Shepherding one another

[aron]

I am going to try to present some ideas which I have had recently about shepherding one another. And I am going to do so in a very specific context, which is what I call the School of Hard Knocks. Experience. Struggle. Failure after failure.

I was drawn to this line of thinking by two verses, which seemed to parallel one another. First was Psalm 51. David has failed, horribly. In verses 7 through 12 he gives a great catalogue of God's restoration process, appealing again and again to God's ability to bring him back out of the pit of sin.

Then, verse 13 has a remarkable declaration. "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." (KJV). David the transgressor, the sinner, will then, post-restoration, be a vehicle for God to bring back other transgressors, other sinners. God's mercy, displayed through the restored David, will be a beacon to other lost souls.

I might have dismissed verse 13 as the kind of bold declaration often made in what we call the "Old Testament" by God-fearing men according to their natural concepts. I mean, God doesn't need you, right? God is holy -- why are you, a sinner, trying to cut a deal with Him? What can you do for God? Nothing. What does He do for you? Everything. Who are you, o man, trying to wheedle a quid pro quo arrangement with the Almighty?

But here is the second verse, from what we call the "New Testament". Luke 22:32 says "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (NIV) Peter's failure, and God's merciful restoration through Jesus' intercession, became the means for Peter to shepherd others. Peter would later come across those who wavered, who faltered, and who fell. And Peter's experience of being a transgressor and a sinner would now allow him to help others similarly afflicted.

So I am thinking that an elder is simply someone who has been there, done that; and a shepherd is someone who uses that experience to help someone who comes along after them, who is facing similar peril, and/or is attempting to extricate themselves. Our hard experience of failure can help someone avoid the same trap, and/or extricate themselves if they are caught. Our unpleasant experience of failure can make someone else's experience a little less unpleasant.

[aron]

Another failure of Peter was his "I am going fishing" episode in John chapter 21. Peter declared he was going fishing. The brothers said they were going with him. All of them tried all night, but caught nothing. Then at dawn the Lord appeared. Suddenly they got all the fish they could ask for, not only in the net, but on the shore, cooked and ready to eat!

Then came the hard question. "Peter, do you love Me?" When answered in the affirmative, came the rejoinder: "Shepherd My sheep... feed My lambs". Jesus was shepherding Peter, in resurrection, just as He had done before his death. And His shepherding example was now drawing Peter to do the same, to shepherd others.

Now look at Peter's first epistle, in the passage where he writes to the more experienced ones. 1 Peter 5:1 "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away." (NIV)

Peter's many failures became a kind of 'cautionary tale', as David's had been, for the ones who were attempting to follow in the footsteps of the flock. In this sense we do not hide history, but rather admit it. Because our history shows that we are nothing, that God is everything. Our history shows that God's enemy is always sneaking around, trying to snare us. Paul said, "We do not let the adversary get an advantage over us. We are not ignorant of his schemes. We place no confidence in our flesh" (2 Cor 2:11; Phil 3:3; see also 2 Cor 3:4). And most of all, our history of repeated failures displays the open triumph of our righteous God's mercy. "Mercy triumphs over judgment". Satan's rebellion has failed. God has triumphed in His Christ, not in punishment, but in restoration. He is truly the Savior of the world.

[aron]

One more point needs to be strongly made here, at least initially. The experience of failure eventually leads the seeking one to triumph in the Christ, because he is no longer ignorant of Satan's schemes. When the tempter comes, again and again, the pilgrim eventually says, "You fooled me once. Shame on you. You will not fool me again. Get behind me, Satan."

When we boast of God's mercy over our failures, we should be very clear that we are not saying, "Let us sin, that God may be abounding in mercy". (see e.g. Rom 6:1) No; God has called us to be a holy people. But if and when we fail, as David did, and as Peter did, we don't give up. We avail ourselves of the Great High Priest who is interceding for us in the heavens, whose blood speaks of better things. And our hard experience of being lost and then found, and of being dead and then restored to life, then can become the beacon of hope for others similarly looking for a way out of the darkness.

[Cal]

Gee, aron. I thought being a great shepherd meant you were faithful to THE MINISTRY no matter what.

Oh, I get it...all our experiences of failure should teach us that THE MINISTRY knows better than anyone about everything.

Failure should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. Being humbled should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. If we backslide we should come once again prostrate before THE MINISTRY. Only then will we be set right as shepherds. God, MINISTRY. MINISTRY, God. What's the difference?

That's what you meant, right?

[MacDuff]

Aron

The only myth I would dispel is the notion that God doesn’t need anyone. It comes, I think, from Calvinistic thinking that God is sovereign and does everything. We can only go with the flow, as it were. God chose people to represent him in the Old Testament and Jesus chose the twelve in the New Testament. Doesn’t seem to me like either God or the Son of God didn’t need anybody. Besides why would God create something superfluous? And then want to save something superfluous after the fall? There are indications that the plan of God existed prior to the act of creation. Which is what seems to give many Christians the impression of a Calvinistic scenario.

As far as what you said, the nail has been struck squarely on the proverbial head in my view. But it does not concern the Churches of Christianity. Rather you’re speaking with reference to the ekklesia. And it must be made clear that to me there is a definite distinction to be made between the two.

In the ekklesia, the purpose of the overseer/elder as a leader is to serve, not to rule. In imitation of Jesus prior to the crucifixion. Christianity, with its ruling leaders, miss a significant lesson Jesus was teaching when he washed the disciples feet.

The one with experience is the best person to serve because of experience. And that is what leading is all about in the ekklesia. Who better to lead others in the right direction than one who has already been there and experienced what is there?

In Christianity, the best leader is an educated leader. Educated by colleges and seminaries. Because the one being educated is being educated to rule. All that kind of education in the world won’t make one a better leader in the ekklesia. That kind of education can’t replace experience and common sense. Not common sense from a human perspective, common sense as given by God. Wisdom. And the overseer/elder shouldn’t be the only one with experience. There should be more who are experienced, than are overseer/elders.

The Churches of Christianity obviously are singing a different tune. A natural human tune, not a heavenly one related to God or Jesus Christ. And it was hearing that natural human song that revealed to me that Christianity is just a man-made religion.

Witness Lee didn’t innovate the idea of everyone sitting in a circle in the Recovery meetings. Neither is the term meetings for Liturgy his innovation, for that matter. The Mennonites and groups like them had it long before Witness Lee (or Charles Taze Russell who called their gatherings meetings and their places of meeting, halls) were born.

It’s a way of meeting that originally was intended to show that all have the same life. And it gives everyone opportunity to function (in the sense of 1Cor 12-14) in the meetings. More than that, for the Holy Spirit to function in the meetings through anyone he chooses. In the Recovery that became more of a time for a testimonial than for the Spirit to function through them. And Lee called the testimonials prophesying. Making the same error of emphasis that the Pentecostals made.

The whole point of Paul in 1Cor 12-14 was that all the Spiritual functions are equally necessary. Paul was dealing with an emphasis on speaking in tongues. Sound familiar? When he said it was better to prophesy, Paul in no way intended to convey the idea it was more important. He said it in the context of dealing with an emphasis. The Pentecostals and Witness Lee totally missed that. Not surprising. Seeing as neither saw the difference between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the historically developed Churches of Christianity.

Today it’s all a matter of Tradition in the Recovery. If the Spirit was ever allowed to function in the Recovery, the greatest opportunity would have been during the era of Elden Hall in those few years prior to the move to Anaheim. The influx of people during that period made it more difficult for Lee to rule in the stead of the Spirit. He was at that point spread quite thin as a ruler. He even had a hard time controlling the so-called leading ones apparently. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole purpose for the move to Anaheim for Witness Lee was to gain better control of the people. The idea of the meshing of the Ministry with the Church was certainly for that purpose. It was already evident by the time I was involved with Elden Hall in the early 70’s. But my inexperience at that time hindered my seeing that fact. At the time I thought it was all spontaneous, and that Jesus was really leading, and that it was not under a human ruler at all. Of course, I’m aware of certain things that lead me to a different conclusion today.

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gee, aron. I thought being a great shepherd meant you were faithful to THE MINISTRY no matter what.

Oh, I get it...all our experiences of failure should teach us that THE MINISTRY knows better than anyone about everything.

Failure should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. Being humbled should lead us back to THE MINISTRY.

I know that acolytes of THE MINISTRY might say that my points on experience making us shepherds, assuming that they are valid and valuable, will have been already presented in, say, "The Experience of Life" chapter 23 and in "The Collected Works of Watchman Nee", vol. 17 pp. 283-297. All of which are, naturally, brought to you by a certain publishing house in Anaheim California.

To which I might in turn ask, "Who wants to go through all those volumes in order to find a few valuable teachings? I'd rather go to the Bible." Of course I do check my ideas against others'. I like getting counsel. But to primarily rely on THE MINISTRY for counsel is to be misled. God is today speaking to us in His Son (Heb. 1:2). And contrary to what some might believe, the Son has not been captured and held hostage, and made to speak on demand, by a certain publishing house in Anaheim California.

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

The only myth I would dispel is the notion that God doesn’t need anyone. It comes, I think, from Calvinistic thinking that God is sovereign and does everything. We can only go with the flow, as it were.

Yes, I was sort of making a straw man argument there. How well I represented the thinking I don't know. And I also conflated it with the LSM OT exegesis: "man is a sinner and useless before God. Christ is everything". Well, Christ is a man. Duh.

In the ekklesia, the purpose of the overseer/elder as a leader is to serve, not to rule. In imitation of Jesus prior to the crucifixion. Christianity, with its ruling leaders, miss a significant lesson Jesus was teaching when he washed the disciples feet.

The one with experience is the best person to serve because of experience. And that is what leading is all about in the ekklesia. Who better to lead others in the right direction than one who has already been there and experienced what is there?

Yes, I am speaking of the ekklesia. Which is seen, as you said, with Jesus washing the disciples' feet. And which is often not seen in organizations in which the leader is elevated above, both literally and figuratively, the "small potatoes". Yes, Jesus occasionally elevated and/or distanced Himself: He got in a boat and spoke to those on shore, and He went upon the mountain to speak (the "sermon on the mount"). But then He left the rock, and He left the boat.

The "rule", or mastery, or dominion, of Jesus was on an entirely different level, as you note. We usually see the organization, striving to present Jesus to the world, inevitably creating a different "rule" entirely.

[aron]

Peter asked, "How many times should I forgive my brother? Seven?"

Well, let's take a look at how many times Peter failed.

1. "Not so, Lord; this shall never happen to You".
2. "Let's build three tents here: one for Moses, one for Elijah, one for Jesus"
3. "Lord, I will never deny You"
4. Cut off the ear of the high priest's servant who tried to arrest Jesus.
5. "I am going fishing"
6. Shrinks back in Paul's account in Galatians chapter 2, on seeing "some from James".
7. Follows Jesus onto the water, then looks down and begins to sink.

Etc, etc. I think I could find a few more. Peter had multiple failures, and needed multiple restorations. As long as Peter would humble himself and forgive his neighbor, who also trespassed against Peter, then God would indeed forgive and restore Peter. Jesus taught this clearly: "Forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive others who trespass against us." So Jesus charged Peter to forgive "seventy times seven", because Peter himself ultimately might fail the same amount of times!

But the narrative is not about failure, and restoration, though it clearly includes that element. Ultimately the story is about triumph. At some point when Satan comes to tempt him, Peter remembers the shame and pain of past failures, and will turn and say, "Begone, Satan!" Just as Jesus successfully resisted the subtle one's attempts to ensnare Him, so Peter can, eventually, follow in the triumph of the Christ.

So that, to me, is Part One. Part Two is that when Peter has the experience of Christ's triumph, rather than puff himself up, he humbles himself, goes and finds the frustrated, suffering failures of the world, and shepherds them back to the Father of lights. Peter perhaps had to fail "seventy times seven" in order to "get it", but now he can go and help someone else, and maybe they will only fail "forty times seven", or "one times seven", or not at all. Because Peter is no longer ignorant of Satan's schemes, he is equipped to caution the unseasoned and ignorant ones. This is where his experience helps him to shepherd others. This is why verse 13 from Psalm 51 -- "Restore me, and then I will help other transgressors to turn back to You" -- and Jesus' declaration in Luke 22: "Once you have returned, strengthen your brothers", suddenly resonated for me.

Those 2 verses suddenly stood out for me, like two blazing beacons of light. All my failures, my repeated attempts to "get it", my confusion, my bitter frustration and tears, suddenly made sense. God's mercy was imbued with a purpose. Number one, that I would learn from my failures, and not repeat them. "I do not condemn you. Go, and do not sin again" (cf John 7:53 - 8:11). Secondly, that my failures could now be turned against the enemy, and could help others avoid those same pitfalls, traps, and snares. I can say that "truly my soul rejoiced in the LORD" when I saw that. I was filled with hope, and purpose. This rotten trip through the valley of the shadow of death was all part of God's purpose! I rejoiced that I could be a part of that purpose; I rejoiced.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, I was sort of making a straw man argument there. How well I represented the thinking I don't know. And I also conflated it with the LSM OT exegesis: "man is a sinner and useless before God. Christ is everything". Well, Christ is a man. Duh.

Christ is not typified by the repentant sinner of Psalm 51. "Lord, be merciful to me and restore to me the joy of Thy salvation. Lord, please renew a right spirit within me."

But the next verse perhaps reveals a man who is a disciple of Christ. "And then I will teach transgressors Thy ways. And sinners will turn back to You." Because you see Jesus, the Christ, charge His disciples the same thing in Luke 22. "Once you repent, and turn, and are revived, you in turn must strengthen the brothers." And this charge is echoed in John 21. "Peter, if you truly love Me, then take care of those ones who also love Me."

Jesus only had 12 disciples. Although He fed the thousands, and He probably healed the hundreds, there was an inner ring of 12 whom He shepherded closely. And Peter got to see some things even the others missed, like the transfiguration and the raising up of the ruler's daughter. So now Jesus wanted His other sheep to get shepherded through Peter, warts and blemishes and failures and all.

And I believe that this shepherding experience is gender-blind. Any disciple who gains the prize of experience can shepherd a newbie. As I said earlier, an elder is just someone who has been there, done that. They have experience. You have some elders that serve, and some that don't. And that is irrelevant of gender, age, intelligence, position, race, or education. You (the elder) have been through the valley of death, and you are still there. Arguably, you are there because some experienced one was there with you, counseling, encouraging, and consoling you; and interceding to the Father of lights on your behalf. Should you not now do the same? Peter got through his failures with the leadership of Jesus; shouldn't Peter, or any restored and revived sinner, now be able to shepherd others who suffer similarly?

I don't begrudge Paul's "women should be silent in the church", or "let the woman go home and ask her husband", or "I do not permit a woman to teach". If you look at the times, those statements were in keeping with cultural norms. The societal norms didn't permit christian slaves to rebel in the name of freedom, or women to vote, and Paul was recognizing and reinforcing that. But society has thankfully changed. And I argue that any group that tries to hold to the letter of Paul in not permitting women to function equally, when they are able, is cutting off one of its legs and then trying to win the race. Not a good move. You have all those Christian experiences, waiting to be used, and you say, "Silent". Not a bright move.

Paul said, "Am I not free?" Shouldn't we also ask the same question? Or are we slaves of Paul's letters; the Paul who declared his spirit's freedom? "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand fast therefore and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery" I feel Paul riding with me on this one. In arguing against the second-class-sister-system of rigid fundamentalism I think I have Paul with me. Paul was free, and so are we. Anyone who has been round long enough can be an elder, and any elder can serve.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't begrudge Paul's "women should be silent in the church", or "let the woman go home and ask her husband", or "I do not permit a woman to teach". If you look at the times, those statements were in keeping with cultural norms. The societal norms didn't permit christian slaves to rebel in the name of freedom, or women to vote, and Paul was recognizing and reinforcing that. But society has thankfully changed. And I argue that any group that tries to hold to the letter of Paul in not permitting women to function equally, when they are able, is cutting off one of its legs and then trying to win the race. Not a good move. You have all those Christian experiences, waiting to be used, and you say, "Silent". Not a bright move.

In the Roman empire in Paul's day, society was tiered, and women were just one step up from slaves. Everyone else, was considered above them. That is a sad commentary, but that was the environment Paul operated in.

Paul was actually pretty balanced. His saw and taught women's equal value before God. His exhortation for husbands to love and cherish their wives was probably a bit radical for the day. This is one reason Christianity was so attractive to women. They simply were treated better in the church.

However, Paul's commands to restrict women's teaching seems to have been largely cultural, not absolute. How can we assume this? One way is by observing the Lord's blessing on the ministries of female preachers like Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore and many others.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul's commands to restrict women's teaching seems to have been largely cultural, not absolute. How can we assume this? One way is by observing the Lord's blessing on the ministries of female preachers like Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore and many others.

Also look at Jesus' interactions with women, in a very male-centric society. Also look at their functions in the NT record, which again is in a male-dominated context. Prisca is just one example. Her name seems interchangeable with her husband's -- their prominence seems to flip-flop depending on the quote. And if Paul sent Apollos, for instruction, to them, not "to him", then Paul was availing himself of an asset within the fellowship.

And closer to home, we have had the record of Peace Wang & "Miss Barber" and others. They wouldn't be allowed to function in the lcs today. Jane Anderson tried to shepherd someone and was told she was forming a party, and drawing people after herself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Anyone who has been round long enough can be an elder, and any elder can serve.

Of course I am not using the term elder in an organizational context. I am using it in a functional context. If you are older and more experienced than someone else, then you are the elder, and bear more responsibility. And if you are a Christian and they are a younger Christian, then Jesus' words echo for you: "Feed My sheep. Shepherd My sheep."

At the tail end of my drinking career, I ended up with a group of teen-agers. One of them was my cousin, and he idolized me. So I was in the group. Most of them were still in high school. One of them had a car, another had a motorcycle. All of my old friends and drinking buddies were either sober & settled down, or gone, or didn't want me around any more. I had burned all my bridges and at that point was on the very fringes of society. No car, no job, no money, nothing.

But I ran into my cousin one day and they needed someone who could buy beer. And suddenly I was in a group, and I was, naturally, the elder. I had been around the block a few times and could tell some tales. So they would get money and I would make the purchase and we would go into a secluded spot and drink.

My point is that it's relative. If you are older than the next person you are the elder. You don't wait for an appointment from headquarters. Just function. God put you there. Your experience, much of it ugly and painful (remember the example of Peter!) has all been according to God's plan. Use it. "Do business until He comes".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... my failures could now be turned against the enemy, ... I can say that "truly my soul rejoiced in the LORD" when I saw that. I was filled with hope, and purpose... I rejoiced that I could be a part of that purpose...

It must be stressed that seeing that, and typing a few words about it on a computer keyboard, and posting it on the internet, is not the same as obeying. Whether or not I have been faithful to the heavenly vision I dare not say. But I can say with conviction that my struggles suddenly had a precious context, and a divinely-imbued purpose. Suddenly I saw something. I saw Jesus saying in Luke 22:32 that when Peter was restored to the light, he should encourage those brothers who, like him, had been faltering. I saw the psalmist (Psa 51:13) declare that after experiencing God's gracious salvation, he would then proclaim God's mercy to sinners, and turn them back, who also had been cut off from the presence of the Most High God, the LORD of hosts.

But have I really been shepherding anyone? I don't know. But it certainly gave me the incentive, and the courage to try. I remember the days when shepherding people only meant to lead them to THE MINISTRY; any human contact outside of that was vain. In fact, shepherding others apart from THE MINISTRY could be seen as factious; I might be forming a party or a sect, and trying to draw others off after myself. My hidden "gopher" of ambition was being revealed. I would be a "destroyer of God's building" if I didn't hold THE MINISTRY uber alles.

Maybe. But some years ago, having gone "back to christianity" or "back to the world" or wherever I was, and as usual being frustrated, defeated, discouraged, confused, and full of self-pity and loathing, I suddenly got the most marvelous revelation. I was working in the rough part of town, and I went into my supervisor and complained that the toilet paper kept disappearing in the public bathroom. The bathroom had these industrial-sized rolls of toilet paper, and they kept disappearing. Surely no one could use them that fast! He explained that the crack addicts stole them. They could get 50 cents for a roll. So they went around to all the public bathrooms, and when they got 10 rolls, they could get 5 dollars and a hit of crack.

Wow! I thought, somebody out there is as screwed up as I am! Maybe more screwed up, even! So suddenly I had a "clientele". I had people I could shepherd! And I tell you, as soon as I started to care for others, I felt God's care for me. Jesus was right, as usual: whatever you do to others God will do to you. If I shepherd others, God will shepherd me. If I encourage, console, and counsel, instruct, and comfort others, God will do the same for me. If I point others to God's grace in Jesus Christ, the pathway of life will shine brightly before me. Everything changed. At that point I stopped looking back toward THE MINISTRY, and stopped thinking incessantly of MYSELF, and I began looking around for someone who needed a kind word. Sometimes all you have to do is hold the door open, smile, and say, "Good morning". Make a little effort to care for those around you. And God will be with you. The very things that you do to and for and with others, so God will do to and for and with you.

It is very easy to find suffering people on this planet. Very easy. Truly the fields are white, and ripe for harvest. And if you make a little effort to care for those around you, the Paraclete will come and care for you.

[aron]

Hebrews 5:8 (NASB) "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered."

Anyone who has been on this planet a few times around the sun will know suffering. Heat, frost, insects, headaches, wind, sickness. Fear, pain, shame, confusion, frustration, anger. You frantically try to avoid loss, and then feel the inevitable powerless grief of loss itself. You persecute others and in turn you get persecuted.

For a long time I couldn't understand why anyone would kill themselves. One day I understood: they just want the pain to stop. That's why I drank for so many years; I just wanted the pain to go away. I was anesthetizing myself. Even after I became a Christian and stopped drinking I would often anesthetize myself with video games, crossword puzzles, television, cigarettes, food; anything to take away the dull ache.

Eventually I began to see patterns in my suffering. I began to sense that my suffering was not random and meaningless, but rather was often subsequent to aspects of my own behavior which in turn followed aspects of my personality, which were not subject to God. These dark forces like to hide within us, and when they manifest themselves they try to blame "the other"; it is always someone else's fault. But eventually the pattern of suffering became more clear and I couldn't deny that my problems were mainly not "of the world" but "of me".

I believe that the apostle Peter at some point could say, like Paul, that "we don't let Satan get an advantage over us, for we are not ignorant of his schemes" (2 Cor 2:11). The impetuous, violent, selfish and frightened Peter got exposed. And after repeated cycles of exposure and repentance, the restored and more experienced Peter was able help others who were likewise being misled by the subtle one. That is one reason why First Peter 5 is so precious to me. All the so-called super-apostles and deputy authorities and acting gods should read those words. Don't boss others around; just be an example to the flock by following the Shepherd. If you ever look at a flock of sheep you will notice that the lead sheep don't boss anyone around. They just take the lead to follow the shepherd. They know where the food is; where the protection is. They just go. The others, knowing that the older ones "get it", follow them. The younger ones follow them because that's where life is.

So the Perfect Son, who needed nothing, lowered Himself and came alongside Peter, and shepherded him. Failure after failure, and Jesus was there, suffering with him, bearing him up. What do you think it was like to look into the eyes of Jesus, after denying Him repeatedly, loudly. "I don't know Him!" Peter at that point was in a delerium of fear; in a haze. The light was disappearing quickly. The darkness waited, just as it had claimed Judas before him. But there in the darkness, Peter could still remember the words: "I prayed for you, and you will turn. You will come back." And when he was restored, as Jesus had promised, he could remember the charge to care for others. "A charge to keep I have".

Likewise, what do you think it was like for those brave men of David, to abandon their chief in battle? Uriah the Hittite was one of the mightiest men of Israel, specifically cited in the annals for his strength and bravery. At David's command his companions pulled back from him in the fight. Do you think their eyes met as he turned and saw them leaving him there? What did his face look like? What did their faces look like, before David, as they reported him dead? What did David's face look like when he prayed before YHWH... "What have I done?"

Experience is a hard master. Failure isn't fun. But Jesus lowered Himself and has been with each of us as we went through it all. He came for us because of the Father's great love, and He promised us in the Father's name that He wouldn't let us go. And because He was always obedient to the Father, His word is true. So why should we try to abandon Him for the temporary enjoyment of sin? And, once we've received power to resist Satan's schemes (and we will) should we not also use this experience of restoration and release, as a guide to those around us who are also suffering and in need?

To me it's clear. When Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself" He really meant it. No doctrine, no teaching, no truth, no organizational structure can overcome, subvert, nullify, or bypass this command. And Peter's word on shepherding in First Peter chapter 5 is to me completely obedient to, and reflective of, Jesus' command, as well as His example before his disciple Peter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Wow! I thought, somebody out there is as screwed up as I am! Maybe more screwed up, even! So suddenly I had a "clientele". I had people I could shepherd! And I tell you, as soon as I started to care for others, I felt God's care for me...

It is very easy to find suffering people on this planet. Very easy. Truly the fields are white, and ripe for harvest. And if you make a little effort to care for those around you, the Paraclete will come and care for you.

Notice that Jesus said, "When I was sick, you cared for Me. When I was in prison, you came and took care of Me." He didn't say, "When I was 'good building material' on the college campus you came and recruited Me into the central lane of God's economy".

Jesus said, "When you give a feast, invite those who cannot repay you. Then you will have a great reward in heaven." Jesus is here giving us a supernatural proposition. Spend your resources, physical, emotional, attention, time, etc on those who cannot give you anything back. You are supposed to squander your resources, to waste them. But He is telling us that something supernatural will occur.

The apostles recognized this, at least in part. Their collections seemed to be for the needy, not for those who already had something. E.g. the apostle Paul writing in Galatians 2:10 -- "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (NIV) I really don't see them spending millions of dollars on "training centers"; neither then nor now. Instead we Christians have the opportunity to invest our care upon those who have nothing to give us in return, and whom, after our largesse will probably still have next to nothing. It is a supernatural investment.

Which is not to say that we Christians should ignore middle- and upper-class college students. No; the Word is clear that all have sinned, and everyone needs the Good News. But it is to say that what THE MINISTRY told us, "Don't waste your time" on the poor, the lame, the crippled, the blind, was simply wrong. I was told that verbatim, in a meeting, by an FTTA "trainer". And secondly, it is also to say that in my experience I got a clear "amen" to this word: when I was reduced to the point that I was with the hopeless cases, I really did find the Paraclete. Actually the Paraclete had found me back in the Lee churches, when the cat dragged me in; I wasn't "good material" then but the dear ones there shepherded me anyway. But I never really sensed the Paraclete like when I started to shepherd the "bad material": ones worse off than me who would only occasionally repay me with affection and gratitude. When I began to try to present hope among the hopeless, it was then that I truly began to feel the power of hope. I began to realize God's love for these people: it was flowing through me. God cares about them, just as much as everyone else. And I was with them because I was one of them. And I could sense Jesus' words, "I am here with you, until the end of the days."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

But it does not concern the Churches of Christianity. Rather you’re speaking with reference to the ekklesia.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that "Churches of Christianity" are somehow different from "the ekklesia"? Isn't it all Christianity? That is the label given to those who are Christ-followers. And the churches (ekklesia) of Christianity would be the ekklesia.

What are you saying? Is there some differentiator between Christians?

[MacDuff]

OBW

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that "Churches of Christianity" are somehow different from "the ekklesia"? Isn't it all Christianity? That is the label given to those who are Christ-followers. And the churches (ekklesia) of Christianity would be the ekklesia.

What are you saying? Is there some differentiator between Christians?

Christianity itself creates its own differentiations between Christians. Starting with denominational differences over doctrine. Differences important enough to Christians that they practice closed communion over the differences. Pretty significant to me seeing as communion is thought of as a participation in unity. Communion participated in a denominational sense. How interesting. There’s even one uber essential doctrine that Christians use to determine one’s Christianity.

Christians freely use the word cult to eliminate opposition in the name of objective truth. Truth denominationally believed. The Recovery is a cult to mainline Christians. Probably brought on by themselves due to how they think of the rest of Christianity. Yet they are concerned how Christians view them. Nothing reasonable there, as far as I’m concerned. If I had of started a community that strictly followed what I believe in the sense of doctrine, it would be considered a cult. Indeed, not even Christian.

There is one basic difference between Christians that should be obvious to all who are in Christ. Some Christians are in Christ, some are not. But due to natural denominational thinking so common among them, it’s not obvious at all.

In my view, a distinction must be made between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the Churches of Christianity. Something you’ve already disagreed with in no uncertain terms elsewhere. So I have to question the motive for your post. Unless I’m confusing you with someone else.

If and when I agree that the ekklesia and the Churches of Christianity are the same thing, it will be because I’ve become an Atheist who considers the relationship between the Bible and Christianity to be one of basic synonymity. As do most Christians and those who leave Christianity, and pretty much any non-Christian.

As a religious Agnostic, the only reason I argue for a supernatural expression where the rubber meets the road, is because I still have hope (and a little faith) that the Bible portrayal is real. I’ve already lost all faith and hope in Christianity. A non sequitur to Christians. To hope in the Bible when all hope and faith in Christianity is already non-existent. Or vice versa.

I’ve had people tell me I should just be a Deist, and dump the Bible, since I’ve already for all practical purposes dumped Christianity. But since I still attend a Christian Church, that isn’t entirely true. Who knows how that will play out. If I become Atheist, I certainly would be a more formidable foe to Christianity, if I chose to be so, then any of the so-called nouveau Atheists who can’t see much farther than their own nose. One would think they would just let the Christians be, if they can’t even understand what the religion is supposed to be about. Not that it’s entirely their fault, seeing as most Christians don’t seem to understand their religion any better than the Atheists do. And that’s taking into account that to Christians, there is a synonymity between the Bible and Christianity.

Is the reason there is such a disparity in thinking between the Bible and Christianity really due to a difference between 1st and 21st century thinking? Or are the Catholics right that Christianity (in the form of the Roman Catholic Church) is just a historic development through the Spirit of what initially existed in the 1st century? Are Protestantism and orthodoxy are representative of not following the flow of true Christian history with the Spirit? Perhaps. Lee sure got the idea of flow wrong if so. But it seems to me that the flow in Christianity has been more natural than supernatural.

MacDuff

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christianity itself creates its own differentiations between Christians. Starting with denominational differences over doctrine. Differences important enough to Christians that they practice closed communion over the differences. Pretty significant to me seeing as communion is thought of as a participation in unity. Communion participated in a denominational sense. How interesting. There’s even one uber essential doctrine that Christians use to determine one’s Christianity.

First, the differentiation that you point to is within Christianity. So Christianity is, by definition, above the differences. When you say "Christian" you can't logically say that some Christians are Christian and others are not.

Some Christians practice closed communion. I know of a couple of groups that do that. They are far from a majority when spliced together into one group. I'm sure there are others as I do not know the practices of all churches. But a recent statistic said that something like 70 to 80 percent of all Christians fellowshipped through "mega-churches" or very lare assemblies. While there are some very large assemblies within groups that I cannot speak concerning, my impression is that most are of the types that practice open communion. Most of your independent community churches, Bible churches, Baptists, major charismatics groups, Community churches, etc., practice open communion.

And in the cases where it is not so, it is (at least on paper) more about a desire to make the observance only open to those they are reasonably confident are truly of the body of believers than a tool to keep other Christians out. Given the kind of warnings that Paul gave concering partaking unworthily, they may feel somewhat compelled to take that route to help non-believers avoid whatever might otherwise befall them. I am happy that there be the simple statement that it is for those who are believers. But I think that the notion that it is generally about excluding other Christians is a spin given with a purpose to discredit.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christians freely use the word cult to eliminate opposition in the name of objective truth. Truth denominationally believed.

Yeah. I know. And while I understand a legitimate use for it, there is seldom a time in which it is helpful. If there are legitimate issues, it is much better to lay out your objections than to simply add on a label and turn away. And if you are trying to help those caught within what you believe to be a "problem" group, you are more likely to close their ears by using the word.

And for that reason, it is so seldom used in anything but the most severe cases that when you use the word, Jonestown and David Koresh are all that come to mind. Hey, Christianity technically meets all the criteria to be a cult at some level. Following a man. Strong authority. I mean, check it out. WHerever you can find a list of 6, 8, 10 characteristics, the entirety of Christianity meets it at a somewhat low level on all counts, and higher on a few.

A related term is "heresy." Another weasle word. Declare it to be heresy and the discussion is over even if there is no heresy involved. Oddly, heresy is simply to hold a different opinion. So every group is somewhat heretical to every other group. But even they don't go around calling it that. We do tend to stick to really big things. Like suggesting that God is a cosmic mushroom. Or declaring Jesus to just be some man who got a bunch of stuff made up about him.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

There is one basic difference between Christians that should be obvious to all who are in Christ. Some Christians are in Christ, some are not. But due to natural denominational thinking so common among them, it’s not obvious at all.

Are you talking about people who declare themsleves to be Christian but all they are is socially compatible with Christian morality (never put faith in Christ) who occasionally attends some church because they think that Pascal was right that they should hedge their bet? Who don't really believe in Christ. Just in the idea of Christ or his moral teachings?

Or are you trying to make some distinction concerning moment-by-moment condition, such as the LRC would do when they determine whether they are or are not "in my spirit"?

I'm sorry if this seems like a trite answer. But those are the only two ways I can think of to assess your comment. The first one is to make the mistake of accepting that saying you are a Christian because you went to a church is synonymous to being a Christian. It is an equivocation. On this forum, we generally do not accept the idea that those people are actually Christian. The second is take the truth about not being in "active follow" mode (my made-up term). A way of saying that if you don't set your mind on the Spirit, you aren't going to fulfill teh righteousness of the law. I don't disagree with this. But even this passage in Romans does not remove you from the body of believers, therefore leaving you as a "Christian" even though you are not actively practicing. (I will stay out of the area of the hard-line "once saved always saved" v the Arminian "you can lose your salvation" discussion. I've been in groups on both sides and neither has what I see as a lock on the truth. And surely don't have the answer.)

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my view, a distinction must be made between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the Churches of Christianity. Something you’ve already disagreed with in no uncertain terms elsewhere. So I have to question the motive for your post. Unless I’m confusing you with someone else.

You probably are referring to me. But since you don't seem to lay out what it is that causes your concern or disagreement, I can't respond to it.

But I can assert that much of the kind of discussion that has previously been offered to put Christianity in such a bad light has (in my opinion) been selective as to its facts and colored as to how to interpret the findings of the selected facts. For the most part, only the anomalies are being pointd out.

I did not quote it, but you make a comment about “synonymity” between the Bible and churches. Inferring that the ekklesia in the NT is not the churches of today.

One thing that I find interesting in these discussions is the presumption that everyone sees what we see and is ignoring it. I am beginning to be convinced that what we think we are seeing is what we were told we were seeing by means of smoke and mirrors. Many of us left friends and even family to join the LRC for a time. We needed a reason. And Lee and the leadership wanted us to buy their wares in a way that would stand out as weird to our friends and family. So a wedge was continually driven between us and them. They are fallen and we are special.

Most now reading this forum have come down from the “we are special” as it applies to the LRC. But many have not gotten over the other side of the rhetoric. The “they are fallen and wrong’ side. We think that Christianity is out to fool its followers into buying their wares because it lines their pockets. And while you can find some of those, they are not the norm, or the majority. Most ore diligently serving their constituents what they see as needed for their Christian life and service. Most do not think about that other denomination on the opposite corner as some kind of heretical, cultish error. They think of them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Note that I say “most.” The fact that there is the LRC doing its thing is sufficient evidence that it is not all. But they are slandering most of the others. And making themselves into everything that they accuse the others of being.

And what is the ekklesia that the churches of today are not being? I see a vast diversity among them (in the NT) based on the letters written and the comments made in those letters. Be sure and include the letters in Revelation 2 and 3. Those churches mostly had some problems going on. But they were not designated as “false churches” or not churches.

In fact, besides some rather broad, metaphorical declarations about the church as a whole, how much does the Bible actually tell us about how the church should be? It seems to mostly tell the members how they should be. And the things that it tells them sound a lot like the things that are so often chastised as lists. I don’t like them either. But even if we agree that we will not put our list on anyone else, if you are a true Christian, you have your own list. And it is lengthy. And it has fuzzy words here and there because you are not certain what you really think or mean.

What I’m saying is not that having a mess is the whole idea. But that having a mess was the fact from day one.

But as long as we retain the Lee/LSM/LRC glasses for the review of all things related to the Christian life, the practice of “church” and so forth, we will be tainted to resist everything because we can’t stomach the LRC but believe they were right about everything else about Christianity. There are divisions among Christians. But their impact is generally not what was declared to us by Lee and the LRC. We just continue to look at it the way Lee taught us.

[MacDuff]

OBW

See my PM to you

MacDuff