New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

 

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches

 


New Testament Church Proliferation Digest Saturday, February 9 2002 Vol 02 : 034
[NTCP] Examining the evidence. Where do you start?
Re: [NTCP] church planter Trinidad
Re: [NTCP] Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)
[NTCP] Re: Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)
[NTCP] Getting kicked out of the house (was: church planter Trinidad)
Re: [NTCP] helping businesses develop in third world
Re: [NTCP] Re: Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)
RE: [NTCP] RE: house church: Trinidad
Re: [NTCP] helping businesses develop in third world

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:47:10 -0500
From: David Anderson
Subject: [NTCP] Examining the evidence. Where do you start?

Winter greetings to all readers,

Most conversations about church structure (or unstructure) seem to begin and
focus in what are erroneously called the Pastoral Epistles.

A better beginning might be the Gospels, imo. It is there that we observe men's
insatiable cravings for personal elevation and hierarchy:

Mark 10:37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right
hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

Mark 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among
themselves, who should be the greatest.

Matt. 20:21 She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one
on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

And it is there in the Gospels that we see our Lord's great countermeasures:

Mark 10:42 Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Matt. 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and
all ye are brethren.

David Anderson

PS: If God is your co-pilot, quickly change seats.


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


Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:31:09 EST
From: JAMESRUTZ
Subject: Re: [NTCP] church planter Trinidad

David J:

Yippeee!! I'm with you!....

Jim Rutz


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


Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:43:55 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)

>Link Hudson wrote:
>
>Dear brother Jay,
>
Continued from 2/5/02

Dear Link,

I hope you found the first part responsive to what you wrote.

Actually, just after sending the last part, I was reminded of a recent
encounter with a local church pastor. My wife and I were visting for the first
time. On the way out the door, he asked me if I was a pastor. I responded by
saying; We really don't have time for me to answer this question, but a mutual
friend knows you, and he also knows me. he could tell you who I am much easier
than I could." The pastor immediately received that suggestion. made the call,
and that took care of his question very quickly. I suppose, I could make the
same suggestion in response ot your question. Nate is on this list. He could
tell you who I am much easier than I could, that is, if he is willing to be
implicated. ( a little more weak humor.)

>I once was went to meetings of a church that met in a home (which seemed to
>want to become an 'institutional church ')

If only we could just be who we are in Him rather than trying to become
something else, or gaining an identity some other way. A certain garden, and
woman comes to mind.

>where there was a woman who continually taught in allegories. Her husband was
>considered to be 'the pastor,' and after a while, it was clear that she saw
>herself as the co-pastor. It was hard to know what she was talking about
>sometimes. Whenever she taught, just about everything she taught was based on
>an allegorical interpretation. When thinking about her messages, I realized
>the only way I could believe her message was if I believed that she had some
>sort of prophetic message that she had got, using the Bible was a springboard,
>because the Bible passages she used didn't support what she was teaching. If
>she were just coming up with allegorical interpretations based on her own
>reasoning,then that was very dangerous.

Even literal interpretation based on our own reasoning is dangerous, especially
when held independent of the Spirit of God.

>This woman did seem to get some words from the Lord in 'ministry time' prayer
>time sometimes. She got a word for me one time which was encouraging. On some
>other occasions, I asked her when she was praying if she got anything for me.
>Maybe that was immature, but I don't think it was a sin.

I don't think so either: In November, after receiving a very powerful and
encouraging prophetic word, I was appraoched by a woman I had never met before.
It was at the same conference already mentioned, where Howard Morgan spoke.
About a thousand people were present. She came through the crowd, and said that
she had a word from the Lord for me. I was ready to listen. She elaborated on
the same word that I had already received from a prophet the week before.
Again, it was powerful and very confirming.

>Later, she called me up and tried to blame me for some problems my sister was
>going through. She considered my sister to be 'in her sheep pen.' She referred
>me to some verse in Isaiah which was about Israelites offering sacrifices to
>pagan gods on high places and tried to use that in some allegorical way to
>condemn me because I had asked if she had gotten a prophetic word for me. She
>said I shouldn't receive any prophetic word. She also said an extreme version
>of a false Charismatic teaching on prophecy, "If it's not confirmation, it's
>junk." I disagreed with her, being somewhat annoyed with her dumping
>condemnation all over me using allegorical and esoteric means and no
>substantial evidence. If she'd showed me where I'd sinned in some way, I would
>have been willing to hear it.

>I had only visited that church from time to time. My brother was attending
>just about all the time. Eventually, he and sev eral other people who sensed
>that something was just 'not right' left in a mass exodus (well, there were
>only a couple dozen there.)

Well, it's an interesting, story, but I don't think particularly helpful for
our present discussion. I think that there is a lot more latitude in
interpretation when making a particular application than when making a general
application.

>Jesus did use parables. But his parables were logical.

His parables may have been logical, but by His own explanation they were
designed to confound the religious.

>When He used the OT, I can't think of a single time he got really 'out there'
>in allegory.

I think, "out there", is your spin on what I've done. That said, I can think of
occasions when Jesus did use allegory, John the Baptist, for instance, "if you
can receive it", cursing fig trees, "My time has not yet come", his allegorical
response to His mother, etc.

>Where did the heavy use of allegory come from? Origin seemed to think that
>there were different levels of interpreting scripture, and the most noble one
>was allegorical.

The Spirit searches all things. The Word of God is unsearchable in its depth of
meaning. It is a new book every time we go through it, if we are not just
turning the pages and reading the ink. Time, history, and our own experience,
open our understanding of what has been written. It is not the hearers or even
the readers who understand it, but the doers, and since no one of us can do it
all, our understandings are bound to be in part, and more than likely,
different parts. It is love that puts the parts together by the cross. His
cross, and our crosses.

>Augustine seemed to think that allegorical interpretation was a higher means
>of interpreting. I read something in Augustine's confessions (which I've only
>glanced at actually) which I consider to be a major misinterpretation of
>scripture common to this day.
>
>Augustine said that before a certain point he'd only heard the scriptures
>taught in a literal manner (I'm very loosely paraphrasing/explaining here.)
>But he came to be interested in the scriptures when a certain bishop (Ambrose
>maybe?) taught them allegory, teaching the spirit of the scriptures, and not
>the letter.
>
>Paul wrote in II Corinthians that the letter of the law killeth, but the
>Spirit giveth life.
>
>This is what I think one of the major misinterpretations of history is: the
>idea that Paul was talking about the 'spirit of the law.' I think Paul was
>contrasting the letter of the law with the Spirit of life, not the letter of
>the law wi th the spirit of the law.

Behind the law, was life. The law could not impart life, but it could protect
life, and bring us to life. It is that "Spirit of life", which I believe is
being spoken of here. I may have something in my heart, but words often fail to
adequately convey what I really mean, so I say it one way, and then I say it
again beginning with, "In other words..." I believe that this is the thrust of
Hebrews 1:1. God had already spoken, then he said it again in other words in
the Person of His Son. God continues to express His heart to us in The Person
of His Son, who is now resident in our hearts, and speaking to us by the Holy
Spirit. Jesus keeps speaking, but we often don't listen. It was written: "stone
her", but Jesus put a little different spin on what was in The Heart of God,
"... if we can receive it."

>I've heard that in California law, judges are supposed to interpret the
>'spirit of the law' and not just the letter. That is, they are to determine
>the underlying intent of a law, and not just what it actually says.
>
>But I believe that this use of 'spirit of the law' doesn't work when it comes
>to the scriptures.
>
"A spiritual man makes judgements about all sorts of things, but himself is not
judged of any man." I believe it does work, when the approach is applied by the
spiritual man.

>Let us think about some of Paul's understanding of the Law versus the spirit.
>Take a look at Romans 7. In Romans 7, Paul says that when the commandment
>came, sin came to life and he died. Though the law was holy, just, and good,
>sin took advantage of the commandment and by it, killed him. Here we see that
>because of sin, when the commandment came Paul died. So this is a connection
>between death and the Law. Paul also wrote of the law of sin and death in his
>members in this chapter.
>
>In the next chapter, Paul writes that the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
>set him free from the law of sin and death. The passage continues on to talk
>about the Spirit of adoption, and the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ from
>the dead dwelling in us.
>
>We should understand, 'the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life' in light
>of Paul's other writings. Under the law, Paul was dead. But by faith in
>Christ, he was alive through the Spirit!
>
"Under the law", we are always and everywhere dead. That's the whole idea.
That's the message of the cross. But the message of the cross is useless
without the REVELATION of the cross.

>The story of the giving of the Law shows that soon after the Law was given,
>3,000 Israelites died. Did you know that the day of Pentecost was the
>anniversary of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai? On the day of Pentecost,
>the Spirit came, and 3,000 people found new life.
>
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Romas 11:33

>The letter of the Law kills, but the Spirit gives life.

>It is not the 'Spirit of the Law' that gives life, but rather the Spirit of
>Him that raised up Christ from the dead. I strongly believe that Paul is not
>talking about the 'spirit of the law' in the sense of an allegorical way of
>interpretation the Law, but rather of the Spirit of Christ.

The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit behind the law. This is the revelation that
drives us to embrace the cross. Our heavenly Father wants to take us to a place
where our old man just cannot go. In the economy or jurisprudence of God, it
would be illegal for our old man to remain at the wedding feast. Our old man is
just not properly attired, nor can he be. We must be partakers of God's divine
nature in order to go there. As Gene Edwards would say, we are the wrong
species. But, "if any man be in Christ he is a new...."

>Men under the law were under sin.

Actually sin was reigning even though it had not yet been reskoned as such
before the law, but the addition of the law put sin into overdrive.

>The Law commanded them not to sin, but they felt compelled to do so. These
>people were under the law. But believers are not under the Law. We are
>empowered by the Spirit to please God.

I think rather that The Spirit conforms us to the Pleasing One.

>So if one takes this verse from II Corinthians and uses it as an excuse for
>disagreeing with a more straightforward reading of the Old Testament, imo,
>they are misusing scripture.

Again, your "straightforward" assesment begs the question. The Pharisees
thought that they were very straight forward. Actually, before his conversion,
so did Paul, and as a result, even he almost missed Jesus.

>I'm not discounting all allegory. There are plenty of allegories in the
>scriptures. But there are also plenty of examples of godly prophets and
>apostles using the scriptures in a very plain sense- maybe not the same way as
>many modern Protestant literalists, but in a rather straightforward manner
>none-the-less.

Perhaps only the allegory about which you have not yet received any personal
revelation. Perhaps that's alright for you, but care needs to be taken not to
dismiss what God might be revealing to and through others. Testing everything
doesn't mean the summary dismissal of alligorical interpretation just because
there is no neon sign to that effect on a given passage. Nor does an
alligorical understanding, cancel literal truth. When you come right down to
it, the old creation is an allegory of a reality which is only found in Christ.
It is possible to be so earth bound in our thinking, that we forget that the
created things are only a shadow of the spiritual reality of God. Old creation
lambs are allegories of the real lamb who is Jesus. Jesus is the literal Lamb.

>God man speak through allegories. But a lot of allegorical interpretations
>require us to believe that the teacher received a revelation about what
>represents what. I can't know that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil
>represents those who pray ritual prayers based solely on the scriptures alone.
>I have to believe that the one teaching received a revelation from God in
>order to believe that interpretation.

We cannot believe anything based on the written Word alone, because our
understanding of it must be sourced in The Spirit.

>Using guesswork to arrive at allegorical interpretations of the scriptures,
>and teaching those things allegorically can lead to flakiness, and can be
>downright dangerous--especially if these interpretations are used as an excuse
>to look down on other segments of the body of Christ.

Present company excepted, of course. If you believe that I am only guessing, so
be it, but I don't think so. The present condition of the church looks more
like the wrong guess to me. Is Christ divided? I don't think so.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


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


Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:35:24 -0500
From: forwarded
Subject: [NTCP] Re: Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)

From: Link Hudson

Link in response to Jay,

I don't quite get your response to this quote.

I had asked,

>>Do you claim to be prophetically inspired in your allegorical interpretations?

Jay responded,

>I believe that Jesus, even The Jesus of Nazerath, revealed in the written Word
>is our example. He was very sparing with making claims about who He was, even
>noting that those who make such claims on their own behalf are not true
>witnesses. I have been asked many time who I was. It was always asked after I
>had said something which was particularly disturbing. My answer now is the
>same as on those occasions. I can not communicate anything of value to you
>based on who I say that I am. That is not my business, it is between you and
>The Lord.

I don't get your answer. I didn't ask, 'Who do you think you are?' I asked if
you felt you were prophetically inspired in your allegorical interpretations. I
could see how you could respond as you did if you considered yourself to be a
prophet, but didn't want to say that. But that is not what I was asking.

Even if someone is a prophet, that doesn't mean everything he says or thinks is
inspired. David asked Nathan or Gad, one of his prophet-counsellors, if he
should build a temple. The prophet told him to go ahead, the Lord was with him.
But later, the prophet received the word of the Lord on the matter, and shared
it with David. David was not to build a temple.

The prophet was right that the Lord was with David, but I believe he just gave
his own advice. No one stoned him. He didn't say, "The Lord says, 'Build the
temple.'" He gave his own advice.

I don't consider Moses' grocery list to have been inspired. Prophets could say
non-inspired things.

[Moses' grocery list: manna, manna, more manna.]

I wouldn't consider all a prophet's interpretations of scripture to necessarily
be inspired.

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. The point is, I didn't ask you who you
were. I just want to know if you consider your allegorical interpretations to
be inspired, or if you consider certain of them to be inspired. Or, is this
just the way you understand scripture? Some people look at scripture and read
in a more literal manner, and get an understanding of the text. Sometimes, they
might get a clear 'prophetic' message to share from a literal understanding. At
other times, they study and learn in a more mundane manner. I could see how the
same thing could apply to allegorical interpretation.

My reason for asking you was that some of your allegorical interpretations
would basically have to be judged as prophecies--if you were to claim them as
such, because there is no obvious logical reason to accept them. I mean, just
as an example, if ritual prayer were said to be analogous to the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil, there would be no reason for me to accept this
correlation unless I believed it were a revelation from God. But if this
correlation were just someone's opinion, why should I accept it?

I'm not saying all of your allegories are like that. Some, I have no problem
with. But others just seem rather subjective to me.

People can misunderstand scripture using more literal or traditional
hermenutical approaches without the Spirit of God. The Old Testament was
actually given to a nation which did not have access to the Spirit like we have
today. Apparently God expected the Israelites to use the minds He had given
them to some extent, at least, to understand the Law He had given. They could
not have had the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law if they were not able
to understand it to some extent with their unredeemed minds.

Btw, I'm not against all allegorical interpretation. Some of it may be from the
Lord. And I can see some in the scriptures. Stephen's Messianic sermon at his
martyrdom was based on the idea that Moses was a type of Christ. There is a lot
of allegory in the Bible. But allegorical interpretations can be very
subjective.

If someone makes a very allegorical interpretation, expecting me to believe
that one thing (ritual prayer, modern bishops, etc.) is representing by
something in scripture, without any real reason for me to accept the
correlation, the only reason I would consider such an interpretation is if I
thought it might be from the Lord. If the allegory is a prophecy which uses
scripture as a 'springboard' then it should be weighed as any other prophecy.
But if it is just a subjective allegory without any concrete support from
scripture, and not a prophecy, why should I believe it?

Link


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


Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:38:05 -0500
From: forwarded
Subject: [NTCP] Getting kicked out of the house (was: church planter Trinidad)

From: Link Hudson

David J. raised an interesting, pertinent topic I'd like to discuss

>The lady we saw was literally transformed her face was very full of joy, and
she is really excited about all this. She is a little worried about the
repercussions from her family but we are there with her and will see her
established in the faith. It is quite normal here that when hindus get saved
they are ostracised and victimised by their family.
>I have a friend who, when he got saved, was put out of the house by his
>father. He slept in a cane field, he was still a young boy at the time.

Subject: Re: [NTCP] helping businesses develop in third world

Hi Link and List:

>
Subject: [NTCP] Getting kicked out of the house (was: church planter Trinidad)
>Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:38:05 -0500
>
>
From: Link Hudson The economy is bad around here. I hear of some m's who come
>here and teach new converts how to make furniture and handicrafts, and then
>try to find a market for the goods.

There is a Christian businessman in our area who sells and manufactures
furniture. He was very prosperous inheriting his father's business. The father
was a Christian and as such tried to help many in the community. He had over
125 on payroll. His son, once he was educated was given the business to run.
This son, did not like the high wages he paid out to his employees and sought
ways to make more money with few workers. Along came the Free Trade deal in
North America. This again gave opportunities for his business and he developed
markets in the US market. The employees were happy for a time. Most of his
employees were Christians from around the community. This lasted a few more
years. In the mid 1990's this son took a trip to the Phillipines. He saw the
hand crafted furnishings and the hard work put out by people who did not make a
good living. He set up and export business with various villages in the
Phillipines and started to import their furniture. He paid the Phillipinos
double what they got on their market. Back home here in Canada he began to
restructure his business. He manufactured less and less of his own furnishings
and imported more and more. Before long, the Canadian operation became a
warehousing and distribution centre to North America. Less than a decade into
this thing and he no longer employs anyone to manufacture furniture. His
previous staff of over 125 is down to just over 40.

Many Christians were hurt by the son's practices. Many lost jobs. Many are
resentful. Did this Canadian employer, a Christian one at that, owe anything
to those whom he employed?

On the other hand, we have in our community the Canadian HQ for Ten Thousand
Villages, a Mennonite run ministry, that seeks to help others in the third
world by buying, importing and reselling in the Canadian marketplace furniture
from these countries. That has always been their goal and ministry to help
others in the developing world develop self-sustaining work to help themselves.
They have grown and prospered from doing this as a ministry. They are always
looking for more opportunities to help others in the the developing world.

Quite a contrast. Same type of thing going on, but the motives completely
different!

Blessings,

Sammy
>There is a lot of room for more ministries like that around here. I met a
>member of the aforementioned 'cousin' people-group who was teaching about five
>young believers, some of whom had been kicked out of their homes, to make
>rattan baskets and other products. He was selling from a little stand in a
>low-end mall. I was hoping to help him export, but I didn't have the
>knowledge.
>
>A great helps ministry, and a decent business, would be for someone who knew
>about furniture or handicrafts to go behind church planters and set up cottage
>industries. Quality control would be the big challenge here. He'd have to know
>the business. He could network with church planters, go in and set up shop
>whenever a new church plant got started and a few young men or women without
>jobs got kicked out.
>
>Any comments on this?
>
>Link Hudson

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


Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:07:30 -0800
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Re: Allegorical interpretation (was: Confronting the evidence)

>Link Hudson wrote:
>
>I don't quite get your response to this quote.
>
>I had asked,
>
>>>Do you claim to be prophetically inspired in your allegorical
>>>interpretations?
>>>
>I didn't ask you who you were. I just want to know if you consider your
>allegorical interpretations to be inspired, or if you consider certain of them
>to be inspired.

For me this is a strange question. Seems like the question looks like an answer
something like, "Some of my interpretation is inspired, and some of it is in
the flesh." I don't feel the need to have to explain every verse of Scripture,
so there in no need for me to interpret in the flesh.

>Or, is this just the way you understand scripture? Some people look at
>scripture and read in a more literal manner, and get an understanding of the
>text.

My default mode is to take the Scripture at face value. As I walk it out in
that light, which is to say, having a rough idea of what The Lord is after, I
find that in the doing of it, comes understanding. The understanding gained in
the doing of it is generally better than what I had before I started to walk it
out. Please note, that my heart is to walk according to the Spirit, not the
letter, but the Scripture is a great help in letting me know if in fact I am
walking in the Spirit.

>Sometimes, they might get a clear 'prophetic' message to share from a literal
>understanding. At other times, they study and learn in a more mundane manner.
>I could see how the same thing could apply to allegorical interpretation.

>My reason for asking you was that some of your allegorical interpretations
>would basically have to be judged as prophecies--if you were to claim them as
>such, because there is no obvious logical reason to accept them. I mean, just
>as an example, if ritual prayer were said to be analogous to the Tree of
>Knowledge of Good and Evil, there would be no reason for me to accept this
>correlation unless I believed it were a revelation from God. But if this
>correlation were just someone's opinion, why should I accept it?
>
>I'm not saying all of your allegories are like that. Some, I have no problem
>with. But others just seem rather subjective to me.

I have been sitting here trying to understand what you are trying to get at,
and it finally came to me that this goes back to my response to your
suggestion about encouraging converted cousins toward certain regular prayer
times. Here is that exchange:

"Link wrote:

>I don't to detract from the resurrection thread, but I'd like to suggest an
>additional topic.
>
>I notice here that some of the 'cousins' are very faithful to pray the number
>of times a day they are supposed to. In the office, at certain times, the
>'cousins' rotate and say their prayers. They spread their rugs, bow to the
>west, and pray silently over and over. Before doing this, they go wash their
>hands and feet in the bathroom, which is specially equipped with a place to
>wash one's feet.
>
>I wish prayer were such a normal regular part of American culture.
>
>I have a question about former 'cousins' that become believers. What do you
>think about the idea of teaching new believers to set aside certain times to
>regularly pray during the day?

Dear Link,

Where law is concerned, due to the weakness of the flesh, law is like anthrax,
just one spore up our nose, and we are dead meat. Oh yes, and once infected, we
tend to take others down with us. As for me, I would rather be found in Christ,
anti-religion then be found in religion, anti-christ.

It's lovers that God is after, not those who are successful at religion. Look
at what Paul was doing when he was successful at it. What's needed, is more
forgiven failures. The greater the failure, the greater the love, Luke 7.

Bless you today!!

Jay"

On 10/20, I sent another responsewhich was more explicitly to the point. the
named subject was Discipling cousins, and ended with:

>"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
kills us."

You might want to take another look at that one.

As for the one about anthrax and the law, that was more a paraphrase than
allegory: " All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in
the Book of the Law."Galatians 3:10

>People can misunderstand scripture using more literal or traditional
>hermenutical approaches without the Spirit of God. The Old Testament was
>actually given to a nation which did not have access to the Spirit like we
>have today. Apparently God expected the Israelites to use the minds He had
>given them to some extent, at least, to understand the Law He had given. They
>could not have had the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law if they were not
>able to understand it to some extent with their unredeemed minds.
>
>Btw, I'm not against all allegorical interpretation. Some of it may be from
>the Lord. And I can see some in the scriptures. Stephen's Messianic sermon at
>his martyrdom was based on the idea that Moses was a type of Christ. There is
>a lot of allegory in the Bible. But allegorical interpretations can be very
>subjective.
>
>If someone makes a very allegorical interpretation, expecting me to believe
>that one thing (ritual prayer, modern bishops, etc.) is representing by
>something in scripture, without any real reason for me to accept the
>correlation, the only reason I would consider such an interpretation is if I
>thought it might be from the Lord. If the allegory is a prophecy which uses
>scripture as a 'springboard' then it should be weighed as any other prophecy.
>But if it is just a subjective allegory without any concrete support from
>scripture, and not a prophecy, why should I believe it?
>

I think that's between yourself and The Lord. As for me, I'm called to be a
witness, not a lawyer.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


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


Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:46:08 -0400
From: "vanessadd"
Subject: RE: [NTCP] RE:
house church: Trinidad

OF COURSE!!! I might be able to arrange somewhere for them to stay, just
maybe... with english-speaking persons, I mean.

vanessa


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


Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 11:54:30 +0100
From: Keith
Subject: Re: [NTCP] helping businesses develop in third world

Hi guys,

just two thoughts from here. (Spain)

I think that I mentioned before, that I train folk with us in simple craft work
(Leather work, Jewelery, Book binding etc), in order to make ends meet. Another
ministry nearby trains it's young men in furniture restauration, and car
painting.

A peruvian brother that attends our church here is setting up a small business
in relationship with his church in Peru, supplying good quality, "throw-away"
slippers to the Spainish hotel industry. At the moment the home grown prouduct
has a plastic sole and cloth upper and is packed in a simple cloth bag costing
about 2 Euros the unit, for the same price my friend can import a superior unit
with a toweling upper and lining, and an esparta grass sole (much more
comfortable). This will provide an income for about 12 families from his
church, in his village in Peru.

Blessings,
Keith

New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V2 #34

< Previous Digest Next Digest >




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