There is a way that seems right to a man. A cursory examination of this scripture might lead one to assume that it refers to a man who is out in sin, doing whatever he want to do, but I wonder if there isn't more for us in this scripture than that. With further study it becomes evident that this man is not just reveling in sin either because of ignorance of a better way or simply because of the self gratification of a hedonistic lifestyle. "Seems right" stands out to me, and denotes that this man is trying to do the right thing; his intentions are good. He wants to do the right thing and is doing his best to determine what that is.
The problem that is described in this scripture is that this man is relying on himself to determine what is right. This scripture is describing humanism in its basest form and the arrogance that goes along with it. It is dealing with that ever so natural and universal thought: "I'm right". It is dealing with the condition of leaving God out of our lives and not recognizing His authority over us and His plan for us.
If people lived in total isolation from everyone else, this would be a minor problem at worst. However, add just one other person to the mix and the result is something formidable indeed: an opposing view. I don't care what it is over, opposing views will eventually lead to only one thing: a confrontation. Put it another way, if you have two people, you are going to have differences of opinion, and those opinions will eventually lead to a disagreement. This my friends is something I like to call human nature.
The reason we don't see more fighting than we do is because in an effort to grow beyond our own capacities, we've learned to suppress this just a bit, and have instead chosen cooperation and mutual understanding. However, all too often beneath all of our high-minded ways still lies the thought, "but I'm still right."
The arrogance that accompanies the thought "I'm right" can be summed up with the counterpart of that thought, which is "I couldn't be wrong". Arrogance is at the heart of what this scripture is dealing with, and it is arrogance that I will address today in this post. If I were to take this scripture, and rephrase it, this is how I'd do it. "When you're sure your right, you can be sure you're wrong, dead wrong."
If you are at all informed about the workings of our group then my title is probably not a mystery to you, but for those of you who are not, allow me to inform you. An emergency ministers meeting has been called in one month in Little Rock and the purpose of this meeting is a dire one indeed. It is the intention of some to determine who can be a part of the Body of Christ. If this issue wasn't such a controversial and divisive one, the thought that some element in our ministry actually believes that they are qualified to make this decision would be almost laughable (1 Cor 12:18).
Just a quick side bar right here. I've heard from some that the people today do not want to submit to the authority that God has placed in the church and that is the root of all of the problems that we are experiencing. There is an element of truth in this statement, but to state that this is the whole story couldn't be more wrong. There is another variable that needs to be factored into this problem, namely ministers overstepping their authority (1 Pet 5:3). Some of what we are seeing is a rebellious factor, but if you ignore the impact that just a few ministers who have overestimated their authority can have on a group of people, you are being somewhat naive. I say that with no doubt in my heart there still remain among us those who want to submit to a proper God-given authority. Some of the hesitancy to do so however can be explained by the perception of problems at the leadership level in our group, either corporately or in some cases locally. When there is so much turmoil and confusion, how can you not expect people to be somewhat unsure as what to do or who to trust? But I digress.
At this meeting it is the intention of some to attempt to purify our group from some of it's more liberal elements and yet the simple fact of the matter remains that no person or group of persons has the authority to determine who is or is not a part of the Body of Jesus Christ. God has amalgamated our varied elements into one special whole and His body is not the work of any one man or group of men (1 Cor 12:24). We need to wake up to the fact that we are not called to complete uniformity but instead that there are meant to be differences among us. Is the purpose of this meeting not in direct opposition to 1 Cor 12:23? Instead of distancing or disfellowshipping or whatever you want to call it, we should be seeing to the care of one another, lest there be schism (1 Cor 12:25)?
Schism, that is not a nice word, and yet it is a very real possible outcome of this "Emergency Meeting". Let me be very direct with what I am about to say. No minister has the ability to remove another from the Body of Jesus Christ, however based upon their own actions they are completely capable of removing themselves. What can happen is for a minister to be so sure that they are right that they will stray out from under the covering of the Lord. There is a way that seems right unto a man. Might this not be what is really happening here? Self-righteousness and arrogance creating such a surety of action that on their own a minister or group of ministers will head off in their own direction, trying to pull as many as they can out from under the pillar of God, only to wander aimlessly in the wilderness? I wonder.
I wonder if in fifty years my decendents won't be able to look back at this time as the time when a significant portion of our group got out from under the covering of the Lord? What will our posterity say of us? Will they say that this people was a stiff-necked and rebellious people or will they be able to say that we narrowly averted a split at this time? Will they say of us that those among us who sought to sow discord among the brethren held more sway than those among us who sought the fullness of Christ through the unity of the faith (Prov 6:19, Eph 4:13)?
Don't be fooled, right now we are headed at high speed for a split in this group and if we don't alter our course by changing our attitudes, there will be schism. It completely mystifies me that the very same people who seemingly espouse a greater unity for our group also wish to divide it (James 3:11). I ask myself, how can this be and I'm am left with only one conclusion. Those people who wish to do this are operating outside of the order of the Lord.
How can we avoid this? Paul answered this very question in 1 Cor 12:31, in the last half of this final verse of this chapter. Paul states "And yet I show you a more excellent way". This one sentence should really be the first verse of 1 Cor 13 because it serves as an often ignored preamble to this chapter whose theme is love. Charity my friends is the answer to the problems that our group is experiencing and the only alternative to a very probably split. Unfortunately, it is charity that we are sorely lacking right now, and not just within the ministry, at every level. Charity will not fail us, and yet I despair that we will be able to see it (1 Cor 13:8).
I leave you with a question and my hope. What will our leadership choose? A way that seems right unto them, or a more excellent way? Although I pray for the latter, I cannot say that I expect it. However, I will continue to hold out hope that we will forsake our own ways and will instead humble ourselves, pray for forgiveness and seek the face of the Lord. This way my friends and no other way will we see healing in our group (2 Chr 7:14).
This'll definitely be in my prayers...
ReplyDeleteDear Bro. Dillon
ReplyDeleteAre you a pastor? Have you ever pastored a church? Are you one of the leading elders in your church? Are you a minister? Do you hold a title in your church, i.e, Band Director,Usher,Sunday School Teacher,ect?
If you are not a pastor what qualifications do you have to speak against others in the Body of Christ? If your not one of the men that God has placed in that position and given the authority to do so are you in danger of touching the ark?
Are you going to be in attendance at this emergency meeting that has been called? If you do attend this meeting will any of the ministers in the body recognize you as having any authority on this matter whatsoever?
Do you feel your in danger of being looked at as a disgruntled church member tearing down the work that God has called this group of people to accomplish?
Would it not be better to just encourage your blog readers to pray that God will direct the men whom HE has placed in positions of authority? I'm sure there are qualified men among the group, led by the spirit, who have the authority and credentials to stand and address this matter.
I understand that you are the pastor Bro. Tom Lord's nephew. Are the words written in your blog directed in any way from Bro. Lord? Does he condone you taking the position of authority that you are taking by accusing the ministry of the Body of Christ?
I have asked twelve questions above, please answer as many of them as you are willing to.
Amazing. So only ministers are allowed to have/voice an opinion? Only they are allowed to care what is happening to our fellowship?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that too many people are worried more about how they'll "look" to others.
And Dan's having an uncle in the ministry matters how?? Anyone who knows the man knows that he adamantly refuses to do other people's thinking for them. That means that he (and a few other ministers) trust congregants to use their own noggins.
It's a good thing that God is in control!
Bro. Dillon; Excellent article, I couldn't agree with you more. But I must address the annonymous comment about your qualifications. I Pet. 4:10-11 "if any man", this means just what it says, Bro. Mears used to say "We are not all called to the ministry, but we are all called to minister". This is what Peter is saying. To say that we who are not called of God as was Aaron are not qualified to comment is ludicrous. We have the same Bible as the 'leaders', Paul said to "follow me as I follow Christ", it behooves all of us to study God's word to see if our pastors are following Christ, Acts 17:11. This split that is coming is wrong. Christ died for the church, we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Removing people from the body is God's job, Jn. 14:2, not man's. The 'leader' of Tx. told me, when I appealed to him 4 yrs. ago about some false accusations about my wife and I, that he did not have enough discernment to tell who was telling the truth and therefore denied me a meeting. How much confidence do you think I have in this man? Pro. 25:19.
ReplyDeleteOne of the truly revolutionary ideas that William Sowders had was the concept of a 5-fold ministry. To not just recognize a one man show, but a multiplicity of leadership/servants that humbly listen and value each other. Sadly, for all our preaching about this concept we have never been able to recognize more than one functioning.
ReplyDeleteWell what I would like to know is who this person is that asked these questions. Apparently they're too cowardly to sign their name. Who are you that Dan should have to answer these questions?
ReplyDeletehmm havent we heard these questions before? I think so they can be found in the last paragraph of this blog. http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html
ReplyDeleteoopps here is the link http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2010/02/difference-is.html
ReplyDeleteBro. Sowders' efforts helped restore the understanding of the Godhead. That is no small thing. It is miraculous and I am so thankful for that. Bro. Sowders' efforts for those he affected, helped create an environment of brotherly love. I am also thankful for the opportunity to be exposed to that through the years. My friends were certainly Jesus' hands and feet to me, so many times and not just for a few months....for years. That is very unique in this world.
ReplyDeleteNow, in this day, happily I see so many continue to press on to feel the Lord and continue to hear his voice, to seek out a way to nurture families, holding on to what we know that we know, as our circumstances continue to evolve or dissolve, depending on how you look at it.
When did Jesus ever intend to work in a "Confederacy"? Once your eyes open to see something like that at work, you just cannot un-ring that bell and if you are true to what you know that you know, you eventually will be forced to deal with it.
But....who am I? For all intents and purposes to most, I am nobody. But then again, I am one the King would bleed and die for. Thank you Jesus and thank you for answers, for opportunities to repent, to live with grace and to extend grace to others, to rise above this world's defeats with all its trappings, rising above in the power of the Holy Ghost, living in His resting place.
In the above blog of Bro. Dyal, he does make some sense, when he asks the question about why the annonymous comments, and why does any one who comments choose to remain annonymous? I too question the reasoning why a person will not sign his name. The 'annonymous' comments above, certainly sound like Paul Dyal, especially if you have read Paul Dyal's blog yesterday. After watching the spirit of the leaders for the last year, in the inquisition of Bro. Farmer, it seems obvious where they are going. The 'ghost' of Bro. Jolly is rising, but will not be ruled by one man anymore, but by a 'brotherhood', and men are jockeying for position in that 'brotherhood'. Whatever happened to men like Bro. Sowders, who would wash each others feet? What happened is Bro. Jolly, look how he changed what Bro. Sowders built, and now we are seeing a resurgence of that iron-fisted rule. But I am still convinced that God is going to have a people who will be transformed into the image of His dear son, who will not speak like a dragon, but will, as Bro. Farmer said, be slaughtered.
ReplyDeleteI am not your mystery questioner. Paul B. Dyal
ReplyDeleteMy son, Shawn, called me last night suggesting I read this article. I did so this morning and was again surprised to find my name carelessly brought into question. I am always forthcoming about what I ask, say, said, and will say about any matter and anyone. I am not ashamed, afraid, or bashful about my positions or dispositions. If you want my thoughts and opinions ask me. I will not hide behind aliases, peudonyms, or anyones skirt. As regarding putting anyone out of the Body I know nothing of ot and frankly do not believe anyone can do it.If we are in the Body of Christ God put us in and it will take either us or God to take us out.
ReplyDeleteBro. Dyal, I know that you are not.
ReplyDeleteSomeone, I have considered your questions and here is how I choose to answer them.
ReplyDeleteI do not speak for my church nor for my pastor, only for myself. He speaks for himself; he is his own man. I speak for myself; I am my own man. By saying this, understand, any heat, repercussions or onus to be bore by my words belong to me alone. If you must judge my church and my pastor, then judge them by their own actions and words, not mine.
As for who I am, because that is what the rest of your questions seem to me to boil down to, I answer only this. Perhaps I am like Shimei, cursing and casting stones at David (2 Sam 16:13). However, perhaps I am more like Nathan, who confronted David with his sin (2 Sam 12:7). God will judge me.
To say that I find it ironic that someone who is withholding their own identity and "qualifications" is requiring the same from me is somewhat of an understatement. By your own own logic, you need to be in a position of authority yourself, else of what value is your admonition? By taking the position of my overseer, are you not yourself afraid of touching the ark?
Please don't take me wrong. I believe you when you say that you care, and I honestly appreciate the sentiment. In my last paragraph it was not my intention to ridicule, merely to point out that your position may not provide as ready a defense as you might assume.
You were able to find out some of my family ties, so you are a resourceful person. You should be able to track down a way of contacting me personally. If you are hesitant to identify yourself online, I can understand that. However, if you would like to continue a dialog, contact me in person and I will listen to what you have to say and I believe that you will find me to be approachable.
I am glad that the Mystery Questioner (nice phrase!) is not Bro. Dyal. While MQ tries to mimic Bro. Dyal's post that Shane referenced, hiding behind anonymity didn't seem very Dyal-esque.
ReplyDeleteI'm even more glad to read Bro. Dyal's words (above) about the futility of trying to "put someone out" of the Body of Christ and I hope all efforts and talk of disfellowshipping Bro. Farmer, Christian Gospel Temple or anyone else cease immediately.
As Dan's post emphasizes, we and our leaders need to practice faith, wisdom, humility and (most of all) LOVE. First Corinthians 12:21 still applies, after all.
Our children and grandchildren are watching. And, "if the Lord tarries," our descendants wil judge what happens now. Will "we" (Note to pastors: this means YOU) avoid tragedy and needless heartache? Will we re-erect the not-quite-fully-dismantled walls, in merely a new configuration?
In the early 1970s my parents took my brother and me to take a look around the grounds on Shepherdsville Hill. The buildings were silent and dilapidated. My parents had both been there many times as teenagers in the '50s (although they never knew each other then) and my mom told us vivid stories about the people who had once occupied the little cabins and how the Spirit had filled the place. But to me it was a relic of a by-gone age and "Ichabod" seemed somehow scrawled over it.
But for over 20 years now, the glory of the Lord has been in full effect there. My children have grown up experiencing The Presence there, as have so many others. Last month's late-night outdoor outpouring is significant. Yet all this is in extreme jeopardy if our leaders remain preoccupied with discipline and conformity and fail to follow "the more excellent way."
But for now they still have it in their power to set aside their apprehensions, fears, frustrations and resentments to extinguish the horrible fuse that was lit last year. Will they? Let's all pray they do!
Bro. Dyal; You said "If you want my thoughts or opinions, ask me". On your blog I have asked you questions and you will not answer me. I would love to talk to you. I do not agree with you using an immorality problem in the Corinthian church, in regards to Bro. Farmer. Neither do I agree with you saying that Bro. Farmer "has not a love for the truth, so God sent him this strond delusion. Using this same thinking, would you please tell me, what was the 'strong delusion' that God sent Bro. Jolly? I think we all know.
ReplyDeleteBro. Jolly seperated more people than Bro. Farmer ever could. I do not agree with your inquisition of Bro. Farmer, but I still respect you. I knew Bro. Gutke, he was a godly man, and by him putting you in charge of the work in Jacksonville, I have no doubt you are a godly man also.
There are a lot of iniquities in this body, which have been swept under the rug, my wife and I included, they have not been dealt with. If these iniquities are not dealt with, then how are we to judge angels, I Cor. 6:3?
Bro Dillon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts in response to my questions.
My questions were intended to make you,and your readers, carefully consider when speaking in such a public forum about leadership, especially criticism. I was attempting to help you ponder the consequences of your actions and words being brought into question, as quickly as you ,and others, question the authority,order, and leadership given to the leadership in the Body of Christ. We will all be held accountable for our actions and words at some point, it seems that speaking out against leadership publicly via the internet has become a very easy thing to do with no contemplation of consequence.
We know that Nathan was a prophet sent from God, I don't think he would have approached King David as he did, unless he was more concerned about the consequences he would suffer if he did not obey God, than he was concerned about the king, who certainly had the authority to have him killed on the spot. If you are a prophet sent from God far be it from me to stand in your way. On the other hand we all know what happened to Shimei, he was marked because of his actions, quarantined, and finally killed. I don't believe for a minute your intentions are to be like Shimei. But we know where the road that is paved with good intentions leads.An attempt to keep you Bro. Dillon as part of this fellowship and not segregated ,I want to avoid hearing that the next emergency meeting was called for your lack of willingness to be submissive for the sake of unity, or speaking out against leadership. I am not criticizing the ministry, I am not telling them what they need to do. I am suggesting that you do the same unless you have the qualifications or authority to do such.
As far as my identity,I would like you to know that I am someone who cares enough about you to try and help you. Unfortunately we live in a time where peoples intentions are twisted and pressed into molds of warped thinking. Because of that fact, it is very easy to be categorized and marked by people. Like it or not everything you and others blog about or speak about has marked them in some way. Some marked as disgruntled, some marked as gossip driven, some as concerned, some as working out of order.
For example in a comment by Bro. Clifford. He without knowing my name,position,age, or by what authority I speak has already marked me as a coward. The following is the definition of a coward: coward cow'ard adj.
A coward is one who "turns tail." The word comes from Old French couart, coart, "coward," and is related to Italian coward, "coward." Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, "tail" This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.
Definition: person who is scared, easily intimidated
Antonyms: aggressor, hero
The antonym of coward is aggressor,hero, I would contend that my frank questions would put me more in the category of being the opposite of a coward. Perhaps an aggressor or perhaps a hero. I would not go so far as to call my self a hero, but a hero does rescue others from danger. Which is what I am trying to do. So I am trying to be a hero here and head off a problem that I see on the horizon. Not just with you Brother Dillon but all who will consider.
How quick so many were to accuse Bro. Dyal of my comments. That is nothing to glance over or take lightly.
I think A disciples journey is onto something where he pointed out ,One of the truly revolutionary ideas that William Sowders had was the concept of a 5-fold ministry. To not just recognize a one man show, but a multiplicity of leadership/servants that humbly listen and value each other. To be submissive and respect authority to the world has the appearance of weakness. But we know the Word of God says the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what "Someone Who Cares..." writes about one being "categorized and marked" by others (even Christians!) because of one's expressed opinions. But I submit that this is a point of weakness (carnality?) on the part of those doing the categorizing and marking. Those who choose to hide behind anonymity (as Bro. Dyal and others refuse to do) prefer to protect their reputations or political viability over standing up and being counted. (I am NOT slandering anyone as "being political.") It may not be cowardly, but it is not courageous, either.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, parallels drawn from OT history (e.g. Shimei, Uzzah) can be of limited usefulness in directing Christians' relations with each other. I'll take a direct commandment from Paul or Jesus (e.g. "Love one another") over a Silly-Putty "type/shadow" analogy any day. But if we're going to look at ancient Israel for guidance in the current dispute, why not look at the fate of Joab, when he dared to slay the (wayward) son of the king?? Whether Bro. Farmer (for instance) and others are "wayward" might be debatable, but their status as beloved sons/daughters of our King is not!
Someone, thanks for your comments. You have some excellent points, and you've got me thinking. When you say "So I am trying to be a hero here and head off a problem that I see on the horizon." I can honestly say that I relate with you 100%.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I am not a Shimei. I really have no innate desire to criticize or condemn our leadership, and perhaps you're right and it's really not my place to speak out at all, but when those whose place it is to speak out against unjust and wrong decisions being made by our leadership at large remain silent, I find myself a voice of last resort. I still realize that our leadership are men, and thus fallible and capable of making mistakes and perhaps just one mistake can be averted or even just postponed by something I say.
My invitation is still open about contacting me for further discussion. I welcome your thoughts and if it is your wish, I will protect your anonymity.
I am not entering this discussion for any reason other than to point out that anonymity is not always a bad thing. Peer pressure and fear of consequences both can drive people undercover just like it did the early church. After many years of working with various human resource departments I have learned to value anonymous surveys. You find out things that people are uncomfortable to tell you to your face. I do not consider it cowardice to remain anonymous as long as you are not using it as a guerrilla tactic to cause harm to others. As a manager I feel comfortable and compelled to use my name and identify myself when dealing with controversy but I do not begrudge someone to remain nameless, if that is the only way they feel comfortable sharing their thoughts. Dan Dillon has the prerogative to limit comment on his blot to identified responders ONLY, but he has chosen to make it available to ALL, whether they are known or unknown. He could have deleted the comment but chose instead to answer the question, as it seems to be very real concern to several people. I have received some of the best suggestions for progress and functionality from anonymous people who noticed a process weakness that the company completely overlooked. So I lend my support to the conscience of each person as they post.
ReplyDeletePaul Farmer
Paul, this is not a work place its supposed to be the Body of Christ. When a person comes and says things like "Who do you think you are?" without giving their own name I think is cowardly.
ReplyDeleteFor the record I never said Bro Dyal was the MQ I only pointed out his blog where many of the same questions were pointed to Dan Dillion and myself. I personally didnt think it was Bro Dyal because he is not afraid to say what he thinks. I felt it was a "copy cat" poster.
Shane, as I say about most blogs and comments (Except mine of course)... blah, blah, blah... you guys all sound the teacher in Peanuts to me. ROFL!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyLwXhqlWU
you'll think blah blah blah when God punishes you for not adhering to my council.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Bro. Dan Dillon being willing to step up into the batter's box. I certainly don't feel the spirit of Shimei in his words. It takes courage and love to stick your neck out [voice your convictions] knowing there could be severe consequences. I thank the Lord for our pilgrim forefathers that were not afraid to [for lack of a better term] step up to the batter's box. this country would never have come into existence if men had been too afraid to declare themselves. There would be no Body of Christ if a man like Bro. William Sowders had not been willing to listen to that still small voice of the Lord and obeying God rather than men [even Godly men]. God is going to try this people and this Brotherhood to find out what is in their heart. I'm in awe and almost disbelief of what I see forming.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that over the last year everything has become so muddled by gossip, and everybody having an opinion on things. You hear and read so many things from various sources that you forget what this confusion in the Body really comes down to. Im sure by now different thoughts,rumors,suggestions, teachings have been circulating enough that almost every person in the Body has formed some kind of opinion about it. Some are closer to the situation than others and have a better understanding of it, but I wonder how many really know what this problem is about? It's more than just a women wearing pants issue.
ReplyDeleteThis definitely feels like the internet age, its never been more easy to find,publish,or spread information. Such a powerful and usefull tool. You can look back and see how other tools have been so usefull throughout history, tape recorded services,video,electronic bibles,projector screens,laptop computers,bible phone applications, and others have been found to be profitable. Now more recently the streaming internet broadcasts are proving to be very effective. With this being the case I wonder if Bro. Farmer or his counterparts would be willing to
.......continued
I wonder if Bro. Farmer or his counterparts would be willing to release a statement or video explaining their position entirely without interuption? Perhaps in an interview format.
ReplyDeleteThis would let everyone, even pastors, who have just heard bits and pieces of what is really going on, know the truth of the matter. Maybe he would only want it available to pastors or those at the pastors descrection. What I am suggesting is for the BOC to embrace the usefullness of the internet. There must be a way to communicate better than we have been in the past. Instead of spending lots of time and money to attend a ministers meeting only to scratch the sruface of a discussion. It seems like the time is absorbed by the speaker answering sidetrack questions, getting 20% of your point accross is good, but is there a way to get 100% of your point accross before the meeting even begins? Especially if it is a specific topic set for a specific meeting. That way everyone shows up to the meeting fully prepared. It just seems like with the tools we have we can use them as a great benifit for the Body. I am not suggesting that we remove the "watch the spirit, or follow the spirit" rule. That is rule number one when it comes to the BOC. But many times when an invitation is sent out for a meeting there will be a greeting from the pastor of the church where the meeting is being held. Along with that a direction of how God has been dealing with him or the church and what he hopes the meeting will accomplish. That helps bring some focus, is there a way we can bring more focus? which leads to unity.
Maybe what I am suggesting is ahead of it's time, or looked at as a waste of time ,however, like it has been pointed out already it seems we may be running out of time as well.
@ Kenkirkpatrick. Amen
ReplyDeleteI think before Bro. Farmer or 'his counterparts'
ReplyDeleteanswer, I would like to hear the accusers explain "this is not about pants', or "this goes
far deeper than pants". What exactly is the root of the problem? Why are we left to guess about this? I have watched all the minister meetings over the last year concerning this, and am still left to my imagination as to what this is all about. We, as Bro. Farmer's 'counterparts', have done nothing, but refuse to disfellowship the Cross Plains church, plain and simple.
I would also ask the 'accusers', after reading Jn. 13:35 and I Jn. 2:8-11, how can we withdraw fellowship from anyone, when the offense is not an immoral one? The second greatest commandment
in the O.T. and the N.T. is to 'love one another'. Let me close with one more scripture, I Jn. 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him that is begotten of him".
Once again, to the 'accusers', what is the root cause of this problem?
I want to first say that I appreciate Bro. Dyal posting a clear statement on his blog describing the things that the current situation happening in the BOC is really about. I know he has talked on many, if not all the reasons he mentions in his previous blogs over the past year. Explaining in greater detail the position the Body has held to, and I'm sure he can expound with scripture and even greater explanation if need be.
ReplyDeleteThe following is the response to Bro. Madera that I was going to post this afternoon but did not have a chance. Bro. Dyal sums it up so much better than I can but I will post my thoughts because Bro. Madera has asked.
:Doesn't this (Body of Christ about to split situation) really boil down to being willing to submit to one another, or yield to the counsel of the Brotherhood?
Matt 20:25-27 "Not So Among you" The "you" is the BOC right?
Who is willing to be a servant? Who will put aside what they want and yield for the sake of unity or the greater good?
Isn't our goal to be more Christ like? To put aside our will like Jesus did in order to obey Gods? Shouldn't we all be jumping at the chance to be more like Christ than our brothers? Sounds harsh but isn't that suppossed to be our goal. To run with horses and not the footmen so to speak
So lets wait for our brother to obey the words of Christ before we do. And while we wait how many little foxes creep in our churches and tear down?
If thats the case when will obedience be proven greater than sacrifice? and when will His strength be proven perfect in weakness ,or our yeilding/display of being a servant, for when we are weak ,or submissive, that makes Him strong, or gives God all the glory and recognition?
Look at First Peter 5, he starts out the chapter by saying the following information is primarily directed at the Elders,Leaders among you. In verse 5 he says ,ALL OF YOU be subject one to another, meaning ALL OF YOU right? This chapter doesn't end at verse 5. Verse 6 is the Pinnacle of it. Humility
What is so wrong with working in Order? I didn't set it up, God did. It's his order
Annonymous; There are so many inconsistencies with this group of leaders. Bro. Brown read a letter a couple of years ago, about all the problems that have not been dealt with. All he did was pay lip service to the problems, he still refuses to hear my case. I wonder how many other problems have been addressed since that letter? Speaking of 'leaders', Bro. Farmer is 'one' of those leaders, in fact he speaks out more about this 'crucified life' than anyone else I have heard. He's the only one I have ever heard talk on "Be ye holy, for I am holy" and what it means. If anyone has watched that series of talks, you'll know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteAren't the leaders getting the cart before the horse? Jude 3 "it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for faith which was once delivered to the saints". Eph. 4:13-14 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".
Surely, no one thinks that this 'body' has come to the 'unity of the faith'? How can 5 or 6 men set and judge when they themselves have not come to this unity. For example, "women cannot wear pants", but then Bro. Smith said "certain situations it is O.K. for a woman to wear pants". Deu. 22:5 gives no exceptions. The 'leaders' cannot even agree on this!
This 'emergency' meeting, what is the emergency?
I find it ironic that just a few short years ago, there was talk generated about getting back together with Bro. Jolly's group, spearheaded by Bro. Farmer. And now this new 'body'that has formed (I see it as 'the ghost of Bro. Jolly'), the first order of business is to excommunicate Bro. Farmer, and anyone who has any fellowship with him (actually anyone who does not condemn him).
Bro. Dyal used I Cor. 5:9-13 against Bro. Farmer. How has Bro. Farmer been 'immoral'? How is Bro. Farmer guilty of any of these offenses mentioned in this chapter?
If Bro. Farmer, by refusing to condemn a woman for wearing 'pants', is wrong, then what about all the other teachings throughout the body, that divide us? Such as the 'Devil' subject. This subject that Bro. Jolly brought to this body after Bro. Sowders died, has caused more division than any other subject.
Bro. Dyal also accused Bro. Farmer of "having not a love for the truth" and therefore God sent him this 'strong delusion', II Thess. 2:10-12. I ask again, what was the 'strong delusion' that God sent Bro. Jolly, because he certainly did not have a love for the truth, evidenced by his lifestyle?
I still think the 'leaders' are getting the cart before the horse. We should be edifying the
the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith. Not seperating it.
This group of people is all I have ever known, I fell in love with this people 40 years ago in San Gabriel Ca. as the song goes "I found a people who care". And now this 'body' of people is going to split, people who have loved one another for years, are being told to seperate once again, how many people have rejoiced to see the day that we started coming together again, and now we are being told to seperate again.
If it was God that brought us together, why would we think that God wants us to seperate again? Nothing about this split makes sense. It sounds more like the Pharisees (Jn. 9) than it does the 'Body of Christ'.
I would like to address Bro. Dyal's blog "A few of the things it is", I already commented on his blog, but he won't post it.
ReplyDeleteAll I can make out of this blog, is that Bro. Farmer refuses to come under contol and authority of the 'brotherhood' (wait a second, Bro. Farmer is part of the brotherhood). Sounds like history is repeating itself, Bro. Mears refused to come under control and authority of Bro. Jolly. I see no difference between this 'new' body forming and Bro. Jolly's body, with the exception it will no longer be under 'one' man but a 'brotherhood'.
Bro. Dyal's usage of I Cor. 6 in his judgment of Bro. Farmer, makes me wonder, how can you equate a man having his father's wife, with Bro. Farmer not obeying the 'brotherhood'? Of all those offenses mentioned in I Cor. 6, "refusing to obey the brotherhood" is not one of them.
Bro. Dyal also used II Thess. 2:10-12, in regards to Bro. Farmer having not a love for the truth. Are we to understand that "because they received not a love for the truth", is referring to blindly obeying the 'brotherhood'?
We are told that Jesus died for the church. Jesus himself said "And by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye have love one to another". Paul said we are to edify the church, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ". Surely, no one thinks that we are "in the unity of the faith". I cannot see a biblical reason to seperate, unless it's immorality. And even though Bro. Dyal equates disobeying the 'brotherhood' with immorality, I do not.
Here just a short time ago, we were all happy to see that we and Bro. Jolly's group were coming together again, and now we're being told to seperate again. It's no wonder people get discouraged. There are websites that are making fun of this body, because of the decisions the 'brotherhood' is making.
Whatever happened to "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism". One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"?
So I guess it would be ok if my wife and I show up at the Campground this September topless.
ReplyDeleteAfter all Bro. Sowders taught on Charity and accepting your brother, bearing with one another.
So as long as I feel it's ok and I have a personal relationship with Jesus there shouldn't be a problem with people accepting me for my convictions, right?
And if anyone does think that what I am doing is wrong than they should just use longsuffering for my sake.
P.S. please check the comments I left on Bro. Dillons latest blog for more explanation.
I would like to comment on what something 'someone who cares' said. You said that the splitting situation the BOC is facing really boils down to is 'being willing to submit to one another, or yield to the counsel of the Brotherhood?' However, consider that it's not the willingness to submit, but rather mens desires to rule as kings as Bro. Johnny Miller said at the Dec, Louisville Meeting. This is supposed to be Christ’s kingdom, and it still is. Also, would you consider that this is not the center core of the problem, ‘pants, music, lack of willingness to submit.’ But rather an age old problem that roots all the way back to Adam. The spirit to want to dominate, control, and strong arm people to their will. A quote from Daniel Webster "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
ReplyDeleteof authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the
Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers
of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters."
SWCEAYTTAH: You guys always go to extremes. Your example is good application of I Cor 6. What you proposed is not even named(common) among the gentiles(church world). So we would be compelled to make you leave.
ReplyDeleteBro. Sether85,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me thank you and all other responders for being open enough to continue this dialog with me, I believe it will help all of us if we can communicate our positions clearly and reason with each other. I have opened an anonymous blog page for just that purpose. So if you are anyone else would like to post a comment or question on that page feel free to do so.
I want to avoid responding with four or five paragraphs in order to come to a clear understanding of your beliefs, and pinpoint a certain area for discussion
We can look at biblical obligations and consider two sides
1. What I am responsible to do
2. What others are responsible to do
You make an excellent point, there are men who desire to rule. But I would like to know what you feel your personal responsiblilty is in answering the following questions.
Do you have an obligation to submit to counsel? If so the counsel of whom?
Now please just for the sake of this question let's just consider personal responsibility
Anyone who chooses to answer I welcome the dialog
Bro. Joel,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me thank you and all other responders for being open enough to continue this dialog with me, I believe it will help all of us if we can communicate our positions clearly and reason with each other.
So are you saying it's ok to look like the church world as long as it's common?
There is a catholic supply store close to my house. I can get a cardinal or bishop outfit. Would that be acceptable or would I be marked?
Should I be looked at any differently if I wear one?
Something more common maybe. How about if my wife wears a mini skirt, you can turn on any telivision and see somebody in the crowd dressed like that on any given Sunday morning.
Still to extreme, what about shorts and a hawian shirt? Do you think they would mind if I played in the band, or sang a special, or preached a message on standards?
Not trying to ridicule you, I am really interested to know what you feel is extreme?
Where do you draw the line? What would it take to compell you to ask someone to leave?
Anonymous, This is not about you letting your wife go to church topless. To illustrate this, Bro. Smith condemned Bro. Farmer for women wearing pants, but Bro. Smith's wife wears pants. The same with Bro Budd, there are women in his church who wear pants.
ReplyDeleteThis is about power, just look at the reigns of Bro. Jolly and Bro. Goodwin, and all the abuses of power they committed. Besides the immoralities of both, they also drained the people of their hard earned money. Do you realize Bro. Sowders preached AGAINST tithing?
Bro. Dyal admits this is not about pants, but about not obeying 4 or 5 men who want to rule, even when the ruling goes against your convictions, and in the case of pants, is not biblical. BTW, when asked who are these men, Bro. Brown refused to name anyone, why are we left to guess who they are? The Pope does not hide behind anonymity. It was also said that the decision to disfellowship Bro. Farmer was unanimous, how do we know that? We don't even know who the 'so called' twelve are. Bro. Farmer is one of the leaders, therefore it was not unanimous! We have in the Bible an account of a vote that was 'unanimous' (which means all agree), and that is Acts 1:26.
Bro. Sowders did not build any million dollar churches, but people were free to worship God, they loved one another, and they were blessed of God. Bro. Sowders would take his enemies and sit them on both sides of him. Bro. Sowders NEVER excommunicated anyone. I'm not sure we will ever get over the harm that Brother Jolly did to this beautiful 'body' of people. I am privileged to drive to church the man who wrote "I found a people who care". As the song says "they are knitted together in love". In all those ministers meetings of the last year, I never felt 'that love', and I still don't. And now next month, we are going to be told to seperate and divide. Where is that 'love'? Where is that 'love' that I felt when I first received the H.G.? It made me love everybody. The same today, when I feel the H.G. in a deep way, it still makes me love everybody. I attended the Jerseyville meeting, and because of the impending split, the tension was so thick you could feel it, it was very hard to push through that feeling and touch the Lord. A minister (leader) walked right by me, looked at me and kept walking, no handshake, no hello, no nothing. This reaction is what a 'split' is going to cause. The 'split' coming is going to grieve the H.G. God is not the author of confusion, man is. How can we justify 'seperation' when we are commanded to love one another. Let me close with Christ's own words, "And by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have LOVE one to another".
Someone who cares: I hope that you are not meaning "to ask someone to leave" as in telling them they cannot come to church? That is exactly what the religious sects do. God adds to the church and He certainly can take away those who have not a heart to live right and it is not ours to do so. Isn't it more important to live the Word of God rather than to "Act" like you do by dressing like you are holy? Mercy rejoiceth against judgment. The people are His sheep not the pastors. Didn't Jesus say to Peter "Feed MY sheep". Is the shepherd more important than the flock? Is the messenger more important than the message? If the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ shouldn't it have the Spirit of Christ for Christ never told anyone they were not welcome with him and never did he disfellowship, excommunicate or exclude anyone not even Judas. My wife came from an Assemblies of God church and every once in a while we visit there for the sake of her parents who go there and their standards are "just come as you are jeans and t-shirts type thing" but I will venture to say that I have encountered some with lesser standards who have a better spirit than those of us who are dressing modestly who have a horrible spirit. I have to say what if it were me? What if I have been going to this Body church for years, I love the people, I love the spirit that I feel and then suddenly I am told that I have to leave because me or my wife's dress attire or the songs we sing or the music we play is not conducive to the Body of Christ? Where else could I go? Can I hear the same sound out there in Religion or the same message or feel the same presence of the Lord out there as I do in the Body of Christ? With everything that is going on in the Body in regards to the dress standards to the music it almost resembles the same issue that Paul was dealing with in the circumcision. Matthew 23:26 "Cleanse first that which is within that the outside may be clean also."
ReplyDeleteSWCEAYTTAH: In all the examples you mentioned. Does any of them qualify to not have fellowship with them because of it? As to what's extreme I can only stand with Paul and say that in the culture he was in what the bro in Icor 6 was doing was extreme. It'd be nice to just have a list wouldn't it, but unfortunately cultures are different. What's extreme in one isn't extreme in another.
ReplyDeleteBro. Madera,
ReplyDeleteI do plan on responding to your latest post in greater detail however for the moment,
I would like to humbly ask you to edit or give permission to Bro. Dillon to edit your posts. I don't believe your intent is to slander (defame the reputation or character of another) but when reading it is coming accross that way. I think it will be possible to get your point accross without using names. I appreciate you being open and willing to discuss the things on your heart but please consider the ones who hold these Godly men in high regard. Neither of us want to be guilty of tearing down the ministry or any other position in the Body of Christ
Sincerly, Someonewhocares
Bro. Matt,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for my words coming off so blunt in that post but I believe you may have entered or picked up the conversation in the middle and thats why my questions seem so harsh. I think Bro. Joel was suggesting that there are a group of people among us that always take the extreme view on standard.
He made that comment in response to the posts I left on a different article. Check the comments on Bro. Dillon's "Let this mind be in you article " In those comments I was trying to point out how the influence of the world has crept into the church gradually. I believe Bro. Joel was suggesting that the influence of the world is alright as long as it's not extreme.
In that post I am asking where is the line? What is too extreme? What responsiblilty do the ministry have to prevent or guard against worldly influence entering the church?
Ok. Bro Joel go with me on this for a minute.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you have two children of your own that are playing outside in the yard, a neighbor's child comes to your house to play with them. While they are playing together the neighbors child decides to start playing in the street. You see the dangers but the child does not. Do you have any responsiblity to act on this? Now he may be able to avoid every car and harmful situation that could present itself but for his safety wouldn't you feel responsible to help him, just in case. You would instruct your children not to play with him unless he is going to play safe, right?
Now let's say you ask the child to come out of the road and he doesn't want to so you go to his parent and alert him of the situation. You tell him that your worried for his safety and the influence he will have on the other kids in the neighborhood. The parent tells you that he allows his child to play in the road, he says "my child is old enough, he knows the dangers, and I think he will use caution and be able to avoid problems" so the neighbors kid plays in the street using the discretion his father taught him. He has no accidents, no problems however, he may have a few close calls because some drivers may be carlessness or not be aware of him being there, and they have their mind on something else while they are driving.
Before to long other children in the neighbor hood are playing in the road with him. Maybe they haven't had the same instruction that he has so they are not as cautious. Maybe they are cautious, but the drivers coming down the road are not being cautious. Someone is going to get hurt eventually, its a matter of time. Usually the weak or smaller ones who don't have all thier senses excercised or the ability to look ahead at the coming danger are the ones that suffer. This is the reason it is illegal to play in the street, or cross the road except at a light. The proper authorities decided to look out for the safety of all, they had to look at the overall statistics. It is true that some would be able to handle the various pitfalls and dangers, but for the sake of the ones who can't it is illegal to all. It's for your safety.
Two things I would like your to consider in my story, first , authority obligates you to look out for the safety of others, especially those you love. Second, the world is filled with potholes,oil slicks,drivers that don't care about you,hidden obsticles,drivers that can't see you in their blind spot,sick minded people who's only intent is to harm, etc. Why risk playing in the street when you can play on the sidewalk, your not missing out on anything, you can have the same fun playing on the sidewalk as you can in the street, it's just a lot safer.
Anonymous; If I chose to be like you, and be anonymous, and every thing I said was anonymous, then nobody would know who I'm talking about. I'm tired of anonimity. You should like Bro. Dyal's blog, he never uses names, so we are left to guess who he's talking about, although sometimes it's obvious who he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteI choose not to be vague or anonymous, what I said about Bro. Jolly is true, he was convicted in a court of law as being a pedophile. It is also true that he ruled with an iron fist. So did Lloyd Goodwin. It is also true that these bros. drained the people of their money. It is also true that Brother Sowders preached AGAINST tithing. This is not slander, it is truth. What exactly do you think was slander? Everything I said is true. Are you trying to defend Bros. Jolly and Goodwin?
This split that is coming, is the very reason I dare to say anything. I am trying to say something that will cause people to think, and consider, that those who are spearheading this split have NO scriptural basis. Unless you take out of context I Cor. 5, and II Thess. 2:10-12,as Bro. Dyal did. This is not slander, I heard him say it with my own ears.
And this new 'body' that is rising, has a striking resemblence to Bro. Jolly/Goodwin's iron fisted rule. This is my opinion of what we see coming.
In your way of thinking, do we, as members of the Body of Christ, have the right to address judgments that are biblically wrong? The apostle Paul thought so, Acts 17:11.
Please tell me, what slander, please be specific, have I committed?
I don't know Bro. Dillon, but I would think, that the same liberty he gives you to remain anonymous, would apply to me for using names.
In regards to this impending split, let me close with, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
SWCEAYTTAH said: I believe Bro. Joel was suggesting that the influence of the world is alright as long as it's not extreme.
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point entirely. /sigh
SWCEAYTTAH said: Two things I would like your to consider in my story, first , authority obligates you to look out for the safety of others, especially those you love.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing we are going to disagree on is whose job it is to exercise this authority. At least that's what I'm guessing since you are hiding behind your anonymity.
SWCEAYTTAH said: Second, the world is filled with potholes,oil slicks,drivers that don't care about you,hidden obstacles,drivers that can't see you in their blind spot,sick minded people who's only intent is to harm, etc. Why risk playing in the street when you can play on the sidewalk, your not missing out on anything, you can have the same fun playing on the sidewalk as you can in the street, it's just a lot safer.
Because the people playing in the street are the ones that need saving. Paul risked. Stephen risked. Peter risked. W Sowders risked. C Mears risked. AJ Bryant risked. S Clifford risked. E Flowers risked. Jesus (we aren’t just to imitate him. We are to BE HIM to this world) risked. God risked. I can risk as well. I might get hit by a car, I might fall in a pothole, I might loose my life, but if I’m in Christ (the key) then whatever is not sin is nothing but a tool to reach those of this world. The church will only be restored when all the people can (or we could say..are allowed to) dynamically operate according to the spirit of the Lord.
Bro. Madera,
ReplyDeleteYou can be anonymous and respectful at the same time.
The definition of slander is an abusive attack against a persons character or good name. You may not care how much damage you are doing to those who respect the men you are attacking but you are. Please put your words into action here. You have been speaking about love and charity here is a chance for you to put your own words into action. Like Bro. Daves says, "He who slings mud is loosing ground"
I know your upset that your problems have not been dealt with by the ministry yet but in due time they will be. God is aware of them even if others are avoiding you.
@ SWCEAYTTH. The logic you were presenting to Joel reminds me of what Israel finally evolved into by the time of Jesus. They had developed an elaborate system of rules to try and keep people holy, but this doesn't work. Paul addresses this in Galatians. To go through all of this will take too long but I will try and highlight a few things. Paul was answering an indictment by Jews that he was being too lax by not enforcing circumcision, and other certain Jewish laws. They claimed to be zealous for the law. Paul said "you think you're zealous, I actually killed for the law" Gal1:13,14. His answer to the charge of being lax to gain popularity Gal1:10. He goes on to say that righteous comes through the faith of Christ not by laws "rules" Gal 2:16. BTW the faith of Christ is more than just "believing that Christ exists" it has a lot of action involved.
ReplyDeleteSo Paul goes on to explain why the Law was given Gal 3:19. It was given for the purpose of keeping the people until Christ would come and bring a better way. It was for identifying sin and restraining it, but according to Rom 7:7,8 it didn't do a good job of restraining sin. There's saying "To run and work the Law demands but it gives me neither feet nor hands. But a better hope the gospel brings. It bids me fly and gives me wings". Gal 3:23-25 Paul continues to describe what the law was for. It was like a Schoolmaster or more accurately a baby sitter. It was to lead them to Christ. Vs. 25 now that Christ has come we are no longer under the law but under Christ i.e. we are to be led by Christ. Gal 4:1-7 We were once like unto children which was liken to slaves (servants).
(Continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteVs 3 we were held in bondage both to sin and the law. But now that Christ has come we are now free to be led by the Spirit God. We are no longer under the governors and tutors. The time appointed by the Father came when Christ came. Notice vs 3 “. . . were children, were in bondage”. The Spirit of God will accomplish more than laws (rules) will. Rom 6,7,8 flows with the same thought pattern. Rom 6 describes bondage to sin, Rom 7 describes bondage to law, Rom 8 describes freedom from sin’s dominance and tyranny of law. Freedom to walk in the Spirit.
Which leads us to Gal 5. Gal 5:4 Those depending on law for righteousness are fallen from grace and into works. (Now please don’t misunderstand me. Righteous does produce works, but works don’t produce righteous. Hence Gal 5:6 faith working through love). Finally Gal 5:16-18 be led by the Spirit, for if you are led by the Spirit you are not under law. You will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. To go about overcoming by means of setting down laws (rules) is the wrong way to do it. God has given a better way. I hope my quick overview made some sense. There’s more on this study.
Bro. Joel,
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to get to in my story was that a governing authority (the ministry) had to make the decision to ban playing in the street. It is illegal , someone (the ministry) has to have the authority to make that law. If you choose to break the law than thats up to you but it is out of order.
The law was not passed to exercise lord ship over you, it is passed to protect you, and those more vulnerable than you.
If someone feels they are above the law (working in order/working with the brotherhood/being subject one to another) and continue to play in the street then they are working out of biblical order.
I am curious to know who you believe has been given the job to exercise this authority?
Diciplesjourney,
ReplyDeleteYour right, nobody is going to be an overcomer just because they are willing to follow the rules or laws, nobody will be an overcomer just because they are willing to be subject to counsel, but they will be working on a biblical mandate which is to work in unity and be subject one to another Eph 5:21 , I Peter 5:5
How to be an overcomer is a different topic
The topic at hand is who has the authority to protect saints from worldy influence?
Who is willing to lay down what they want to do and work in order?
FOR ALL THE BLOG READERS OUT THERE WHO ARE WONDERING,
ReplyDeleteHere is the comment I left that Bro. Clifford decided to delete from his latest blog entitled COMMENTS:
Bro. Shane,
In no way am I trying to be confrontational with this comment. You can choose to post it or not that is your choice.
I would like you to consider that by you taking the option to moderate comments you are actually taking the same position as the ministry in the BOC who have asked that certain standards be upheld.
By you taking the responsibility to decide what others can say on your blog site you are doing exactly what the brotherhood is trying to do. Moderate what the saints are being exposed to. Now I am not saying that's a bad thing, I believe it is your obligation to do exactly that. You are in a position of authority when it comes to what gets posted on your site and the effect it will have on other peoples lives.
Just to let you know I have posted a new blog on my site and would appreciate any feedback you or others would offer
Someone who cares enough about you to try and help,
ReplyDeletePart of the thought from my last post and the one on Dan's most recent blog post(sorry Dan if we're hijacking your blog).Is that when set rules down, even with the best of intentions, it doesn't have the same effect as preaching the gospel. To determine for someone else what the Spirit has to say to them is hindering them from being led by the Spirit,i.e. it's interfering with their relationship with Christ. Now we are to call sin, sin. The gospel is clear on many things that leaves no room for ambiguity. But there are many other gray areas that the Bible is not so plain about. Why is it when you ask God a question, that many times he just doesn't give you a straight forward answer? I believe it's because he wants to stretch our ability to discern, to teach us the why and not just the answer. He has given us principles to go by, and with these we are to confront situations.
So who has the authority to set rules to protect the church? I believe that is where your question leads. Jesus. And what I mean by that is all that we need is already written down in scripture. No extra rules need be given. Now we have leaders who guide us in our discovery of the good will of God Rom 12:2 the word prove means discover. Elders (seasoned men and women) have walked with the Lord through many things and their relationship with Him and the experience learned is most valuable for others in their own personal walk with the Lord. But having the authority to tell another how to walk with the Lord (remember again i'm talking about gray areas) that's the Lord's place. Now elders can certainly share what they think is best (as they should) but not to expect it to be a command.
Here's an example Paul in 1 Cor 7:25,26 gives his best judgment(advice) regarding the present situation and marriage. Later on in 1 Tim 4:3 we find certain one's taking Paul advice and making a commandment out of it. Does Paul commend them for doing so? No, he rather calls it a doctrine of devils. So we should look for wisdom from others, but not make such things into commands.There are too many situations that rules cannot cover. This is why only the Lord has the authority to make certain calls for people's lives. Where the Bible speaks commands we are to speak those commands, where it does not we are to not.
Disciplesjouney,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone in our group believe rules will ever be able to take the place of gospel conviction, so your absolutely correct there.
Have you had a chance yet to read and consider I Cor 11:16-18 (NLT)
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women.
12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head?
14 Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair?
15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.
16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.
17 But in the following instructions, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together.
18 First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it.
19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!
In this chapter Paul is definitely talking about the customs that the church held to, the definition of Custom = laws and regulations established by common practice.
Paul held to law that was established by the church, he goes on in verse 16 to say, if you don't agree with the way that the body of Christ practices this custom than you are being contentious. We ( Paul and others not just himself) and the other churches in the fellowship do not recognize any other teaching.
This isn't just advice he's offering here. He's saying if your part of us you will be subject to the customs (laws) that we as a group practice.
He ends the chapter by saying I will put the other issues you have wrong in order when I come. He isn't saying I will give you more advice when I come, I will give you exact directions when I come.
Anonymous; Webster's definition of 'slander'.
ReplyDelete"the utterance of FALSE charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation".
I did not slander. Everything I said was true. Which statement that I made, do you think was false? Who exactly are you defending? Show me where I was wrong and I will apologize. If anyone is guilty of 'slander' it is you. By you misrepresenting my statements as 'slander', you yourself are being slanderous. You, along with Bro. Dyal, refuse to explain how I Cor. 5 and II Thess. 2:10-12 apply to Bro. Farmer. Talk about 'slander', what about Bro. Dyal? On his blog he does not mention names, but in the minister's meetings he was referring to Bro. Farmer. The very definition of 'slander' applies to Bro. Dyal's misrepresentation of the above scriptures in regards to Bro. Farmer.
Once again, what specific statement did I make that was false?
It's been a while since I've commented, and I'm going to step in now and do so because this string of comments is starting to veer off and could be construed as a fight. I urge you all to do two things: Remember that those posters whom you so vehemently disagree with are still your brothers, and you are to show brotherly love to them. Also, don't forget to watch your spirit. I ask you, as your brother to consider Prov 15:1 when you post here, and anywhere really. Personally, I've tried to watch my spirit as I've written this blog myself. Just because one of you might have an opposing viewpoint does not justify me having a bad spirit or lashing out at one of you.
ReplyDelete@adisciplesjourney, I don't mind the activity on my blog; as a matter of fact I encourage it. It's my hope that some of this activity will put a bug in a few ears and cause some of our elders to stop and think, "Hey, the people are really concerned" and realize that they can't make decisions in a vacuum. Oh, and BTW, just thought that Rom 3:10 very succinctly supports your statement about righteousness.
@Someone, I understand your position and your points are good. Your stance would be better served by avoiding extremes though. For instance, I seriously doubt anyone would endorse your wife attending the campground topless, you least of all. While I've used extremes to make a point in the past, I've clearly labeled what I'm doing and why. Please understand, I'm not trying to undermine you with this comment, just the opposite, I'm trying to bolster you. If I am wrong and you are right, and you just might well be, then it may be the clarity and simplicity that you use that opens my eyes to the truth. Going too far off into left field weakens your entreaty, perhaps more than you realize.
Bro. Madera,
ReplyDeleteI am only pointing this out in greater detail because you asked for me to be specific. I am responding to your questions.
All of the following statements you made could be considered slanderous
July 08, 2010 9:21 AM you said:
The 'annonymous' comments above, certainly sound like Paul Dyal, especially if you have read Paul Dyal's blog yesterday. After watching the spirit of the leaders for the last year, in the inquisition of Bro. Farmer, it seems obvious where they are going.
What happened is Bro. Jolly, look how he changed what Bro. Sowders built, and now we are seeing a resurgence of that iron-fisted rule
July 08, 2010 12:32 PM you said:
Bro. Jolly seperated more people than Bro. Farmer ever could.
July 13, 2010 9:19 AM you said:
Bro. Brown read a letter a couple of years ago, about all the problems that have not been dealt with. All he did was pay lip service to the problems, he still refuses to hear my case. I wonder how many other problems have been addressed since that letter?
And now this new 'body'that has formed (I see it as 'the ghost of Bro. Jolly'), the first order of business is to excommunicate Bro. Farmer, and anyone who has any fellowship with him (actually anyone who does not condemn him).
This is about power, just look at the reigns of Bro. Jolly and Bro. Goodwin, and all the abuses of power they committed. Besides the immoralities of both, they also drained the people of their hard earned money. Do you realize Bro. Sowders preached AGAINST tithing?
-------------------------
PLEASE CONSIDER, I am not trying to be confrontational at all, I am just trying to point out that there are people that respect these men and it is not fair that there reputations be damaged over comments that may not be completely accurate.
You also asked me the following question:
In your way of thinking, do we, as members of the Body of Christ, have the right to address judgments that are biblically wrong?
I think we are all entitled to use our judgment, but MY judgment can not take the place of order or take the place of biblical commandment. If I see something happening in the body that I think is wrong I am entitled to have my own opinion and voice my own opinion as long as what I am saying or doing doesn't break a biblical commandment or precept to do it.
"If I see something happening in the body that I think is wrong I am entitled to have my own opinion and voice my own opinion as long as what I am saying or doing doesn't break a biblical commandment or precept to do it."
ReplyDeleteSomeone,
This is why I wrote this post originally. :)
Anonymous; (every time I use that word, I think of the Declaration of Independence and JOHN HANCOCK's signature).
ReplyDeleteAll of my statements (even though you think they are "slanderous" or "may not be completely true"), are absolutely and completely true, I could go into detail (my mother was Bro. Jolly's first piano player, my father followed him all over the midwest to listen to him), but I won't.
You accuse me of breaking a biblical commandment, please give scripture and verse.
And then you mention "precept", please explain how I have broken a biblical 'precept', please give scripture and verse.
Could it be that the 'precept' you are referring to is that I dare to question the 'brotherhood'? Enough of that.
I want to talk about a "biblical commandment" that HAS been broken;
Jesus said in Jn. 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another".
The apostle John said "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes".
I could go on, but if everyone would read I John, it becomes obvious that we are to 'love one another'. Jesus in Mark 12:31 tells us that the second greatest commandment is this "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
The only reason I say anything about the dark past of this body under Bro. Jolly, is that IMHO this 'new' body that's rising, is the same 'iron fisted' rule of T.M. Jolly. The only difference is that it will not be ruled by 'one man' but by a 'brotherhood'. It seems that it has gathered to much steam to be stopped, but I feel obligated to say something.
This 'split' is not biblical.
I have great respect for this ministry. Have always tried to be respectful toward them. I know when you challenge authority it is a serious thing and you better know the motives and intents of your heart. I've been raised in this Body, its all I've ever known. I certainly believe God's people ought to be able to speak their hearts without fear of retribution from the ministry. There are enough scriptures in the old and new testament to prove that God doesn't like and will not tolerate abusive power and authority. He will deal with it! One Particular thing I have observed in Bro. William Sowders ministry is that he studied his heart, it's motives and intents. The heart is so full of sublties that lie deep within every individual.This is what set him apart from a lot of the men of his day. I say this very respectfully that if people would spend more time in searching their own heart we wouldn't be so critical of Bro. Farmer. Would you allow me to be so bold as to say this, that Bro. Farmer is not the enemy here nor is pants and music the real issues. Simply, we can't see the forrest for all the trees!
ReplyDeleteA few years ago, a dear Bro. in this Body wrote a very solid, well thought out article outlining some of the problems among us. Abusive power was at the top of the list as I remember. How well we forget,so soon , those things he wrote to us about. I for one believe that God dealt with that Bro. to write that article. Maybe we should go back over some of those things, to see if they really be true among us. I see absolutely no scriptural foundation to disfellowship any of our Brethern for the position they are holding in some of these controversial areas. Is that where we are headed? After all these years being divided on the Devil subject, and we come apart at the seams over dress standards and music???
ReplyDeleteMy response to 1 Cor 11:16 is posted on my blog.
ReplyDeletewww.adisciplesjourney.wordpress.com
It was just too long to post here
I'm trying to figure out why some of you guys are so afraid to post the comments of an anonymous blogger. What does it matter if you can see my face or know my name? I believe we are all in agreement that truth is the truth no matter what source it comes from. The Bible is chalked full of anonymous authors, are we willing to remove portions of that just because we don't know who's hand used the pen? And not just the bible but many literary works and worthy writing have come from anonymous authors. It just doesn't make sense to be so critical.
ReplyDeleteWheather your willing to admit it or not by you censoring every comment as critically as you seem to be doing. Your saying one thing and doing another. You are doing exactly what you are criticizing the ministry in the body of doing. Censoring what your readers are exposed to. Can you not see this?
Why is it not good enough just for me to express that I am someone who is trying to help? Do you need to know that I see Bro. Clifford and Bro. Mouser on a weekly basis? Does that help? Will it help to know that many times I have lifted my hands to heaven side by side in worship at the front of the church with these brothers.
Now that you know this information if I give you my name will you view me more critically when we speak face to face? I think you would. Would you harbor resentment, or anger toward me because I see things different than you? Would I be marked or suffer persecution just because of my view on things? Would you be able to worship the Lord as freely as you do now if we were standing next to each other and you knew my concerns? Would my identity become a stumbling block for you?
It's a sad fact ,but yet it is a true fact, we are human, and effected by human emotions. We are becoming something, we're not there yet. With that in mind why would you want to drive a wedge between us. The goal is to tear down the walls that seperate us,to find the point in our christian walk together that we divide, return to that point and see if we can find a way to walk side by side again. I believe in order to do that we need to find out where we agree and follow that path together until we find the exact point we divide. Then we can focus on what is really causing the division. In order to do this we will have to avoid our own egos and the constant use of diversionary tactics.
I'm not forcing you to answer my questions. If you don't want to respond or answer than just choose not to. You could even leave a comment that says I choose not to answer at this time. But to completely remove my comments seems harsh. Perhaps someone else would be interested in hearing what I have to say or would want to answer my questions.
Let me try this again: Here is the comment and questions that have been removed from Bro. Clifford and Bro. Mousers blog. Are they really that bad? Is the answer to just pretend they never existed?
-----------------
Bro. Clifford,
Thank you for admitting that your church does have some customs and you willingly follow them, (in the latest blog on your site, ShanesThoughts)
Does your church have any customs that you may feel are not needed, but yet you still follow them for the sake of others? Maybe you follow them out of respect for the group as a whole? A custom that your salvation doesn't depend on but just may be the structure that someone with less understanding than you may need?
----------------------------------------------
Just so you know, I am posting this on Bro. Cliffords site, Bro. Mousers site, and Bro. Dillon's site hopefully all will publish it, if not all than at least one.
There are issues that are associated with anominity. First, the person who writes does not have to accept personal responsibility for his words and is far more likely to say things that he wouldn't if his identity were known. He lacks the accountability that known persons accept. The readers are also unable to appreciate his background and history as related to his stance. They don't really know where he is coming from.
ReplyDeleteAs far as others posting an unknown writers words, those posting lack the knowledge as to whether this person is moral or credible. Are they posting a respected brothers words, or a person with a history of iniquity? They don't know. They take the chance that they are allowing words to go forth from a source that they would never endorse if his identity were known.
I do understand being annonymous out of fear of retribution, especially in the current body atmosphere.
Curt Schmitt
Bro. Schmitt,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments and have responded to them on my blog site. Here is a link to site. I welcome you and all who would like to read it or participate on it.
http://somone-who-cares-and-wants-to-help.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-response-to-bro-schmitt.html