working on this idea of "spiritual fathering and mothering". Appreciate
your thoughts.

Fred


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:30:51 -0400
From: "vanessadd"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?

Does this apply to mothering, too? I certainly don't feel like a mentor, but
like a mother. And I also have that feeling of 'death in me'.

Vanessa


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:23:55
From: "David Jaggernauth"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring

Jay wrote: Something else struck me in connection with leading disciples away
after ourselves.

In order to avoid doing that, we need to maintain contact with the Body of
Christ such as it presently exists. I came out of an experience that
illustrates the above point.

My previous pastor likes to call himself the father of "his" Church. His
doctrines went to far off Christ that the people in that congregation cannot
reason or discern for themselves. They only believe what he says and if anyone
disaggrees they must must be deceived by the devil.

His teaching and philosophy has put him in a position over the lives of the
people where he is looked upon as their source for everything instead of Jesus.
I sat in a meeting with the leadership before I left and when I raised a
doctrinal issue that was being taught he denied teaching it and told me I was a
liar. When he asked the leaders whether he had taught this they all denied that
he did in front of him. Afterwards, in private contact with one of them they
admitted that he did teach it and tried to support the teaching even though it
couldnt be supported by scripture ( he taught them that they couldnt access
their spiritual inheritance except through him ). This is exactly what happens
in cults, the ability to think and reason for oneself is taken away.

Insularity is a dangerous thing and one of the reasons why networking and
interfacing with others is so important.

David Jaggernauth


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:17:28 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?

Yes!! Vanessa, it does!

In Christ we have come to the completion of what gender is all about. In Him
there is neither male nor female, because He, and our relationship with Him is
the point of everything, including male and female. There is a desperae need
in the Body of Christ for spiritual mothers. And I encourage you to allow the
Lord to use you in this way. It is all his doing. He is The Lord of
relationship. Spiritual mothers are part of His promise, Mark 10:29-30

Our great hope is that the dying is "... but a light and momentary affliction,
not to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 19:28:07 +0100
From:
Subject: Re: RE: [NTCP] Mentoring - how biblical is it?

Vanessa, you raise an interesting point. The NT certainly encourages older
women to teach the younger. This I'm sure could be in a mothering role. But
when you are in a pastoral situation I think that there is a problem, which is
social as well as spiritual. Could you mother a potential male leader? Or for
that matter could I father a potential female leader? I think that it would not
be advisable, as the relationship is (or should be)quite intimate.

So what happens when someone from the opposite sex comes along? Simple Elaine
(my wife) and I parent them together. Once, a young woman asked to come closer
to our ministry to learn from us, we agreed and she did so, but very quickly we
realized that she had another agenda, she would seek to be with me when Elaine
wasn't there and all sorts of other things. She told her sister that we were
having an affair (needless to say this was not true). I went on in blind
ignorance, but Elaine had her antenas quivering.

Elaine spoke to me, and together we confronted her. She denyed everything,
saying that it was just a misunderstanding. Later she told her sister that I
was going to leave my wife to marry her! At that point we confronted her again
(this time with an elder from her church and her sister present), and told her
that we didn't feel that it was helpfull for us to continue seeing her. Her
elder suggested that she have some sessions with he and his wife, but she
refused and marched off to an institutional church . We have since learned that
she started a real affair with an elder from that church, who divorced his wife
and married her. WARNING: PARENTING CAN BE PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR HEALTH,
MARRIAGE, REPUTATION AND A LOT MORE!!!


End of New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V2 #5< Previous Digest Next Digest >



house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions