The Laundry List

[hurdygurdygurl (hurdygurdygurl)]

I was enjoying the Laundry List and hoped we could have some kind of group conscience on what we wanted it to read as. So, I started a new thread here, if anyone is interested/obsessed as much as I am.

Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 5:08 am:

Still working on that list...I took the opportunity and made some changes for editing purposes. Please edit as needed for clarity.

For the original post, please go to:
http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=185046#POST185046 }

<u>THE LAUNDRY LIST</u>

1. Every Nation likes to disciple people too extreme. (Eg. Dating Policy)

2. Every Nation leaders like to be the gateway for hearing from God.

3. Every Nation doesn't minister to the street (people who are a nobody).

4. Every Nation has a spirit of man pleasing.

5. Every Nation is not fully submitted to God.

6. Every Nation has a love for money.

7. Every Nation's has requirements for leadership and that is adherence to EN DNA. (Are we assimilated, yet?)
(massive, can you elaborate what you see the DNA as? I have my ideas, but you sound much closer to it than I am as laity and you lead. Don't feel you have to….)

8. Every Nation tends to equate and/or value loyalty to leaders on the same level or above loyalty to God, in it's practices.

9. Every Nation does not consistently correct top leaders who teach things that are not in accordance with the Word of God even when it is brought to their attention.

10. Every Nation has been somewhat vague about its ties with the New Apostolic Reformation and the Latter Rain as a whole, and to what extent it adheres to the teachings and practices coming out of those movements.

11. Every Nation's position on the Trinity is less than clear (as was Maranatha's). Its doctrinal statement certainly allows for modalism.

12. At my local Every Nation Church, sometimes I fear I am rebellious and feel guilt about this, even when I am doing what is right.

13. At my local Every Nation Church, I am afraid to talk to the Pastor about what I consider abusive behavior by someone in leadership.

Any feedback on this list is valued and appreciated. Thanks.

[hurdygurdygurl (hurdygurdygurl)]

http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&amp;post=181746#POST181746 - this is where the list originally started

I would like to see the list evolve, as I truly believe that The Laundry List of ENCM is a valuable tool to affect awareness and change personally and corporately. IMHO. And I thank jjd (james_john_doe) for having wisdom to think these concerns through and for your desire to see growth and change - starting at the grass roots - within our own hearts and minds.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

hurdy--

thanks for starting this as a new thread. Something that should be said is that these are statements of opinions that some, not all, believe to be true about EN. There are participants of this forum who would take issue with some or, perhaps, all of the points listed above.

Being in general a detractor of the detractors (i.e. pro EN), I want to say, too, that I think this list is a good idea because it distills the arguments down to a palatable size for others to evaluate--evaluate not only their own church and/or EN, but also their own lives, other churches, other organizations. There is no original sin other than the Original Sin, so these points could be a warning to ourselves as much as anything else.

IMO, I disagree with most of the points above (except perhaps the first sentence in 7, which I don't see as a negative, "Every Nation's has requirements for leadership and that is adherence to EN DNA"). But I would really like to see some of the more active detractors on this forum iron out these points. It would contribute much to the defining of the objections and create a measuring rod for others to use if they don't have the mind-numbing patience or desire to read all the posts on this site.

--SB

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

on another thread, where hurdy started this particular thread, she asked:

"Do you think the Board of ENCM would be interested in our corporate concerns? Or shrug it off? The Laundry List of ENCM is relevent [sp] to all of us in the ministry because it can affect corporate awareness and change."

Yes, I know that they are interested in the accusations made on this board. And, no, it's not all shrugged off. But there are many reasons why much of what the detractors say is heavily discounted. For example:

1) Timeliness: many accusations are too far in the past to be relevant for today (in the legal system we would call it a statute of limitations)

2) Credibility: much of what is said on this board lacks credibility because of many factors including (a) opinions stated as fact (b) poor articulation (c) unwillingness to put one's name or character behind the accusations (d) acting in anonymity (e) evidence of unchristian/uncharitable thoughts toward individuals or EN as a whole (f) an apparent absence of Christ likeness in voicing complaints (g) apparent bitterness or other issues that appear to cloud an individual's judgment (h) I could probably think of more

3) Old information: an unawareness of current workings within EN. For example, even in the past weeks and months, a lot of changes continue to take place that those who have been outside of the ministry for years or decades would be unaware of.

4) Sheer volume of commentary: Who has the time to read this board? Would a leader rather spend their day in inaction reading people criticize them or get about the business of what God has called them to do? If it wasn't for God's call to me to spend some time here, He knows I wouldn't do it. I don't have that kind of time. <u>That's why I think this list is important! It becomes a quick summary--a punch list.</u> It also has the advantage, as Hurdy said, of being "relevent [sp] to all of us in the ministry".

So, for all of you detractors, would you please work on this list? It would help all of us who don't have the time in our life to read and filter all the comments on this board and would, in actuality, aid and assist those in EN--at all levels--you claim to love so much! Thank you in advance.


--SB

[lc_20 (lc_20)]

Cymbrogi,
For me, the point of this board is not to accuse anyone of anything but to help those who have been hurt. From what I know about God, there is no statute of limitations on sin. Sin is sin and without repentance and restitution there are consequences. Same goes for credibility. There are wounded people posting here who need support and encouragement. Maybe that support is not articulated well - but God sees the heart and He knows the truth. Old testimonies are just old hurts. They still need to be addressed if people are going to be able to move on in life and for some, this is the first opportunity they have had in decades to talk out their experiences. As far as sheer volume, again, this is about the purpose of the board. Talking through hurts takes time and words - sometimes volumes of words. You see this board as detractors. I see it as a place people come to voice their hurts, get support and heal. This is why I am not interested in helping you with a list. It doesn't fit my purpose here. I do hope you are right that things are changing for the better. I will believe that when hurt people stop showing up here.

[ulyankee (ulyankee)]

cymbrogi, you refer to recent changes within EN of which we may not be aware. Can you elaborate? Also, you imply that what may have happened even weeks or months ago (certainly a year or more ago) no longer are valid observations because of these changes. If so, do you know if there has additionally been public, open repentance among the leaders, particularly the US based leaders?

[speakword2004 (speakword2004)]

Cymbrogi

My initial reaction to your list was to feel that you were trying to reduce all arguements, issues and problems expressed here by lumping points together, mixing them up, summarising and then simplifying them to the point where they look anti-Christian and ridiculous. Are you serious about what you are saying?

If you want people to take you seriously then why don't you identify yourself? Your name, rank and if you are EN, who "covers" you. Sorry, just using your churches' language, but get real. Are you being honest or just bait and casting?

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Cymbrogi - I really don't see what good would come of submitting this list to you. Your wording and very tone makes it seem obvious that you've already mentally discounted whatever someone may add to the list.

I agree with LC on what I see as the purpose of this board - to have a place of mutual support and express our experiences and views of what we have have been through.

It truly does feel like you are just "baiting" people here, as Speakword put it, so that you can get people to write for the purposes of smashing them down. There's already been enough hurt without people subjecting themselves to that.

Now if I am wrong and you *truly* do care about people's experiences here and would like the list for the purposes of helping them, then I might be interested. Although I *seriously* doubt any EN leader would look at the list with any sincerity and humility anyway.

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

thecymbrogi , I am pretty sure you church have no problem with the list thats posted. I have visited a few churches in California and found only one that is not affected at all. The only church that I did not visit is the Polus church.But I heard good reports about them after Dave Houston was asked to step down. During Dave Houston time, there was a lot of problems. One of the pastor in california is very aware of the problems in MSI. (Everything thats listed).
I have stated last year that NOT all MSI/EN have these problems but in general they have. Since all the Top leaders of MSI/EN have these problems. There are very FEW thats not affected, and they are rare and few.
Probably you are just blessed that your church is not affected. I hope you visit other MSI/EN churches and don't just visit a day but stay for two months or longer and you will start to see.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

Thank you all for responding!

With the exception of lc's post, I started to respond in paragraph form but it was taking too much time. Instead, I've taken the time to inline comment my responses to your posts. Best I can do with the limited amount of time. But the summary is: I REALLY am interested in what you say and want to see a list put together so that not only I but others can better understand how and if people are being hurt today by systematic failures within EN--or if there are no systematic failures but maybe, perhaps, just isolated incidents among individuals and individual churches.


LC--while your view of the board is your view, it seems to me that a lot of people, including yourself, would like there to be changes in EN that are perceived (accurately or not) as necessary. This immediately takes the board beyond just helping those that are hurt but to a proactive process to see changes happen within EN so that others will not be hurt in the future. Because of that, I believe the list is a necessity.

As to your final point about staying around until hurt people no longer show up, that will never happen so you will be here the rest of your life if you follow through. People will never stop showing up here as long as there is an EN or even a memory of Maranatha, MSI, EN, Rice, Phil, etc….. People are always getting hurt, whether justly or unjustly, in every ministry and in every part of life--not just EN. This does not necessarily minimalize the pain of suffereing but hurt people will always congregate to commiserate with others over their pain. I do it, you do it, we all do it. It is neither a negative nor a positive statement, but just a statement of sociological fact that is testimony to the way that our Creator has wired us for relationship. Even Jesus Himself hurt many people, and some of them even plotted their revenge for His own downfall. So hurting people do not necessarily evidence the wholeness or unhealthiness of a ministry--only the sinfulness of man. We must look deeper into an individual or an organization to understand from whence the pain and harm come.

Now, having said that, as it relates to EN I want for my own sanity check to make sure that if anyone is hurt it is not because of a systematic failure of the entire ministry (corporate sin) but only individual sin--and to see that minimized as much as is humanly possible. Unlike you and the others I am addressing on this post, I remain unconvinced that there are systemic problems left unaddressed within EN--but my court is still open and I am still here, listening, judging...

To the rest--
ulyankee said:
you refer to recent changes within EN of which we may not be aware. Can you elaborate? [i] . Also, you imply that what may have happened even weeks or months ago (certainly a year or more ago) no longer are valid observations because of these changes. [not what I meant, but I understand how you concluded that. What I was saying is that an observation is more valid the closer to the present it is. For example, if someone says I was spiritually abusive to them in 1985, or even 1995, that is a lot different than them saying I was abusive to them last month (2005). Another way of saying the same thing is that there are many people on this forum who were horrible spiritual abusers years ago--perhaps even you were one of those. But probably not so today. To assume so could be to assume a lie. So, when I read someone's testimony of ten years ago, I have to give the benefit of doubt (i.e. innocence until proven guilty) that the accused may have changed in the past 10 years. That's why, on a past post, I said the TF case, as horrible as it is, is excellent in regard to it's timeliness: it's a current affair (no pun intended) and how it is handled reflects the heart of the EN leadership today. (the Paul Daniels case could be used as another example in recent history that bears testimony to EN leadership practices)] If so, do you know if there has additionally been public, open repentance among the leaders, particularly the US based leaders? [there is a whole lot implied in your question which makes any type of response difficult, inaccurate, incomplete, and complicated. You have my email and perhaps my phone number. I don't mind talking to you off forum where I can elaborate better and be less concerned about my semantics. I'll get RSI and confuse a lot of people if I try to explain my response to that question here and at this time]}.

Speakword said:
My initial reaction to your list was to feel that you were trying to reduce all arguements, issues and problems expressed here by lumping points together [yes, if they are the same point] , mixing them up [no], summarising [yes] and then simplifying them [yes] to the point where they look anti-Christian [no] and ridiculous [no]. Are you serious about what you are saying? [yes--but what I am saying, not necessarily what others say I am saying (if that makes sense)]

If you want people to take you seriously then why don't you identify yourself? [already did that from my very first post over a year ago;but by your comment, I infer it didn't help any way <grin> BTW, it is now only fair to ask you to identify yourself <grin> (just joking--I don't care)] Your name [did that], rank [huh??] and if you are EN [i], who "covers" you [why is this important?]. Sorry, just using your churches' language, but get real [i]. Are you being honest [yes--are you??] or just bait and casting? [dude (or dudette), read my posts again. That's not who I am. Sounds like you are trying to bait me--out here, they call that sushi….. Back home, it's just bait….<grin>]

Ontheroad said
I really don't see what good would come of submitting this list to you [i]. Your wording and very tone [hmmm. You must be reading a different "tone" than I mean. I sometimes try to put emoticons in my posts to give people a sense of tone since tone never comes out in email dialogue well <grin>. If it helps at all, I normally have a smile on my face when I post (like now, <grin>). I am not threatened by any accusations that have been made (though some others seem to be--on both sides of the aisle), even if they were all true in their entirety. Life and God are great; they've both been very good to me. I'm not bitter about life or people although people are sometimes surprised at that when they find out parts of my life] makes it seem obvious that you've already mentally discounted whatever someone may add to the list. [most people discount everything someone says if they disagree with it--you may even do it, too. In my case, I am trying to filter facts from opinion and relevancy from irrelevancy. How someone was royally messed up in Maranatha, while tragic and my compassion and prayers goes out for them, does not help me understand better where EN is today. So in this sense, you are correct. But if I discount old news, let it be known I give a premium to new news. For example, if you had a personal testimony of how so-and-so on the IAT was being spiritually abusive to you last month or last year, I would be all over it like a rottweiler on a squirrel <grrrrr!!!><ruff!><bite!>]

I agree with LC on what I see as the purpose of this board - to have a place of mutual support and express our experiences and views of what we have have been through [please see my comments above to LC on this because the evidence is contrary to your opinion; by people's posts on this board, many want more than what you just said.. Some want to go so far as to see the absolute destruction of the EN ministry and all of its leaders, though I serioulsy doubt this is a mainstream view of the detractors here].

It truly does feel like you are just "baiting" people here [i], as Speakword put it, so that you can get people to write for the purposes of smashing them down [ahh, no, that's not my purpose. But even if I did try, the only way I could succeed would be if my arguments were true and the list were false. If the list were true and my attacks false, I would be the one whose ideas come smashing down.]. There's already been enough hurt without people subjecting themselves to that. [well, whether you like it or not, more people will be hurt. Assuming the list is true and correct, without clarity on it, many more people stand to be hurt through ignorance of the truth. Assuming the list is wrong, many people stand to be hurt through the falseness of other people's testimonies. If people were really concerned about not seeing others get hurt, they would strive to come across clear--clarion call clear to use a poor metaphor--to prevent as many as possible from going down such a horrible road.

I could successfully argue that to NOT come up with a clearly discernible, factual list would be to actually participate in the ongoing abuse of others because, while others knew what was going on, they were silent enough on the issue to not be clear about what was wrong. They obfuscated it with much talk, little clarity.]

Now if I am wrong and you *truly* do care about people's experiences here [yes--why else would I take up my time? I don't need this for myself--I'm whole and healthy like never before in my life and have nothing to defend. As I said elsewhere, I have interest in knowing as much about every organization I can that I am intimately involved with.] and would like the list for the purposes of helping them, [don't know if I can help them directly, but could help others by brining greater clarity and understanding to problems that may or may not be a part of EN in 2005] then I might be interested. Although I *seriously* doubt any EN leader would look at the list with any sincerity and humility anyway [sounds like you are doing what you have (incorrectly) suggested I am doing: approaching the situation with a closed mind, closed heart. IMO, the best thing you could do if you want to see more than just your own healing take place would be to work on clearly distilling what you believe to be truths down to a condensed and digestible format. Even Jesus did that on at least one occasion. Why be afraid to do anything less??]

Ginger said
thecymbrogi , I am pretty sure you church have no problem with the list thats posted. [i]I have visited a few churches in California and found only one that is not affected at all. [please bear in mind that that is your opinion] The only church that I did not visit is the Polus church.But I heard good reports about them [this makes your testimony hearsay and discounted, however, even if it is positive] after Dave Houston was asked to step down. During Dave Houston time, there was a lot of problems.[again, this is opinion] One of the pastor in california is very aware of the problems in MSI. (Everything thats listed). [agree and disagree]
I have stated last year that NOT all MSI/EN have these problems but in general they have. Since all the Top leaders of MSI/EN have these problems. [i]There are very FEW thats not affected, and they are rare and few. [i]
Probably you are just blessed that your church is not affected. [my church is the best church I have been a part of in 36 years] I hope you visit other MSI/EN churches and don't just visit a day but stay for two months or longer and you will start to see. [not possible, but have done it vicariously for many years. I have seen problems like those on the list above, but I am unconvinced they are systemic to all of EN.]

Phew!!! Ok--time will tell if I've just wasted valuable time or invested it in the future of others--

--SB

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Ginger1,
I'm curious about the California church where David Houston was, could you elaborate?
John

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

Dave Houston was from the Valley church, North of Los Angeles Ca. He was Caught spiritually abusing the worship leader. The worship Leader wants to leave because the pay cannot support him and his family, Dave Houston said no, and told him he has "lack of faith", rebellious etc. Anyway, Dave Houston called up one of the elders and left a message on his anwering machine. THATS HOW HE GOT CAUGHT ! Thats when they told him to step down. A lot of people know this. After he left, the Polus took over his church, I have a friend who goes there and told me that the church actually doubled after he left. A lot of filipinos.

The other church who is very aware of the abuse is PAstor Greg Wark , he is actually Steve murrell's best friend and he is the one who also told Steve Murrell that was listed above. One of the best churches that I visited. I stayed for 6 months. Then left for job reason.

The other church I visited is Gary Senna, It is not as controlling as Phil but its there. Its religious and the church is dead. I stayed for two months. Met a few people who complained about him. But I still find him not as bad as Phil Bonasso.

I have also visited Dave Soto's church, one of the worst one. Weird beliefs. Like they do not like unbelievers, some of the members (students) have actually asked permission if their parents who are not believers can attend.

Several people left , because of his abusive behavior. Once you are in, they refused to let you go. The church members 25. It was a startup church and they do not like unbelievers because they do not want to be "contaminated."

You have to moved to San Diego, irregardless of your income.
Dave Soto, I can say that its worse than Phil. At least in Phil's church, you can hide, there are 120 people. While in Dave Soto's church is only 25 , where can you hide without being notice ?
Anyway, I have a good friend who left also, he was actually and elder of the church already too.

[lc_20 (lc_20)]

I met David Houston once - He was a barley green man - definitely inner-circle. Do you know what he is doing now? I doubt the situation that you posted would have knocked him out of Rice's inner-circle. Is he in TX now?

Cymbrogi, I have mentioned before, I have been out for less than a year. I haven't seen that rottweiler side of you. If you have been posting here for over a year, then we were probably on the same side at one point. I used to defend EN on this board until I realized the abuses coming my way were being felt all over the US. There were things people were posting - exact accusations - that I had experienced.. I couldn't deny that it had to be systematic. There was no other explanation for how people on separate sides of the country could be having the same experiences.

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

Dave Houston was transferred to Nashville. And Rice been telling people he got "promoted". He lost his church of 20 years. Thats demotion.He is in Rice church now, I think travelling and teaching about "family".

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Thanks Ginger, I went to his church years ago and wonderd what had become of him and the church.
John

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Thanks Ginger, I went to his church years ago and wonderd what had become of him and the church.
John

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">lc--

I liked your rottweiler comment and take it as a compliment. Maybe a badger would have been a better analogy LOL--both are known for not letting go once they get their teeth in something <grrr> but the Rot has a viciousness (when they go crazy) that I may not have (let's see what happens if I go crazy). I keep on thinking of that scene from The God's Must Be Crazy II (I think) with the poor Aussie and the wombat.... But, alas, so few people know what a wombat is so I had to choose the dog analogy <sigh>. Some days your Land Rover ends up in a tree, the next your getting hit on the head with a coke bottle.....

On a serious note, your comments do give me pause for reflection but I remain unconvinced. For example, quoting from ginger in the post prior to yours: "The other church I visited is Gary Senna, It is not as controlling as Phil but its there. Its religious and the church is dead. I stayed for two months. Met a few people who complained about him. But I still find him not as bad as Phil Bonasso." My experience in that church, after 14 years, is completely the opposite. "Religious and dead" "controlling" those don't agree with me or my experiences. Ginger is flat out wrong but has her opinion. And it sounds like she found a couple of people to validate her opinion so she confidently believes she is right. So then, someone reading this forum with an "EN is a sociological cult" agenda will say, "Hey, Ginger in her two months at Harvest Valley (Garry's church) got it right while this poor Cymbrogi sucker has been there 14 years and is just so badly deceived. Wow, EN must REALLY be bad!" Others will look at the same situation and say, "Hey, I know that church. It's a good church. If Ginger is wrong about that, she is probably wrong about all the others, too. And if she is wrong, then so are all the detractors. There's nothing wrong with EN! Case closed."

Both of those are equally bad conclusions. So what do we do? In my case, either ginger or myself are wrong. So what next? Look at the facts out there for EN as a whole. But I still have not seen facts enough to say that, yes, EN today is just another Maranatha. If it were the case, I have no doubt that I would not be a part and little doubt that my church would be a part. But it sure would be nice to have a measuring stick (i.e. the Laundry List) to measure facts with.

Some more reasons why I find the detractors suspect is my own personal experience in dealing with detractors in my life. Through the years I have seen some outlandish accusations made by people (and some spot-on ones, too, I should add). A personal example (one of many that comes to mind), my wife and I were accused once by our closest friends that we were manipulative and controlling. On what basis? We had 4 children and started sitting on the front row at church (while our kids were in kids church). They broke off a 12 year relationship on the basis of that. Trash talked us behind our back, spread nasty rumors. The woman had been my wife's closest friend. Now, how could 4 kids and sitting on the front row be manipulative and controlling? They thought we thought that by having 4 kids we were trying to be like EN leaders ("they have lots of kids") and were currying favor by sitting on the front row. Favor for what???? Gimme a break!! (I am laughing even now at this). So, so, stupid (heads shakes back and forth). But they KNEW they were right and didn't even talk to us. And you know what the truth was? I liked getting my wife pregnant and she liked having kids! And the closer to the front I sit, the less my CAPD affects me. Oh, and this is just one of MANY weird examples I have seen. So, naturally, when someone has a vastly different experience than I do, I pause, evaluate it, try to filter out the truth that is there, apply it, and move on. But there is just too much bad kool aid there to go drinking all of it without thinking (Jane and John Doe in CO who were our friends, if you ever read this know that we still love you)

Oh, and don't get me started on other weird stuff. Wait! Too late: I've met some of those Sand Mountain-ish christian people. And I've been a member of 1 Corinthian styled charismatic church (I mean the disorderly kind). So I know there are a lot of wacky christians with wacky thoughts and wacky conclusions. The worst ones ALWAYS spend more time pointing at others than themselves. And then they claim some stupid Scriptures (like I used to do) as to why their disorder is really good and like the prophet Jeremiah or Isaiah or some other gobbly gook. Because of all that, I just don't believe it just because someone says they "feel this" or "believe that" or "was hurt by so-and-so". But I'm still here--listening, participating, and trying to understand facts, be what they may. There are just so few of them presented here. It's more like RumorNET or OpinionNET than FactNET. I'm starting to feel there are better things to do like watch reruns of Gilligan's Island or something.

On a side note, my biggest concern so far has actually been the derth of corporate financial information and the bit I have seen has caused me pause. Then again, the stuff I saw was filed by GB in TX before he left so.....

closing comment, you said, "There were things people were posting - exact accusations - that I had experienced.. I couldn't deny that it had to be systematic." But then how do you explain how I have never seen or experienced any of those in 14 years? If it is system wide, I should experience it, too. If not, and it is perhaps personality* based, then your experience makes sense to me but then it is not systemic, but localized. *personality of the leader

--SB</font>

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Thanks Ginger, I went to his church years ago and wonderd what had become of him and the church.
John

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

thecymbrogi , so you are in Gary Senna's church. Then maybe you know the girl that was abused in there, Its one of the filipino's daughter ! She was going out with an unbeliever and she was actually persecuted and pressured to break off with the guy. She even one time brought the guy to church and your young people in there bad mouth him and he vowed never to come back ! Anyway, she left that church. And I know she has rebelled against her mother because of Gary Senna's church.She visits once in a while but I know a family member hated Gary Senna. She told me so. Anyway, I still have friends who goes in there too. But I will not try to convince them to leave that church. Let them figure things on their own. As I said, its a a bit religious and controlling. I had my own bad experience in there , thats why I left after two months.

Here is my bad experience, all I did was talk about prophesy. I never prophesy in there but anyway, one of your elders freak out ! and Report me to Gary Senna. That sunday , Gary Senna approached me and told me NOT TO PROPHESY!
I said sure. Not a problem. By the way thats a sign of control. The next week, my best friend who is an unbeliever was upset , she said my son told her son that he will go to hell if he did not read his bible. I had to explain grace to my son, and ask him where he learned that, he said from his teacher in that church. He was 7 at that time. Anyway, the next week, my 2 and 3 year old was KICK OUT of the Bible class because they "would not behave". I was pulled out off the church and it was raining hard with my two kids , I had to get my firstborn. That was it for me, I said good bye . Called up my sister and she told me which church to go. been there for almost 5 years now and ENJOYING IT !!!

As I said its not as bad as Phil's church but those are all the signs of control and religious spirit. I do not want to find out how bad it would get. I rather leave.

[another_brick_in_the_wall (another_brick_in_the_wall)]

Front row:
A few years ago, I had friends that were "moved up" to the front row. The 2 or 3 designated rows for pastors, visitors, family and special guests.

Before service, I joined my friend to have a conversation with her. In the depth of conversation, the service was starting and "whoops", I was in the pastors' rows. One of the pastors walked up to us to ask my friend a question. (he wasn't paying attention that i was there). My friend (being a newbie front-row member) freaked out and apologized that I was sitting up there and asked (in front of me) "does she need to leave?"

After that moment, I swore I would never go near the holy grail of seat placement within that church.

[ulyankee1 (ulyankee1)]

cymbrogi, thanks for addressing my questions earlier. I can understand not wanting to tip EN's hand regarding changes if they are dealing with individuals... or more general changes if they haven't been decided upon yet. However, as a result, I also won't be able to speak from any other perspective than from that of things that I know, as if the changes haven't been made since they're not for public knowledge yet.

I remain unconvinced that there are systemic problems left unaddressed within EN--but my court is still open and I am still here, listening, judging...

I can also understand your position that an experience from 10-20 years ago *may* not reflect the ministry today. Like lc, I left about a year ago. Many of the regular posters I'm most familiar with who are no longer in EN left fairly recently and aren't necessarily relating very old experiences. What is even more interesting to me is that I find *so much* in common with the experiences of people like John Jones, coppertree, annelewis, etc. who were in "old" Maranatha, and they apparently see similarities too or else what would keep them visiting the board and posting here? I believe that even Steve Murrell has admitted that the spirit of control needed (and needs now) to be rooted out... that seems systemic to me, at least potentially so. So I would hope that yes, you do continue to listen, not merely to "us" or EN leaders either but especially to what the still small voice of the Holy Spirit says to your heart.

I was once totally on fire for MSI/EN and its vision and its mission too. I had moved to a new area out of state where I otherwise didn't know anyone and joined a new MSI/EN because of that. I also didn't wake up one morning and decide to be critical of EN... in fact, my leaving was the culmination of what was probably one of the most spiritually and emotionally excruciating times of my life, one in which a close family member was being convinced to turn against me and not trust me, and to think that I was indeed hearing from Satan himself. Fortunately, I didn't stick around for more of this, and that relationship is healing, slowly. I also have other family members in Pentecostal ministry who were extremely supportive and discerned what I could not early on but instead of telling me to get out (I wouldn't have listened b/c I thought things were great!) instead prayed that I would see, and God was faithful and I did.

cymbrogi, I have pages and pages in my sermon notebook in which I dutifully took down notes that repeated words and terms like "spiritual authority," "rebellion," "obedience," "spritual DNA," "spiritual family," etc. etc. etc. and I was being taught that the authority of these people over me was the same as God's. And I never, never realized it until much later. I just dutifully took notes, bought tapes, etc. never realizing what I was taking in. This isn't a long time ago but last year. And in a church that isn't a former Maranatha church but one which joined later. I'll be happy to share some of this with you if you're interested... I've posted some here on this} forum but I know it could take a while to dig through to find them.

I know that actually and I disagree on the Leo Lawson teaching that convinced me that I must leave the church (and I do respect her perspective, though the context of the rest of the preaching and teaching series could possibly change one's mind or at least explain why I was so disturbed), but what was even more disturbing was one of the things I was told when I questioned it... that it couldn't be wrong or unbiblical because EN would never let anyone teach anything that was wrong. Cymbrogi, I'm sorry, but that undiscerning stance is extremely dangerous, particularly for an organization with the history that EN has in the discipleship/shepherding movement coupled with its current emphasis on discipleship. I would guess that it would be very easy to cross the line from Biblical discipleship to "Shepherding" as a result.

Now there are other organizations like the Worldwide Church of God and the International Church of Christ that have been considered "cults" or "cult-like" in the past that have themselves attempted to turn things around in recent years. I can't say how successful they've been (there's evidence that there has much conflict within the ICC over this), but one of the things that is very important in attempting to make real changes is looking for and addressing any systemic problems, and also being willing to listen to the objective observations of Christians outside the ministry (not just former members, but those who are truly objective and respected). I hope this is taking place. One must also be willing to learn from history before moving on. That's not the same as being bitter, not at all. And one has to admit, there's much history here to learn from.

I'm probably rambling, and this certainly isn't contributing to a concise list, but take from it what you will, even if it's maybe a bullet point or two.

blessings,
ulyankee

ps--are others having problems posting? I had to reregister b/c it didn't accept my old username/password.

(Message edited by ulyankee1 on September 20, 2005)

[bill_mack (bill_mack)]

This is a test of the Emergency Heresy Network (EHN). Had this been an actual emergency, you would have been instructed to pray.

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

thecymbrogi , if the only change that you are talking about is that Gary Senna took over Tony Fetchel's job. Then I am sorry, thats not a real change.

Luke 3:8 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Jesus is not just asking for repentance , there should also be fruits of repentance, that means change. Repentance and Fruits of repentance goes hand in hand.

Without repenting, how can there be change ? Unlike the Philippine pastors, they went up the pulpit and Apologized, they repented. Then you start seeing changes.
During maranatha time, Those leaders said there would be changes, instead there was no change, no repentance, all they did was shuffled the leadership and call it change.
I do not believe there would be changes in MSI/EN. I strongly believe its just a shuffling of leadership.


The reason why I said the church is dead is because there is no freedom of the Holy Spirit to move. You are NOT allowed to talk/discuss about the gifts of the Holy Spirit openly. Its "dangerous" . The Holy Spirit always eventually would leave. Causing the death of the church. Unlike in the church I am going to right now, its an open discussion. Everybody can talk about it, and the people find ways to seek more of it. Its the same thing in Steve Murrell's church. Its an open discussion. You should try to visit Jubilee in Milpitas. Where the Holy Spirit move is pretty strong.

ANd if you are interested with the finances of MSI/EN. Then have your pastor contact the Los Angeles office and ask for it, if you can.

I know somebody will post it real soon.

(Message edited by ginger1 on September 20, 2005)

(Message edited by ginger1 on September 20, 2005)

[aletheia (aletheia)]

Ulankee - "ps--are others having problems posting? I had to reregister b/c it didn't accept my old username/password."

I had the same problem last night and I was really concerned, b/c my computer has been hijacked so much lately (our password was even changed) and we are receiving bogus phone calls from all over the country.

peace (and the Lord's protection!),
aletheia

[aletheia (aletheia)]

hurdygurdygurl,

I appreciate your initial attempt at this "laundry list," though I am somewhat concerned that if it's not accurate and thorough it might cause more damage than good. This kind of list necessitates some indepth research and prayer, maybe even a small "ad hoc committee."

Martin Luther's "95 Theses" nailed to the Wittenberg church door caused a watershed in Protestant Reformation history. On a smaller scale, your list could be very beneficial in bringing change to Every Nation.

I pray that the Lord will give you and others posting here wisdom in this regard.

peace,
aletheia

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

cymbrogi you said"There were things people were posting - exact accusations - that I had experienced.. I couldn't deny that it had to be systematic." But then how do you explain how I have never seen or experienced any of those in 14 years? If it is system wide, I should experience it, too. If not, and it is perhaps personality* based, then your experience makes sense to me but then it is not systemic, but localized. *personality of the leader

If it was just a personality of the leaders why bother preaching about control ? Rice Brookes and Steve Murrell is already preaching it. They know its a problem in MSI/EN. Its not an isolated case any longer. Its a BIG problem, thats why they are preaching it.

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All, it is lovely here. I have time for a small response. to Cymbrogi, sb dt, as follows:
I think about the list, I could be compared to a discussion on what various people were seeing in relation to needed correction in Marantha/MSI/En. It is felt by many that this is about structural elements in the ministry, and many others see it problem as foundational. I am in the latter group, as I have known and know well the inner circle thoughts and views that are withheld from all but a few. This is not unlike the Catholic church, and reformation in that point in history, in relation to this aspect.This is what Ul was saying about having things in common and seeing the same problem surface again. And we have been through changes before , in 1981, 1984, 1987-9. Still yet now looks and acts in a similar fashion. Which is why I am here, as Ul said so well.
You say in your post:
"I just don't believe it, just because someone says they 'feel this' or' believe that'".
We have done our time, and research .We know what we are talking about. If you can't accept that, I would hard, difficult to have a healthy discourse then.}

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">ginger--

Regarding your post on your experiences at Garry Senna's church, I'm not going to get into a debate with you on those specifics on such a public forum; that would not be right and would, in fact, be uncharitable to those involved. But I do have a very different interpretation of the situations and individuals you described. And that interpretation is neither religious nor controlling in either negative sense of the meanings. Perhaps offline we can discuss it because it sounds like your perspective is one sided. If you heard my view of the same situations, you may choose to think differently about it. If you email me at thecymbrogi (at symbol) thecymbrogi.com I'll send you my contact info for a phone call.

And, regarding your post just above this one, you confuse my words with the eloquence of ulyankee (my comments to that post, below). I never said those words in the beginning of your quote you attribute to me, although I did say what was in the 2nd half. If the two are incongruous it is because ulyankee and I respectfully disagree with each other (to a point).


ulyankee--

Thanks for the thoughtful comments and you articulated them well even though you and I draw different conclusions. You mentioned listening to the HS and, to that end, I have and for considerable time. Since I have only alluded to this in the past, I will go in more detail now, probably more for my sake in penning it than anything else. I'll preface it all by saying I am neither prophetic nor a great discerner of future events, IMO. These are just my thoughts; I hope as in all things I have the Spirit but know too well my own fragility:

I have no check in my spirit about where I am (local church) but have had one personally for the movement at large. Not a get-out-of-Dodge check, just a check that says "This child is still growing up." What I sense is a hallmark moment going on in EN for the past three years or so and that it is or will soon be culminating in a series of events that will take them (in the analogy of Jim Collins) from Good to Great--or else a slow implosion marked by church and ministry spin-offs to preserve the benignant parts. I am optimistic about the future of EN and do not consider EN in any way synonymous with Marantha. Therefore, I do not see, as someone said, any similarities between the reorgs of Maranatha in the mid- and late-1980's and today's restructuring. Futhermore, I hope that the transitions will be smooth but do not have the faith for it: church cultures, like all cultures, are hard to change without different leadership and I believe that in a few churches within the EN world there will have to be more drastic changes than just vision casting or structural redesign. I hope not, but believe figuratively speaking that there will be some ships of church that will need to put sand on the decks because the scuppers may run red and the deck get slippery.


coppertree--

You make an excellent point and one that I am aware of but have not addressed. To restate what I understand you to say through your "coppertree-isms", you believe that there are doctrinal (theological) issues that are at the root of EN that make control abuse simply a natural outgrowth of that theology. If so, you and I disagree on this point while we are both very well informed of the EN leadership and theology. To debate this issue would probably result in a debate of the Latter Rain movement, Shepherding, Discipleship, charismata, systematic theology, and on and on and on. My opinion is that the problems that exist (and some do exist) are not, at the foundation, theological issues or, to get into pedantic semantics, I would say that, "The theological views declared by EN in their systematic theology do not by their adherence result in control abuses of any kind." You and I will just have to agree to disagree and love each other as christian brothers despite our own pigheadedness.

Regarding your last point, <font color="000000">"We have done our time, and research .We know what we are talking about. If you can't accept that, I would hard, difficult to have a healthy discourse then."</font> You really surprised me with that. You came across arrogant and prideful in how you worded that and it seems very different than the tenor of your other posts. Are you then, in essence, saying, "Hey, Cymbrogi! We know what we're talking about and you don't. It's my way or the highway, baby. We're right so you can't be!" ?? Give me some slack if I am misinterpreting you because we've talked about your rush to post in the past and how you often don't quite complete your thoughts or use the right words. I'm trying to understand you and your thoughts in this colossal coliseum of ideas. Please confirm or try again <grin> (notice the happy emoticon)

--SB</font>

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

thecymbrogi , I rather do email

anniegrey@msn.com

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All, and again a quick note to Cymbrogi, Sb, Dt et all.


The post that I am commenting on , of 9/20/2005 is noted now in it's more complete form is as follows. You say:



"I just don't believe it just because someone says they ' feel this ' or' believe that' or was hurt by so-and-so.' But I am still here--listening, participating, and trying to under stand facts, be what they .There are just so few of them presented here. It's more like RumorNet or OpinionNet than FaceNet. I'm starting to feel there are better things to do like watch reruns of Gilligan's Island or something."

This what I am referring to; it would be difficult to have a meaningful disscusion when you discount what we say out of hand. There are many primary sources that have been noted to you by , many. If you don't take into account personal testimony, relationship of facts by various peoples over time , distance, several continents; how can healthy discourse occur. We listen to you, we consider your facts as presented , we look them up, etc. I get this note back from you on the structural aspects of my posts; but without meaningful discussion.}

[hurdygurdygurl (hurdygurdygurl)]

"... repeated words and terms like "spiritual authority," "rebellion," "obedience," "spritual DNA," "spiritual family," etc. etc. etc. and I was being taught that the authority of these people over me was the same as God's."(ulyankee1)
http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&amp;post=199833#POST199833

This is the same problem I am currently facing. Scary. Maybe we need some newish words like...faith, hope and love. Amen. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[hurdygurdygurl (hurdygurdygurl)]

Suffering exists not for the purpose of hurting us, but to teach us where genuine good is to be found, and thus to make us stronger, more intelligent and more vibrant.

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov
http://www.prosveta.com

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

"... repeated words and terms like "spiritual authority," "rebellion," "obedience," "spritual DNA," "spiritual family," etc. etc. etc. and I was being taught that the authority of these people over me was the same as God's."(ulyankee1)

Exact wording after I left Phil bonasso church year 2000. Even before MSI/EN, Maranatha time, those are still exact wording.

My question is what change ??

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

I am just pasting a quote from a preacher. And I really like this one.

It was demonstrated after the first sin with Adam and Eve and most people since. Just as Adam and Eve first tried to hide, cover themselves, deny, and then blame-shift, most people seem to go through these same stages in regard to sin. Therefore, evidence that we have truly repented (which is more than just admitting to the sin) is open honesty about the sin, abandoning all attempts to cover it up, and no longer blaming others for what we did. God does not forgive excuses—He forgives confessed sin. Ownership of the sin and transparency are signs that there has been true repentance.

As I said before , there was never a repentance, so there is no change.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">titus--

You said in reference to me, <font color="000000">He always condemns, never checks. You see his game. He is not here for constructive debate-otherwise he would check them and debate their merits and points.

Denial apparently is a river in Wales. He has riverfront property, too.</font>

I disagree with you on every point, except maybe the one on denial. I thought 'de Nile was a river in Africa.... <grin>

(this is my friendly way of asking you to say to something substantive if you want me to answer you substantively. If you seek to engage me in dialogue, state your opinions as such and stop telling lies about my actions and motives. I've given you and your post much more respect and kindness than merited. Prod me again and I will give you what is earned by your capriciousness. <scowl>)


coppertree--

to answer you seriously <grin>, which I am unable to do with titus <shaking_of_the_head>, thank you for clarifying your previous post. I'm still a bit confused on a point or two of yours but, what I understand you to say, is that you believe I discount everything said by you and other detractors out of hand. No, I don't do that (but you're free to keep whatever opinion you want <wink>). If anything, I am unlike most in that I give detractors more of a voice than those who agree with me (we've discussed this once before when it was you who asked me to define "detractors"). In that sense, I am antithetical to most people you will meet in that I am much more likely to listen to you if you disagree with me strongly than if you agree with me mildly. But I'm not going to believe it just because it is contrary to my beliefs (see the posts you and I shared regarding kool-aid--and john_r_jones' kind offer to give me some <grin>).

So with that, I inline comment your post with my response:

<font color="000000">There are many primary sources that have been noted to you by , many. </font> [not as many as you may think. Especially if you consider that, after viewing the evidence, I don't believe evidence on Maranatha is admissible as evidence against Every Nation--at least within my court of personal opinion. That immediately means I have to throw out of my court all evidence prior to MSI AND attempt to understand Maranatha biases that are proclaimed against or for EN by both its advocates and detractors]

<font color="000000">If you don't take into account personal testimony, </font>[NO! I didn't say that. Personal testimony is valid testimony. That is called witness and just may be the highest form of non-physical evidence. However, what one person says another person said about something someone else said is hearsay and not normally considered evidence. Furthermore, it is not a contemporary account. Therefore I draw differences between someone saying "I was abused" and "My friend was abused" and "My friend says her friend was abused". Each one has different evidentiary value and must be weighed accordingly. Also, the character of the witness and timeframe of events matters. That is why something ulyankee says has more weight (he left EN within the past two years) than let's say the Dawson's (whose experiences are primarily with Maranatha). All three of these people, I might add, do a good job articulating their views even if I disagree with some of the conclusions they have drawn from the facts. But from an evidentiary view, ulyankee carries more weight with me than the Dawson's in regards to EN today. It should be obvious why.]

<font color="000000">relationship of facts by various peoples over time ,</font>

[i]<font color="000000">distance, several continents;</font>

[i]<font color="000000">how can healthy discourse occur.</font> [Well, if it is unhealthy discourse, it certainly isn't me who is discoursing unhealthily! <grin> My actions and words prove that. You must be confusing me with some of the flame throwers on this board (my regards to titus1_13 and snikkers on either side of the aisle). As a matter of fact, I will go even further to say that I see very few people on this forum who appear to give the same thought and consideration to their posts that I do mine. If they do give the same consideration, they make a very poor job of it and hide their skills very well (imo). I'm participating in healthy discourse, but will not speak for others. Let others who read this forum make their own determination.]

<font color="000000">We listen to you, we consider your facts as presented , we look them up, etc.</font> always condemns"</font> is not a fact, but his completely poor judgment of the facts--it's a poor interpretation and poor opinion. I see many opinions (i.e. interpretations of facts) on this board, but very few facts themselves. I don’t see how it could be proved otherwise but there are plenty people smarter than me….
Secondly, to your first point, <font color="000000">"We listen to you"</font>. I appreciate that and know that you are speaking for yourself, if not perhaps others. I, likewise, listen intently to the posters on this site and seek to understand the different opinions. If you read my posts carefully (which I suspect most don't) you will find myself being very honest about where I believe EN is today and it is not without its problems. It just so happens that my predominately positive and optimistic view of EN really irritates those with a different and more negative view.]

[i]<font color="000000">I get this note back from you on the structural aspects of my posts; but without meaningful discussion.</font> [One, I can't carry on a meaningful discussion of your post if I don't understand it. I might add, however, that I have seen many people on this board who don't share my prohibition against brainless discourse. Without inhibition, some spout off freely whatever they feel--"often wrong but never in doubt," as lkbk2gofwd said. Note well I speak not only of some of the detractors but some of the advocates, as well.
Two is it's about how you write. I'm not being unkind, only honest. And I am not the only one who has mentioned how cryptic and bizarre your posts sometimes are. You yourself have admitted the same to me and the entire forum and you say that it is because you stay so busy with other things you do not have the time to think out your posts. Perhaps you and others should consider not posting or, instead, taking the time to be more articulate? I know I do that and it takes a lot of time to do it (about 15-20 minutes a paragraph--do the math), but why risk being misunderstood? To rush and to not be articulate, in my opinion, is a dereliction of our Christian duty (verses supplied upon request). If you know better than to not communicate clearly, it may even go so far as being a sin to not consider your words before posting them. Especially on a forum like this where being wrong may affect the lives of many. I do not take it lightly when I push the "Post" button on this site. It is with fear and trepidation before God.]


hurdygurdygurl--

Another way to say what you said is, "Pain either makes us better--or bitter," or, "Joy is a choice." (thanks, Tim Hansel, <u>You 'Gotta Keep Dancin'</u>). See below for hints on how I learned this within a practical context.


Regarding ginger1's and others' comments on sin and public confessoin:

When there is sin, there is still the question as to whom to confess it. And then, who determines it if is sincere? Or enough? Or acceptable? There is a long string of folks who seem to demand public repentance and to such a degree that few men would easily be pleased long after God has been--and it is Him who the real crime is against. It is a slippery slope into religiosity for us to proclaim what is repentance and what is not. Before long, we then want to see forgiveness (restoration) take the form of penance (works righteousness). Eventually our religiosity stifles the Spirit of God in our lives and our OWN unforgiveness of those who have hurt us becomes a root of bitterness. Bob Weiner offered public forgiveness--but how many people accept it and why does it matter anyway if God has accepted it? Confession of sin and public confession have their place, but let's be careful we don't slip into vindictive pettiness and gross religiosity in the process.

To make it more personal, I have been hurt, abused, lied to, stolen from, defrauded, betrayed, and offended (just to name a few) by more than just a couple of Christians and Christians in leadership positions. These were men with (imo) great chasms of character gaps. NOT ONE has ever sought my forgiveness. What is more, they have, in fact, rebuffed me multiple times when I went to them seeking forgiveness for however they felt I had wronged them. So what do I do? Wait for them to forgive me? Get bitter? Hate them? Destroy their ministries? For example, one man I worked with had (has?) a tremendous Christian character gap. But God has used him in literally thousands and thousands of lives and some of you would know him and his ministry (he is not EN or Maranatha). But to publicly seek his downfall? Whoa! That scares me more than being right about being wronged. I fear God before I speak out for or against any ministry no matter my hurt. I don't want to heap my sin on the sins of others just because I may want revenge. It must be directed by God, not my hurt or emotions.

But hear me on this and don't take what I said wrong. I'm not criticizing those of you who have chosen to speak out against EN or Maranatha as doing something wrong as there is a Biblical place for it and this may be such a place; only time will tell the wisdom of our choices. Speaking for myself, though, it would be difficult for me to trust my motives. I pray each and every person who posts here, especially myself, does so only with the purest of motives.

--SB</font>

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

I have heard Bob Weiner repented couple of times, and I know a former pastor who left MSI/EN start calling people , these are people whom they hurt in the past. Even these people whom they have hurt have moved on 20 years ago, The former pastor still called them up and say they are sorry . They did not know.

A public repentance shows they found out that they have wronged people. It does not necessarily needed to be specific people. Bon Weiner did a good job and I know a lot of people forgave, probably thousands, those who did not, I can't blame them, thats between them and God.
But at least it gave us assurance those abuse will not happen again.
Instead from Rice and Phil Bonasso mouth, they said they did no Wrong. There is no repentance, abused kept on going. We hear from our own brothers and sisters in Christ cried out in pain of this abuse. And yet, MSI/EN have ignored it and kept on abusing. It has not stop. I am sorry but its not in my conscience to looked away.

You may try to cover it, hide ,deny thats its happening , even making an new name for it. The fact is, its still happening. If it is not, then why reshuffle the leadership ? Why preach about control by the two top MSI/EN leaders ?
If the MSI/EN leaders are doing great , why reshuffle and change ? Because

Everytime it came up this is what they did
"hide, cover themselves, deny, and then blame-shift, most people seem to go through these same stages in regard to sin.

MSI/EN have tried changing their names 4 times and expect change, then they also reshuffled the leadership and expect change.
And the last thing they wanted to do is embrace the cross and repent. Why the cross is very painful, its easier to walk in pride than humility. If the MSI/EN leaders tries repentance, you know, most of us will forgive and everything is done with. Why do you think there is not much mention of Bob Weiner ? Its because most of us have forgiven him , not all but most.

[ginger1 (ginger1)]

Also , why does none of the MSI/EN leaders even called up Bob Weiner ? Have they themselves forgiven him ? I think not, while I was in there, most of them avoid Bob Weiner. Some does not even want to mention his name, some like Phil And Rice still blames Bob Weiner of his control and legalism. If they have forgiven Bob Weiner when he had repented, according to the scripture is to Restore their Brother. But there is no restoration is there ? Because they never forgave Bob Weiner.
I know Steve Murrell did, he invited Bob Weiner to preach in his church and honored him. He stop blaming Bob Weiner.Welcomed him to his church, has any of MSI/EN did that ? NO.

So the measuring stick thats given to us, will be given back to you.

Did not the bible say to Honor Your Father and Mother. This was MSI/EN Spiritual Father, where is the Honor ? Where is the Restoration ?

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">Titus, we disagree on whether MSI/EN is just Maranatha reincarnate. We have looked at the same information and formed our own opinions. Others will do the same. It just so happens that I believe you are wrong and you believe differently. Time to move on. You will not be able to change what I believe without better evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the lawsuit, why do you presume guilt? Does this reflect your own bias? Let's instead see what a court of law determines and see the evidence presented. Why are you so hasty to convict without viewing the evidence? Is this indicative of how you approach other judgments you have made in your life? If you are so poor of a judge in this case (even if your conclusion ends up being the correct one), what are you telling me about other judgments you have made? Are you always so recklessly flippant with your judgments?

Whether you agree with me or not, I hesitate to put faith in your judgements because you have demonstrated over and over that you make conclusions without examining evidence. Maybe you hear the Holy Spirit so much better that I can and He gives you all these words of knowledge about court cases and such. But for me, I would need to see the evidence before convicting someone of a crime no matter how much I may not like them or what the Holy Spirit tells me about the matter. To do otherwise would be a travesty of civil justice.


ginger1--

thanks for the post and I know we are communicating off-forum regarding an earlier post.

On repentence, I want to make sure what I said on public repentence was not misunderstood by others, too. There is a place for it. It is the demanding of it that begins what amounts to be a spiritual slippery slope into legalism that we must beware.

On control, I think people keep on forgetting that I have never claimed that there are no control abuses in the world of EN. If I had, the TF case would be a great place (for starters) to rub my nose in it. I could name other incidents, but won't go there. My point from the beginning, however, has been whether or not it is a systemic (fatal) issue within EN. I don't think it is. I also think the various pockets where it occurs will be dealt with in the proper time.

I believe that, with EN, we are looking at the child that was birthed in part by the Maranatha movement. But this does not make them the same. And as children grow up, we sometimes express the not-so-great attributes of our lineage and upbrining alongside the great attributes. At different stages of maturity in our life, God calls us to forsake the not-so-great attributes so that we can press forward in His calling. In a sense, I believe this is where EN is--just another point along the natural growth of a child into an adult. But may the growth never stop happening in any of our lives nor the organizations we are a part of.

--SB</font>

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Cymbrogi,
In the consideration of the greatness of a leader would not James' statement have a bearing? "How can you say that you love God, yet hate your brother?" That hate may be in the form of disregard much less acrimony. I heard someone once say of leadership; One who is respected most by those who know them least may be a great leader. One who is respected most by those who know them best is a servant and father. Paul's grasp of the reality of human nature-"You have many teachers, but not many fathers among you." has certain cachet in our current scheme of things.

Secondly, why do hurts or emotions or scars from wounds not play a role in our consideration of life or a ministry? Jesus' resurrected body bore those marks, Paul referred to his marks inflicted by Jesus, and others along the way. Paul also admonished the church to mark those who do harm to the Body of Christ. The cause of Christ isn't an institution or at least it shouldn't be where attrition rates due to "friendly fire" are a management statistic. Numbers as a determinant of suitability of ministry belie the essence of a kingdom founded on the faithfulness of a very few. Of Jesus who lauded a heretic, and a swindler in His parables for caring and foresightedness in making a place for themselves by how they treated subordinates. Scriptural prowess, or mental and theological facility aren't indicators of inward submission of the heart. Rigor and juridic notions of earning a place in the sun seem odd when juxtaposed with Paul's statement "I count everything as loss for the sake of Christ."

Finally, to make it personal, I got hauled up short one day in my technique of qualifying the value of someones journey in life. I sat a a microphone in my talk studio mouth working like a goldfish not a sound except to choke emanated from me. My guests had both experienced great personal loss and I had scored a coup in securing an interview with them. Their reality crashed through the gates of my Christian worldview as a barometer of someones value.

Jesus' companions in the garden of Gethsemane slept while he prayed, He earnestly desired their companionship. These disciples would flee for their lives, Peter held no promise other than to live down to his potential as a snivelling coward before a servant girl in the courtyard. Jesus sought their earthly fellowship, friendship, closeness through a pronounced poverty of motivational purity. The church is the place where Jesus' mission is embodied to make disciples of every nation, as certainly as it is the place of living out the essence of the Fatherhood of God, of love.
John

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">John--

Good post, thanks for sharing the kool-aid <grin> (that's a compliment for you other folks who may not know: kool aid= idea). Glug-glug after pondered consideration (kool-aid was good).

Paragraph 1: agree
Para 2: agree, but caution needs to be excercised if we are going to mark others and we should be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Para 3: I think I may understand what you were trying to say but did not understand completely the key point, <font color="000000">Their reality crashed through the gates of my Christian worldview as a barometer of someones value. </font>
Para 4 Agree, but I think you may have meant to say something different than <font color="000000">a pronounced poverty of motivational purity.</font> Maybe you meant to use wealth instead of poverty? The point was made, nevertheless.

--SB</font>

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

Cymbrogi,
I'm scurrying around town between rain bands so I'll try to make a salient point. My point in Paragraph 3 was intended to illustrate my, underline my, realization that I had developed a perspective that was self centered and baptised it in the religion of an overarching ideology. Paul spoke of marking someone as an extreme case of chruch discipline. My experience with such discipline is that it hangs over the head of church membership more ominously than leadership. For leaders to have disfunction is a fact of life to obscure such has a chilling effect on relations and growth. One of my favorite authors Brennan Manning makes a point of sharing his flaws without being maudlin, as a point of inspiration.
John

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">john--

I like your post even more now that you've elaborated and agree with you--

--SB</font>

[hurdygurdygurl (hurdygurdygurl)]

For my own sanity, I am personally working on not manipulating God and others. I have noticed that I have my own control issues or rebellion or fear or insert whatever word is appropriate.

I find groups difficult because of my own issues, as I said before I am diagnosed with PTSD.

I am finding that some nice Christian folk at the nice Christian church I go to are sometimes just rude and mean when they pray in a small group. What's up with that? So, I mentioned it once to the person who prayed for me - that I didn't appreciate the prayers and well, let's just say, why did I even bother? Feels kinda frustrating, right now. Can anyone else relate?

I am just saying, "Where's the Faith, Hope and Love when you need it?" And if I said anything to Mr. Pastor, it would probably be my problem anyway. Oh, the circles are endless. Thanks for listening. Apparently, being in Christian community makes me need a Saviour more than ever.

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All- Wonderful here, love those mountains. Cymbrogi, I am now thinking about Tales of the south.
As you say in your post of 9/23/2005
" And I am not the only one who has mentioned how cryptic and bizarre your posts are".
I think actually that you are the only one, whom has said that. IKBK2GOfwd was refferring to my hope for Him to come; as the white dove, the Holy Spirit as our comfortor .
I know that as in your post of 9/19/2005; You say:


" 2) Credibility: much of what is said on this board lacks credibility because...(a) opinions as stated as fact (b) poor articulation..."
Actually this is an opinion by you, so you get to do this ( state your opinion as fact). You apparentaly, if I take you at your word do not not allow others to do the same. And in essence you attempt to control others thoughts through your own view finders. And then you judge them as facts or not, as because of what you believe as acceptable in relation to being articulate or not. And somethings are mistated ; so I am not sure why you bother, as said in your post of 9/20/05. you referred to Tv, watching.
}

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">coppertree--

You are right. I should have been more clear on my post #61, above, in that I was generally voicing my own opinion as to why so many people discount what many of the detractors say. I was also trying to point out the methodology I use in trying cases in my own court of private opinion, since many people seem to adhere to different methodologies I find inconsistent with logic. That's no excuse for my sloppy semantics, however, and you are correct to call me on it.

A few of my comments were facts, however, and easily discernable as such by the casual reader.

--SB</font>

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

<font color="0077aa">"I had a neighbor listen in on my cordless phone conversations, then twist what I said and tell it to everyone nearby, even fellow church goers."</font>

Titus - One of many things that happened at my church was when someone I thought was my friend broke into my e-mails and sent them to my pastor, with parts here and there copied and pasted to take things way out of context. She did this more than once, and he believed her version, not mine.

It really hurts when someone betrays you like - invading your life and then twisting it out of context to create scandal about you.

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

I tried confronting the person, which only backfired, because I got in trouble with the pastor for "accusing the brethren". After repeated things like that, (and the hacking into my e-mails was one of the lesser things she did), I had to sever the friendship. I have since e-mailed that I forgive her, though she's never admitted what she did or apologized. But I don't want to resume contact with her. The thing that hurt the most was that she was one of my closest friends for years - or so I thought. But she did things behind my back for much of that time, I learned later. So I guess I haven't "handled" it all the way yet, because it still hurts. But I ask Jesus to help me forgive and heal very often, and it helps, and I know He will.

[romans12_2 (romans12_2)]

This sounds like a combination of #4 - Every Nation has a spirit of man-pleasing and #5 - Every Nation is not fully submitted to God.

People with low self-esteem will put others down in hopes of making themselves look better. Those who are fully submitted to God neither talk poorly of others behind their back nor listen to those who do.

Revelations 2:7 To him who overcomes I will give the right to eat from the tree of life which is in the paradise of God.

Writing a letter to "friends" expressing how their actions/behavior made you feel (even if you don't actually mail it) can help.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">
Titus/ontheroad-- your words touched me in their sincerity and heartfeltness. Thank you for sharing them and you are right, what DO we do with the pain? Especially the pain of betrayal? Only a friend can betray a friend, which is why it hurts so much.

For me, I am not sure that the pain ever goes away, but that it stays, like a scar upon the soul, slowly fading with time and as a reminder of events gone by. Yet, I do not believe that this means we are unable to forgive. Forgiveness does not mean that the pain goes away. For example, ontheroad, I believe you probably have forgiven the person that hurt you, even though the pain remains. At least, that is how I read it, between the lines of your post and listening to your heart. If I am wrong, please forgive my presumptuousness. But I don't think you should feel bad about still feeling the hurt. As you said using different words, the same God who causes the body to heal will also cause the soul to heal. Your heart sure sounds like it is in the right place for healing.

I should add that healing can also take place in a doctor's office as it can in the prayer closet. Sometimes there are physiological things in our bodies that affect the way we think or feel. Final healing and wholeness will not be experienced until we receive our new imperishable bodies, but God has given us trained therapists and professionals for a reason and we should not despise the use of their God given skills.

Titus, I don't know what the answer is for your pain, but I pray for you that you will soon have the answer. I know how I have dealt with pain in my life but am not so naive as to think that my answers are necessarily yours. Your pain is real and no pat answer is going to make it go away--nor should it. In my life, I realize I minister out of the pain in my life. I pray that you, too, will continue to be able to use that pain in your life to minister to others the heart of Jesus--

--SB

ps--I guess I ought to say, too, that in my experience pain that leads to bitterness IS a sign of unforgiveness.</font>

[bartoc (bartoc)]

Titus -

I am listening to you. I hear your pain and frustration and understand as best I can with my personal experience.

I know that you have been accused of being overzealous in your statements, and sometimes that is true. However, I believe this comes from a decent person who is in pain and has not yet found the salve to soothe. Now none of what I just said is meant to sound condescending. I respect you Titus. This is just the only way I know how to describe how I think you are feeling based upon my personal experiences and attitudinal phases.

I pray that you can find some peace..but I know that the feeling of betrayal is a hard issue to work through. Trust me, in that I know first hand.

But until you find your peace, and even after. I will continue to listen and try to understand.

Keep the Faith,
Bartoc

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Cymbrogi - Thank you for your kind words and insights. I don't always agree with you in your assessments of EN, but in this post your sincerity and kindness touched me. Thank you.

[bartoc (bartoc)]

Cymborgi - In an earlier post you stated:
Especially the pain of betrayal. Only a friend can betray a friend, which is why it hurts so much.

Yes, a friend can betray a friend or organization/institution just as an institution or organization can betray a person. Any person or entity can break faith with or fail to meet the expectations of. Being a verb, it can not be married to only a singular or plural noun.

Your statement above implies that only a singular person can betray you and not an organization or institution. I only point this out because, in my personal experience, several people and several orgainzations/institutions betrayed me.

Keep the Faith,
Bartoc


(Message edited by bartoc on September 25, 2005)

(Message edited by bartoc on September 25, 2005)

(Message edited by bartoc on September 25, 2005)

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Bartoc, you wrote: <font color="0077aa">"Your statement above implies that only a singular person can betray you and not an organization or institution. I only point this out because, in my personal experience, several people and several orgainzations/institutions betrayed me."</font>

You are sbsolutely correct, Bartoc. Betrayal can be inflicted by one individual, from several different people, and from an organized church or group. I know it did in my case. Like you, I was betrayed by the person I referred to above, by my pastor,and by most of the remaining members of the church who turned their backs on me when I helped bring evidence to light of some horrors going on in my church. It was "whislteblowers syndrome" in a church setting.

It hurts to be betrayed by a family member or friend. It also hurts, as you wrote above, to be betrayed by an organization or church. In fact, sometimes I think it can hurt the most to be betrayed by a church organization, when it is supposed to be a standard or righteousness and love and instead degrades into unrighteousness, abuse, and rejection. I think betrayal is at the heart of church abuse, because it takes a person's very core-the spiritual being- and crushes it with twisted doctrine and/or abuse. To be lorded over by illegimate authority, to be told to be silently submissive, to be fed twisted scripture and told to consume it without question, to be exploited spiritually, emotionally, and financially - this is the ultimate betrayal.

Thank you for speaking up on this very valid and important issue. I'm just so sorry that you had experiential knowledge of it, and I pray healing for you.

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Bartoc, you wrote: <font color="0077aa">"Your statement above implies that only a singular person can betray you and not an organization or institution. I only point this out because, in my personal experience, several people and several orgainzations/institutions betrayed me."</font>

You are sbsolutely correct, Bartoc. Betrayal can be inflicted by one individual, from several different people, and from an organized church or group. I know it did in my case. Like you, I was betrayed by the person I referred to above, by my pastor,and by most of the remaining members of the church who turned their backs on me when I helped bring evidence to light of some horrors going on in my church. It was "whislteblowers syndrome" in a church setting.

It hurts to be betrayed by a family member or friend. It also hurts, as you wrote above, to be betrayed by an organization or church. In fact, sometimes I think it can hurt the most to be betrayed by a church organization, when it is supposed to be a standard or righteousness and love and instead degrades into unrighteousness, abuse, and rejection. I think betrayal is at the heart of church abuse, because it takes a person's very core-the spiritual being- and crushes it with twisted doctrine and/or abuse. To be lorded over by illegimate authority, to be told to be silently submissive, to be fed twisted scripture and told to consume it without question, to be exploited spiritually, emotionally, and financially - this is the ultimate betrayal.

Thank you for speaking up on this very valid and important issue. I'm just so sorry that you had experiential knowledge of it, and I pray healing for you.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">Bartoc and ontheroad--

thank you for your comments on betrayal and I agree with what was said: betrayal by individual or group (organization) is a reality and it hurts worst from those we suspect it the least. The point I was trying to make (but evidently did not do so well) is that betrayal, by its very definition, implies emotional intimacy--and that's why it hurts so much. The same actions, taken by someone or some group we are not intimate with does not have the same emotional devastation betrayal does. In Jesus we see this lived out in that He could only be betrayed by a friend, not his enemies.

The challenge that each one of us has when we believe we have betrayed (factual or not does not matter) is how do we respond to the next person we are in relationship with? Many people refuse relational intimacy but instead, as a dear friend of mine once commented, enter into a series of human transactions, but devoid of human intimacy. That can be one of the tragedies of betrayal--a lack of willingness to open oneself to another human being. All kinds of disorders have this characteristic, PTSD and Attachment Disorder are two that come to mind and that I have more than a vague familiarity with.

I have chosen to remain relationally open despite past emotional wounds. Maybe I am a glutton for punishment, I don't know. But I know that I have never been hurt so bad as when I have let people into my own walls of intimacy. The people that have hurt me the most are my wife and friends. But if I did not give my wife (or friends) the relational intimacy, not only would I be blocking out the pain, but also the pleasure. It's just that I now have to have a very large cemetery in which to bury the faults of my friends. My wife's cemetary for me is much larger than mine is for hers (but y'all already guessed that <grin>).

So then, because I am walking in intimacy, I am more open to betrayal. Furthermore, I have to live with a lot more pain because, face it, nobody is perfect and we are all going to get hurt all the time. I have been blessed in that I have learned what to do with the pain and have, I like to think, gained some wisdom on how wide and fast to open the gates of relational intimacy in my life to others. Now the question is about helping the others.

--SB</font>

[james_john_doe (james_john_doe)]

thecymbrogi is in red, this came from the Abuse trial thread and i thought that it could be useful in this one as well...

<font color="ff0000">* It is a very serious thing to publicly condemn (or promote) any ministry or person and we should never be hasty in doing so, nor use our words lightly, carelessly, or unconsidered. </font>
Yeah totally agree, in case some of you where wondering how i came up with the list, i was given multiple links to various web pages and from there i made a summary of what the web pages where saying because no one on here would do it. The main reason i made a summery is because my friend was wondering what the people on the forum have against Every Nation.

Also trying to follow this forum is nuts, you would have to spend over two hours a day every day just to keep up. So i wrote it as a service to the new people of the forum so they know what the majority of the posters have against Every Nation. Because it is not clear.

<font color="ff0000">* EN (formerly MSI) is not the same as Maranatha
* However, EN could be likened spiritually to a child of Maranatha in that the founding leadership and many of the older congregants (40+ year olds) have their spiritual roots in Maranatha. <font face="courier new,courier">(one should not condemn a child just because of its parents). </font></font>
Very good point.

<font color="ff0000">* The stated theology of EN (as presented in VLI) is Biblically sound </font>
From what i can see this is true, they are not teaching people to pray to demons for example. If it is not sound, please give concrete evidence for the reasons why (stuff in writing, not what was spoken), and not just shoot anything that has Every Nation on it. And when i hear VLI I'm assuming that is ENLI?

<font color="ff0000">* There are pockets of churches in EN where control issues exist at what I find to be an unacceptable level. </font>
This is true for any huge organization, people are not perfect. I would say pray for those specific churches, they could use it. They are part of the body of Christ right?

<font color="ff0000">* But this is not representative of all EN churches nor of a systemic or fatal issue with the EN organization as a whole. </font>
Good point, From what i understand most of the posters like Every Nation except in North America and parts of South Africa. The churches in North America are the ones that need some help and even then not all of them need it. So in short it sounds like there are only a handful of churches the people here have a problem with.

<font color="ff0000">* My personal belief is optimistic that EN, like any child growing into maturity, will continue to do so and, as a result, will have to deal with some longstanding and unpleasant issues in order to continue in the God-given purpose they have been given. </font>
I'm an optimist my self, I'm all about the idea of forgiveness. Jesus says to forgive your brother 490 times in a day. Also don't forget about Matthew 6:14-15. I think this could go for both sides of the fence here.

<font color="ff0000">* There are many hurting people posting on this board, some if not all have been legitimately wronged. While I believe some personal good may come from sharing those hurts on such a public forum, the hurt individuals will only find healing in God-given relationships that He provides them and, of course, at the foot of the cross. </font>
well said.

As for the list, you can apply it to almost any organization and find that some/all parts of the list hold true. The severity of the wrong is different in every organization. What I'm trying to say is if you look at anything closely you will find some flaw in it, except for the Holy Bible.

As for me, i don't posting here very often anymore because of what lc_20 said <font color="aa00aa">I am more interested in helping the wounded after they are out.</font> By me being here and posting is like putting salt on an open sore, because I'm trying to understand the wound, and that is very painful for the people with the wound.

[john_r_jones (john_r_jones)]

JJD,
I read in scripture where Jesus sees a fellow lying on a mat in a crowded place where many have gathered for a healing at the Pool of Bethsaida. He passed many sick and dying who had access to this pool on His way to this fellow who'd lain there for thirty-eight years and healed him. The enormity of the crowds, the reputation for its supernatural province, the anointing if you will, had become a way of life for this fellow who had no benefactor, no one who cared. Jesus' counter-cultural bent of healing just the one man whom He sought out afterwards and admonished doesn't speak of the groundswell of growth. It illustrates how human is disregard for unfortunates, and how divine is the Father's attention on those who languish under inattention or worse. The parable of the heretic who stopped when others wouldn't and cared for a roadside stranger. How grating, and deprecating was the use of a Samaritan in a parable of one who is "good". To assume that neglect or abuse of individuals as the cost of maturity for something Kingdom also assumes those who are indifferent to it will bear no consequence. The rich young ruler whom Jesus loved was not merely indifferent to the poor but his own state of spirituality. His approach mirrors our modern day attempt at contractual egress through the portals of heaven, the wealth of our accomplishments in tow. Unable to see how impossible it is to squeeze through that narrow gate with anything other than Jesus. The breadth of our "maturity" a simile of the ruler's misplaced assumption that he had leverage to bargain for heaven with the good master. He could not reconcile himself to sell his possessions, or grasp how important the poor, the neglected are in Jesus' economy-neither does much of the modern church.
John

[upcase20 (upcase20)]

Two caveats james_john_doe :
1) I feel MSI/EN is the same as Maranatha just with a name change to throw off the unwary.
2)The theology of MSI/EN is not biblically sound.

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">James_john_doe asked, "<font color="000000">And when i hear VLI I'm assuming that is ENLI?</font>

Good question, but I meant VLI since I have not seen the new curriculum (ENLI). To be more specific, I am only familiar with VLI Year 1 in 2003 and VLI Year 2 in 2004 (and that only the first half). Since curricula change, it would be wrong for me to assume anything in ENLI since I have not read it. However, I personally doubt ENLI is substantively different in its theological perspective from VLI.

upcase20 said"<font color="000000">Two caveats james_john_doe :
1) I feel MSI/EN is the same as Maranatha just with a name change to throw off the unwary.
2)The theology of MSI/EN is not biblically sound.</font>

I believe upcase hit the nail on the head. I believe these are the two biggest points of disagreements between the "disagreers" and the "disagreeds". For most, these will be irreconcilable differences and virtually impossible for one side to persuade the other.

--SB</font>

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi all, cymbrogi, your post of 9/26, this is the crux of the matter, so to speak. Do some research , now and you will see.}

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">coppertree, dude(ette?)--

For the umpteenth time, I have done the research. I have drawn different conclusions than you have. I believe you are wrong, you believe I am wrong.

You seem to find it difficult to believe that someone can conclude differently than you after viewing the same facts. Why is that?

--SB</font>

[cupatea (cupatea)]

Hi thecymbrogi,

I'm wondering if you have researched the people listed in Rice's book under the subtitle, "The Hall of Champions" pp26-28? The ones who are marked out for specific attention <u>by Rice</u> are:

- "the Irish missionary Aidan (c. 600-651)"

- "The English nobleman, Boniface (c. 680 - 754)"

- "John Amos Comenius (1592 - 1670)"

- "Count von Zinzendorf and The Order of the Grain if Mustard Seed"

- "John and Charles Wesley and the Methodists"

An interesting collection of names. When you have done your research on these "Champions" we will talk more. Some of them are without doubt champions but some are weeds among the wheat. No I am not trying bait you with this. I want a serious discussion. So if you prefer to talk offline away from the baiters let me know.

(Message edited by cupatea on September 27, 2005)

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">Cupatea asked, "<font color="000000">I'm wondering if you have researched the people listed in Rice's book under the subtitle….</font>"

No, not specifically, except I know a bit about the Wesley's. I don't have the time to do much research on the rest at this time (I've been debating with myself how to graciously extricate myself from this forum as it is).

Having said that, if I may be so presumptuous as to preempt where I have seen similar conversations go, we must be careful about reading too much (or too little) into people's statements as to who they find to be role models or "champions" or some-such. For example, just because Martin Luther is one of my heroes in Christendom, there is a lot I find reprehensible about him, such as his vulgar language, extreme vitriol toward those he disagreed with, and his rabid anti-Semitism (sounds almost like some of the FactNET posters <grin>). In the 20th century, especially in the various charismatic revivals, there have been many more such examples, such as Aimee Semple McPherson who had a lot to admire as a Christian, as well as a lot to detest.

Another trap people commonly fall into is to judge past generations of saints (i.e. fellow Christians) with the theological standards and understanding we have today. History has shown that each generation of Christians has built upon the works of those who came before them; we are no exception. A few examples from history to make my point: the development of what constitutes the Gospel (the first Jerusalem council, Book of Acts), the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the development of the various credos, such as the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession. These solidified theological truths that were not fully developed during the time of the Disciples, but were latent in the Scriptures until God's revelation brought it to fullness in His time. Because of this, we will find many saints of old who did not have the light of illumination we have today and some held to non-damnable heretical teachings. Fortunately, it is up to God and his grace and mercy, not us, to judge the eternal destiny of men's souls.

All and all, what I am trying to say is that any list of people we admire will have its bounds on how much we agree with or disagree with their lives; each person will have some characteristic(s) we do not find acceptable to our own theology and doctrine. I believe, if we debated each individual on Rice's list, the issues would boil down to a few ideas we disagree upon, more than the lives of the individuals themselves. For example, most of the inflammatory disagreements I have seen on this site so far are subheadings under the general charismatic movement. People seem to disagree on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the role of apostles and prophets today, and then the various strains of how these beliefs are lived out in the Christian life.

I am concerned that, beyond just taking a lot of time, any debate over a list such as the one in Rice's book may cloud where the true theological discrepancies are between the "disagreers" and the "disagreeds".

--SB</font>

[cupatea (cupatea)]

SB - I agree with you up to a certain point (what more could you expect on a forum <grin>)

1. If you want to extricate yourself we'd all be less well off. You offer some good insights and a good balance to offset some of the more radical elements on both sides. We are all on a journey here, most of us have had a common starting point in our affiliation with EN, but we are all on our seperate paths. Your journey is just as valid as anyone elses whether we/they agree or disagree with all or even some of what you say.

2. My only comment on the "Hall of Champions" is that while you cannot read too much into it, and indeed most of the names are synonymous with orthodoxy and indeed mission work as is the theme of the list, it is weird that the most leader of a Christian organisation would include a heretic as a point of focus in his list. I'd have thought avoiding that sort of controversy would be a priority.

3. <font color="ff0000">Another trap people commonly fall into is to judge past generations of saints (i.e. fellow Christians) with the theological standards and understanding we have today. History has shown that each generation of Christians has built upon the works of those who came before them; we are no exception.</font> By the same token if you take your thoughts here to it's logical conclusion we become the Roman Catholic church and bass our doctrine on what is 'commonly accepted' as truth.

My intent was not to debate each of the people on the list. But to ask the question - why is a known heretic included in and focused upon in the list? There is a lot of good in Rice's book. BUT intermingled with the good are subtly inserted ideas that raise little red flags for me. I think Patrick, Carey et al have been inserted in an attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the underlying belief system. Even Comenius and the Wesley's are inserted in glowing terms somewhat hypocritically for the former and deceptively in their origins for the latter.

* Comenius is hailed as the "Father of Modern Education" - yet modern education is roundly condemned in EN (most pastors are actively encouraged to home school their children)
* The Wesley's are well respected and the Methodist's are a well established mainstream denomination - yet they split from the Moravians because of heresies, as John put it, specifically antinomianism and quietism taught by von Zinzendorf. Besides which the Wesleys were missionaries before John's experience with the Moravian's. He met them on a missionary journey to the USA. They didn't 'spring out of the Moravian renewal' as Rice would have it.
* von Zinzendorf's 'The Order of the Grain of Mustard Seed' is presented as "a secret society made up of influential people who wanted to use their positions to help spread the Gospel" - nothing is said of it being a Masonic order otherwise known as the "Order of Religious Freemasons" - apparently a 'dead rite' of masonry according to their website www.mastermason.com (http://www.mastermason.com) - victory weekends are supposed to 'deal' with the past sins of ancestors and the generational spirits that are passed on from those involved in the idolatry of masonry and the like. So why praise it or even mention it?

Since a young child I have always held to the thought that <font color="0000ff">I should know why I believe what I believe.</font> My journey in every church I have been to has been a journey of discovery of the beliefs to which I'm assenting to through active participation (and no I'm not a church hopper - I have just lived in many different countries and cities). Like I said you add an alternative view on the issues expounded here that is valid without being rabid a la snikkers and friends. I was taught in EN that vows of silence and secrecy were wrong. That freemasonry and fraternities were unbiblical covenants. (see the Experiencing Victory booklet) So when I saw Rice praising a Secret Society I was shocked.}

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All, Thank you for your post cupoftea; your research and annotation of that research is grand, to say the least.
I appreciate your points, in particular # 3.
you say
"...your thoughts here to it's logical conclusion we become the Roman Catholic church and base our doctrine on what is'commonly accepted' as truth."
In my research, I found that is a hallmark of a sect. Not having a systematic theology, but having only current beliefs held in common.And not being able to be easily demonstrated with a scriptural basis and not a well thought out system;this called a sect.
I agree that we should do this work, as you said that we should know why we believe. The Berans were blessed for doing this task.}

[aletheia (aletheia)]

cupatea - I wonder if Rice really has a grasp on the theological beliefs of Aidan, Boniface, Comenius, and Zinzendorf. Though he attended seminary, that doesn't mean he is a church history scholar (nor a theologian, for that matter). In the writing/editing of his book Every Nation in Our Generation, Rice has received input from others, including one historian who holds to similar doctrine as Rice and is also involved with the NOTLR gang.

peace,
aletheia

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">cupatea--

Thanks for the kind words.

My thoughts on some of your comments:

<font color="000000">By the same token if you take your thoughts here to it's logical conclusion we become the Roman Catholic church and bass our doctrine on what is 'commonly accepted' as truth.</font> True. That is one of the many reasons why God has given us the Holy Spirit, so that we may discern truth. However, creeds and liturgical writings do have a place and we should test them by hammering them out on the anvil of God's word. Just like you are doing to my words even now.

<font color="000000">why is a known heretic included in and focused upon in the list?</font> See my more detailed comments, below. But first, we must be careful in our condemnation of heretics (I've alluded to this before when I spoke of each generation of believers building upon the illumination of the prior generations). As an example of what I mean, while I believe modalism is a heresy, I am unconvinced that being a modalist damns you to hell; so, I am personally careful in how I condemn the modalist's belief. There are differences between heresies in general and damnable heresy. Or another way to put it, I don’t believe God would send me to hell if my theology was so poor as to not believe in a virgin birth while trusting Jesus for my salvation and lordship. I am unconvinced that anyone posting on this board is not an heretic to some degree, self included.


<font color="000000"> There is a lot of good in Rice's book. BUT intermingled with the good are subtly inserted ideas that raise little red flags for me.</font> That's fair. <font color="000000"> I think Patrick, Carey et al have been inserted in an attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the underlying belief system. Even Comenius and the Wesley's are inserted in glowing terms somewhat hypocritically for the former and deceptively in their origins for the latter. </font> You could be right (I have a more simplistic view), but I don't know one way or the other. I definitely see the logic in how you get here, however, especially with what I understand some of your assumptions to be. I happen to have made different assumptions that take me elsewhere and who is to say whose assumptions are correct?

<font color="000000"> * Comenius is hailed as the "Father of Modern Education" - yet modern education is roundly condemned in EN (most pastors are actively encouraged to home school their children) </font> This is not my experience with my local leadership. But I have noticed that in certain pockets of EN there are large groups of home schooled kids so I understand and partly agree with you
<font color="000000"> * The Wesley's …..</font> You are more knowledgeable in this area than I am. I doubt you are wrong.
<font color="000000"> * von Zinzendorf's .... So when I saw Rice praising a Secret Society I was shocked.</font> Ahhhhh. Ok, so I understand a bit more why some people wigged out over my S/N, lol. I can't defend why another man I don't know does or doesn't do something. But for me, I have learned some good things from strange places. People who have influenced me include a number of atheists and other bad believing individuals; no telling what I will be accused of if I ever write a book and allude to those influences in my life.

But in specific regards to the "Secret Society" reference you mentioned in Rice's book, the part that he said he liked about them was that they "<font color="000000">wanted to use their positions to help spread the Gospel</font>" and" <font color="000000">birth[ed] a missions movement that powerfully touched Africa, the Americas and Russia.</font>" I think that is a fair statement. I don’t believe he was trying to identify himself with all of their theology, just that part of it. There would be no person but Jesus if we had to remove each individual from our own personal "champions" lists who did not have correct theology. So any such list will have its flaws.

--SB</font>

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">Titus--

There is a proper place for authority in our lives and God does speak to it in His Word. It is easy to become jaded and cynical when we see or experience its abuse. But its abuse should help us realize the responsibility we all have in executing our own God-given authority. Don't give up--there are those out there who use their authority as the Good Shepherd does, as much as they are able while being fallible humans.

--SB</font>

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi All catching up, so Sb, cymbrogi- If I read you right now you like the catholic church ? About those in rulership over us, where in the word do you see this?}

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">coppertree--

No, you read me wrong (but that is par for the course with you, my friend <grin>). The Bible says God has ordained governments over us (family/church/civil) and does not condemn, but supports, those authorities. I even remember a certain man in the Bible going so far as to say to render to Caesar what is his, and to God what is His. (If you need the book, chapter, and verse I will do that, but you seem to know the Bible well enough that I won't need to do more than this.)

If one is anti-authority, one is therefore anti-Christ and pro-devil.

--SB

ps just so we are clear, there is a Biblical place for the overthrow of certain tyrannical authorities. --SB</font>

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Cymbrogi -

What exactly do you believe is the scope and extent of pastoral/church leadership authority over its church members? In your belief, which areas of members' lives should be subject to leadership authority and which areas should be "off limits"? Also, what is your interpretation of "touch not God's anointed" as it relates to pastors/leadership relevant to their own accountability and error?

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">ontheroad--

Good questions, not easily answered because the point at which we rebel/revolt against authority is more often subjective than not. I am vexed as to how to answer your questions short of a dissertation (I have been pondering a similar question from ulyankee for some time, as well).

In the end, however, I believe we will find ourselves closer to the same view than farther as you appear to take the Bible seriously and, I assume, you derive your beliefs from its contents.

My project for this week is to work on my "authority post", in which I hope to give you my articulate response to your great questions--

--SB</font>

[ontheroad (ontheroad)]

Cymbrogi -

I can understand having difficulty in formulating an answer to questions about authority. Such a topic is complex in all of its subtleties and not always cut-and-dried. I, myself, am trying to formulate my own answers to the questions I asked you. I have difficulty for different reasons than you do, perhaps. My difficulty stems from years of being under mis-use of authority and now that I am away from it, I am having to start back at square one with what I believe about the whole church authority concept.

I'm looking forward to reading your "authority post".

Thanks and have a good evening,

Ontheroad

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi Cymbrogi, another slander of me, I asked what on the road did. Why do you think that your are the moderator, always in control, viewing things, as pass , fail in your eyes thru...a particular view. I would encourage you to look another so you can see newly. Ah, a new and living way, perhaps}

[ulyankee (ulyankee)]

hi cymbrogi and all...

I've had *very* limited access to the internet for the last several days, so I'm just now catching up. I'm mostly able to get on periodically to check email but not much more than that, so I may not be able to post again for several days. Maybe it's time I take a break anyway! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif Also phone access is still limited... sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's better than it was, but still intermittent. So I apologize for not responding to anyone on or off the forum as promptly as I normally would like, particularly to you cymbrogi. Anyhow, I am looking forward to your response as well... to clarify my position a little further, I am not at all a spiritual "anarchist" but do believe that there is Biblical authority in the church. My issue though is specifically with the "covering" doctrine, and how it appears that EN's governmental and accountability structure is explicitly built upon that doctrine, as expressed in the <u>Guidelines, Policies and Procedures for Convention Membership</u> document.

blessings,
ulyankee

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">coppertree--

My response to your post, inline commented:

<font color="000000">Hi Cymbrogi, another slander of me, I asked what on the road did.</font> huh? I don't understand. How did I slander you?? And your reference to OTR, I don't get, either <font color="000000"> Why do you think that your are the moderator,</font> I don't (but I do add some <u>moderation</u> in points of view, lol <grin>) <font color="000000">always in control, </font> only in the sense that I control what I say--it is obvious I don't control anything else anyone else says on this site. So I don't know if I understand your statement <font color="000000">viewing things, as pass , fail in your eyes thru...a particular view.</font> yes, obviously my views are expressed when I write something and I comment on whether or not I think other people's ideas agree with mine. That's what dialogue is all about. Others are free to disagree with my comments, like I am free to do to theirs. <font color="000000">I would encourage you to look another so you can see newly. </font> I have replied to this same statement of yours several times in the past when you have said the same thing--and my answer is still the same: I have looked at other people's views and I do not always agree with them--maybe you should try to see my point of view, too, lol <grin>? <font color="000000">Ah, a new and living way, perhaps</font> I don't understand this comment.

Coppertree, on a side note, and please don't be offended because this may help me understand your posts better, is English your primary language? I am seeking to understand you and your posts better, but obviously not doing a good job at it. I am beginning to think there is more to it than you just rushing to grade math papers like you have described before. Thanks for your assistance in helping me to understand your thoughts.


ulyankee--

Thanks for elaborating; I sent you an email requesting the document (I don't have it here).

Thanks!

--SB</font>

[coppertree (coppertree)]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Hi Sb-Cymbrogi Dt, Now I am beginning to wonder about you. Why do you want to know where I am and who I am ? I told you about the math papers once, more than once bring it up to me; you are the only one to do this. You seem to me like a person that is trying though some feigned, or maybe real interest to control me. To use personal insults and criticisms to belittle continuously; this is so like Maranatha, Msi/En. I think that was what Titus was saying about your way.}

[thecymbrogi (thecymbrogi)]

<font color="119911">coppertree--

alas, no. I'm just trying to understand your posts. I'll just stop replying to yours because I am not doing a good job understanding them and it is only irritating you, which is not my intent, when I ask you to clarify.

Thanks for dialoguing with me up to now and may Jesus bless you--

--SB</font>