Q THE TRINITY NOTHING WRONG HERE Right [Archive]

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 04:13 PM

Maranatha Campus Ministries earned a comment from the evaluating committee from CRI in the 1980's that MCM's teaching about the trinity was "unclear."

I find that downright bizarre because I attended new believer's class in Bob Weiner's home church in Gainesville, FLorida, in 1985 and it was pretty darn clear to me.

HOWEVER... based on one comment about 21 years ago, we hear accusations here on this board that Every Nation's teaching about the trinity is wrong.

Once again, theological differences are masquarading with the abusive and intimidating tactics of accusations of cult and heresy, rather than as an open and honest debate about the Bible.

COULD WE PERHAPS HAVE: (1) An exact identification of what you believe is wrong about EN's teaching on the trinity. (2) Exactly what you think the correct Biblical position is. And (3) a Biblically-based discussion of which is correct. ANd (4) where reasonable minds can disagree (I don't know how, but let's just say) can we agree to disagree?

I think to recover from a bad church, don't you need to figure out where you stand, what was true and what was not true? Don't you want to find out what you really should believe, based on the Bible, not on the word of any man?

coppertree

10-24-2006, 04:58 PM

Reading the actual document that you talk about might be helpful.It could answer some of your questions. The report that talk about is commonly referred to as the Ad Hoc Committee report, it can be found on Rick Ross site. Good hunting!}

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 05:19 PM

Yeah, I did read it. All it says is that Maranatha was "unclear"

But that's not the point.

The point is that many here are accusing EVERY NATION -- NOT Marantha -- of being wrong about the trinity.

Having attended both Marantha and Every Nation, I know that their teaching about the trinity is and always has been 100% correct.

FOR YOU TO FALSELY ACCUSE A CHURCH TODAY, you had better have a specific concern NOW, verifiable, and provable. You don't.

Furthermore, given that there are a variety of interpretations of many issues, you'd better have more than just "Coppertree doesn't agree with Every Nation." So what? Every Nation has a right to not agree with Coppertree. Isn't that right?

mcmstaff78

10-24-2006, 05:27 PM

Define what *you* mean as "100% correct" and then we can discuss it.

coppertree

10-24-2006, 06:10 PM

Hi all,
Actually the report says that, they would not recommend this group.}

wisedove

10-24-2006, 08:40 PM

mosely,
My EN church (who is no longer a part of EN themselves, and I am no longer a member there, happened all about the same time, go figure...) did not have any heretical teachings about the trinity. What DID happen when they became an EN church was that they became very controlling with the Worship, the Small groups, the Discipleship groups, the leaders, etc. Heck, perhaps this group which used to be MCM but now runs EN is somewhat worse than they were back then. They became elitists, only letting "other EN people" come in and minister there, and the HOLY SPIRIT was not allowed to have His way...

you can come on here and defend all you want. When God said GET, WE GOT. Oh, yes, it is THE LORD who places you in His Body as HE sees fit, and when it is time to go, you go, wherever HE leads. PERIOD.

wisedove

10-24-2006, 08:42 PM

p.s. you came on here and started criticizing people for evading a specific one of your questions, yet you are guilty of the same thing. I on 3 different occasions asked you directly HOW long you read here before you decided to go on a posting RAMPAGE, yet you ignored that each time. Why?

ulyankee

10-24-2006, 09:09 PM

A: This was an issue (http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=175831#POST175831) which was discussed at length a year ago in this forum (http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=197593#POST197593), since it appeared that while EN was trinitarian its old statement of faith at least allowed an open door for accepting modalism.

Soon after these discussions (it doesn't mean that it's as a result of them, but as dust has related, several EN top leaders do read this forum), Every Nation changed their statement of faith (http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/statement-of-faith3.html) (specifically the statement regarding the Trinity) in I think October or November 2005 in which it publicly and unequivocably affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity as reflected in the NAE's statement of faith verbatim, as well as the Nicean and Chalcedon creeds. Not all individual EN churches reflect this change yet, including MMS (http://www.metromorningstar.org/statementof_faith.html), but nearly all the other major ones do, including Bethel, VCF & KPIC. EN should get credit where credit is due... and this is one change that I am glad they made, whether it was due to discussions here or not. I know I noted the same at the time.

freedom43

10-24-2006, 09:47 PM

wisedove and others: as I have said elsewhere, it is not strictly theology that makes something a cult. It's SO much more -- it's about being controlling, manipulative, ellitist/critical of other churches, mind control, not allowing people to leave in healthy ways, etc.

Personally, until I started reading this board I hadn't thought about MCM/MSI/EN's theology as being the central problem/issue from my perspective. It was the other stuff that I thought primarily made it cultish. But, since coming here, I have realized that there are some major problems in the theology department too -- that seem to be mostly related to the NOLR/mysticism stuff -- about which I have a lot to learn.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 10:29 PM

Wisdove, I did answer your question about reading, which was 5 days while waiting for my ID to be activated, which was a pain. I am sorry that in all the discussion my answer got lost and was not obvious.

HOWEVER, I really do not demand that you answer questions in that way.

I contend that you are actually having theological disagreements with MANY, MANY, MANY churches -- which is surely YOUR RIGHT to do -- but you are wrapping them in an attack on one church in particular. (And if you look at the other FactNet boards, you see the same pattern repeating itself again and again, against another church and another church and another church, until it appears that this has become simply anti-Christian. Just fill in the blank of which church we want to attack next...)

Wisdove, you say that your church taught the trinity correctly but had other problems. OKAY, fair enough. To narrow down the issues and to UNDERSTAND THEM is progress in my view. No one can make heads or tails of a big giant mush of tangled issues. At least we can focus, for you, on what you are concerned about.

But what I see on here is a covert, perhaps subconscoius UNAWARE disagreement with theological beliefs, MASQUERADING as finding fault with Every Nation (or whatever).

Freedom43: You say you never thought about their theological beliefs. But I think unawares you are reacting to things you NO LONGER agree with theologically. WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT (at least among us equals, I don't know what God may think.) Look at all the talk about tithing, about sacrifice, about personal prophecy misleading people, etc., etc.

Time and time again EN is attacked for things that are NOT EXCLUSIVE TO EN. Why is that?

The alarm bells that go off in my head is when you criticize EN for something that THOUSANDS of churches believe and practice. You may be right. They may be wrong. But don't you notice this situation?

I have never tried to formulate a poetic or inspiring presentation of the trinity, but I think there is very little controversy or difficulty in the concept (though as Paul says we cannot understand these mysteries in full).

It is undeniably clear that God is one and yet God is three "persons" being the Father (the Lord, Jehovah, King), his Son Jesus the Christ who has existed eternally but entered this realm in the body and person of a man to bring us salvation, and the Holy Spirit of God, who has been called the self-effacing one (however you spell that) in that the Holy Spirit turns and glorifies Jesus and the Father.

No one will probably ever understand the mystery of the trinity, not even in eternity, in that there is one God who yet has three persons which I understand to be simply different manifestations of the same, one God.

The opening of the Ten Comamndments is "Hear Oh, Israel, the Lord your God is one God..."

I looked at your reference, but on the board one year ago, what I see is:

QUOTE: People are questioning whether Every Nation has a systematic theology, especially on the nature of God (the Godhead, the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirity) and the nature of Christ (Christology). UNQUOTE.

Hmmmmm..... WHY does a church have to have a SEPARATE systemtic theology OTHER THAN THE BIBLE? Isn't the best systematic theology THE BIBLE ITSELF? WHY RECREATE THE WHEEL?

Not long ago someone was ranting about EN supposedly over-emphasizing the Purple Book (which is completely untrue) instead of reading the Bible. Now, we see the flip-flopping again. (Anything to find fault, no matter from which direction it comes...) Now, EN should have something OTHER THAN the Bible.

Well... which is it....?

another_brick_in_the_wall

10-24-2006, 10:36 PM

jon wrote: "Hmmmmm..... WHY does a church have to have a SEPARATE systemtic theology OTHER THAN THE BIBLE? Isn't the best systematic theology THE BIBLE ITSELF? WHY RECREATE THE WHEEL?"

my comment: Jon, it is called fundamentalism. Fundamentalist beliefs can have the ability to steer ppl in crazy, irrational behaviors.

Fundamentalist Christians
Fundamentalist Islam
to name a few

Go to the home page of FactNet and scroll down to the "fundamentalist" section. It is always good to read pros and cons of a particular stance in order to conclude one's own decision.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 10:40 PM

I also see the entire discussion from last year as boiling down to one thing: Assuming that if EN left out a detail, it was in opposition to that detail.. So, in your view, to satisfy you, EN's statement of faith would have to be hundreds of pages long, lest they leave something out.

By definition such statements are SUMMARIES and offer only steps along the road. No summary can contain a complete Bible Seminary education in a page or two. Simply because a statement does not contain an exhaustive presentation of every angle of every issue in the Kingdom of God does not create a 'scandal' that a church is opposed to the truth on what they did not mention. It simply means they had to economize on space, and invite people to a fuller, life-long learning process from the Bible itself.

BY THE WAY, before I forget: EVERY SERMON EVER TAUGHT by ANY Every Nation pastor (including visiting pastors like Jim Lafoon) involved TELLING PEOPLE TO TURN IN THEIR BIBLE here and there, thereby telling every one that they were EXPECTED to bring their Bible and to read it.

Someone said about the Purple Book that home group attendees were not told to bring their Bibles to home group, emphasizing only the Purple Book in substitution of the Bible.

Hmmm... Does any Christian need to be told? Were they told to remember to wear clothes? Or was that assumed? Were they told to bring their arms and legs with them? Any Christian does not need to be told explicitly to bring their Bible to a Christian meeting. And yet by the senior leaders constantly asking every member of the congregation to turn here and turn there in the Bible, I think they WERE told that you need to have your Bible with you at all times, in every meeting, and you are expected to KNOW where Hezekiah and Obadiah can be found in the Bible!

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 10:42 PM

That's a joke, of course, about Hezekiah

j2theperson

10-24-2006, 10:45 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

JonMoseley: The alarm bells that go off in my head is when you criticize EN for something that THOUSANDS of churches believe and practice. You may be right. They may be wrong. But don't you notice this situation?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
What does that matter? EN is still wrong, and even if thousands of other churches believe the same thing that doesn't make EN less wrong or less deserving of critique.

If we want to discuss EN to the exclusion of those thousand other churches you speak of then that is our right. By what earthly rule should be be compelled to discuss all of these thousands other churches in addition to EN? Our experience was with EN--not with those thousand other churches.

And complaining that we are talking only about Maranatha and EN instead of talking about them along with a thousand other churches disproves nothing that we have said about EN.

wisedove

10-24-2006, 10:51 PM

Jon Mosely,
Thank you for your direct response. you said that we are attacking a particular church. I don't agree. Being deceived means you don't know it, therefore until blinders are removed, you won't see what we are trying to argue here..

Me, in particular, LOVED my church. It was an AWESOME church. BUT, when it joined EN, it changed drastically, and very noticeably, especially to a few who were extremely discerning. Here's the thing...I stayed there 5 extra years hoping for a positive change, or a revert back to the way it originally started off, but it didn't. I voiced my concerns to leaders when I was called out for attending another church service where the prophetic was in operation very strongly. I was told that they were responsible for our souls, and that I should not have taken their sheep along with me to this meeting (which, btw, ended up being a tremendous blessing to those who attended with me.) I was rebuked for leading their sheep astray, outside of THEIR COVERING. I told them that Every Nation ministries IS NOT the Body of Christ. They are a part of it. I discerned that they were trying to remain separated from the BODY at large...

This grieved my Spirit. Hence, the Holy Spirit was grieved, b/c He is living inside of every born again person...This little event was the last straw for me. I knew we were to go, but I also knew it was going to have to be God pulling us out, not a pastor asking us to leave. God Himself brought us there. He had us there for a reason. A year after this, we were pulled out. I won't get into details on how, b/c i think I shared that already, but it was a God thing. I knew it was time. It broke my heart. I miss my friends there.

Another thing, part of what kept me there was the FLESH. there is a lot of FLESH APPEASEMENT. Lots. Across the board in this group, they seem to appeal to the flesh first and foremost as a tool. They have the coolest, and the bestest, and the most expensive, and the hip technology, etc. It appeals to the flesh. It's cool to be a part of a happenin church...well, if God is not a part, I don't want a part. He is not HEAD of EN. That was confirmed when I "met" ulyankee via this site. I want to be where God is Head. I want to be free to roam about HIS Body of churches AS HE LEADS. I am now, Praise God. That weight of the covering thing is OFFFFF of me! Makes me want to SHOUT FOR JOY..

coppertree

10-24-2006, 10:57 PM

Jon
You have yet to answer me.}}

another_brick_in_the_wall

10-24-2006, 11:03 PM

jon wrote: " think they WERE told that you need to have your Bible with you at all times, in every meeting, and you are expected to KNOW where Hezekiah and Obadiah can be found in the Bible!"

my comment: that is one habit that i formed during my time in EN that i still cannot break. i have to carry my bible with me to church now.
but here's the thing: now, i proudly carry my bible to church so that when scripture is read every service from OT AND NT... I can follow along to ensure that what is read outloud is correct.
My experience in EN: the pastor (including Laffoon) may reference a Bible verse, but then go along this incomprehensible tangent. Nothing in sermon teaching how to look at verse in context with another verse, history, culture and so forth.

I suggest renting the movie, Luther. Understanding the role that the Protestant Reformation played as they broke away from Catholic church really hammered home how important it is for church members to not only "hear" the Word or sermon spoke in assembly...but what an honor and privilege it is to have the WORD in our hands... to keep the laity in check.

THAT factor is not prevalent in today's EN churches.

wisedove

10-24-2006, 11:12 PM

p.s. when I had the desire to lead a small group because one of my giftings is in teaching, I was told NOT to teach from the WORD directly, which meant I could not make a lesson to teach out of the Word. Only approved books were allowed. Therefore, since i feel that i have a gift to teach, and don't agree that teaching someone else's STUFF exclusively will be excercising my OWN teaching gift, I just never led a small group. I bet one day at the new place I attend, God will raise me up to TEACH out of HIS Word a FRESH NOW word to HIS body, b/c they allow the gifts.

You can't tell me "you have a teaching gift, but you are only allowed to teach someone else's stuff." SORRY. That does not allow for growth. It creates ROBOTS. I don't wish to be a ROBOT in the body of Christ. I can't find that anywhere in His Word. "DO as the pastor says, and speak only what he allows you to speak.." nah.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 11:24 PM

WISEDOVE wrote:
My experience in EN: the pastor (including Laffoon) may reference a Bible verse, but then go along this incomprehensible tangent. UNQUOTE.

Yup, guilty. But the trouble is I spent 10years searching for a better church from 1993 to 2003 AND EVERYONE DOES THAT. Turn on your television.

GOOD LUCK hearing a scripture from Joel Osteen on national television.

j2theperson, similarly says if thousands of churches disagree with j2theperson, it is still fair to criticize Every Nation.

The problem is -- as I have been saying all along -- you are DISHONESTLY portraying your theological disagreements with MILLIONS of other CHristians -- each of whom think you are just as wrong as you think they are wrong -- by attacking one church.

You are attempting to win a theological debate by FALSELY portraying EN as unusual, when it is not unusual, FALSELY calling it a cult simply because YOU have different theological views than they do.

SERIOUS QUESTION: DOES EVERYNATION HAVE A RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU on theological ideas?

You feel strongly about your views.

FINE, then STATE them, openly and honestly and clearly, not as smears against a church.

GO LOOK at the FactNet board directory. Do you see HOW MANY churches are being smeared on here? Do you really still pretend this is only about just one church.

If you have a theological belief, SING IT OUT LOUD. But do so honestly. Say I THINK THE BIBLE SAYS THIS OR THAT.

mcmstaff78

10-24-2006, 11:25 PM

Jon still hasn't even defined what he means by EN being "100%" correct on the trinity.

Jon, again, I challenge you: what is the "100%" correct doctrine on the trinity?

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 11:26 PM

Personally, I have never seen EN try to separate itself from the rest of the Body of Christ. When Metro Morning Star, Brett Fuller's Church, was still Grace Covenant Church around 1992 (much closer to Maranatha days), Brett Fuller arranged singles events together with other churches in Northern Virginia and invited the singles from Grace Covenant Church (formerly Maranatha and later Metro Morning Star) to go to these events with other singles from other churches. Obviously, these churches were completely unrelated in any way to Grace Covenant or the former Maranatha.

In terms of the "flesh" I am not entirely sure what you mean, but I DID believe that there was too much emphasis on performance by the music group, and not enough on deep worship. But I learned long ago that there are many styles of worship and if God responds, then do not criticize. I once went to another church (while I was in Maranatha), spent the entire worship service critical in my heart that they did not know how to worship properly, and then GOD SHOWED UP and healed people, etc., etc. I meekly went up and asked them to pray for me -- the very leaders I thought earlier did not know what they were doing. So EN's glitzy style is not my preference, but it is not for me to say.

j2theperson

10-24-2006, 11:31 PM

I distinctly remember several occasions during Sunday sermons at EN when the preacher would start preaching from a Bible verse and would specifically tell the congregation, "You don't need to turn there." The pastors would sometimes skip through verses very quickly, jumping from book to book at such a speed that it was basically impossible to follow along in your Bible anyway. The most you could do was jot down the scripture references in your notes and look back over things later.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 11:32 PM

wiseasaserpentgentleasadove

10-24-2006, 11:35 PM

WISEDOVE wrote:
My experience in EN: the pastor (including Laffoon) may reference a Bible verse, but then go along this incomprehensible tangent. UNQUOTE.

mosely, please show me where i said that. I don't remember saying that.

wiseasaserpentgentleasadove

10-24-2006, 11:45 PM

wow, i just lost my extremely long post. perhaps I wasn't to share what I was going to.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 11:46 PM

Wisedove, sorry, that was AnotherBrickinTheWall who said that.

jonmoseley

10-24-2006, 11:48 PM

wow, i just lost my extremely long post. perhaps I wasn't to share what I was going to.

MOSELEY: Happens to me all the time. My sympathies. I have learned to "select all" (CTRL/A) and COPY the text before trusting it to this system.

wiseasaserpentgentleasadove

10-24-2006, 11:53 PM

O.K. I will try to re-type what I wanted to say.
We are a 3-part being.
1.Spirit-The Holy Spirit dwells here in a believer.
2. Soul-our mind, will, and emotions
3. Body-our Flesh

If our soul rules, our flesh gets fed, over fed, pampered, etc. (a little pampering does us some good sometimes...)

If we allow our Spirit (the Holy Spirit within us) to rule, then our Soul and Flesh line up under that authority, and our flesh might not always get its way.

At the church I attended, they use "come grab a coffee and chill"(re-worded somewhat) but the message or lure is the same, appease the flesh, then come hear a "cool message".

When a church starts idolizing the Pastor, watch out. My sister went to a recent womens confernce there, and I asked her how things went. "Oh, they went ALL OUT! They gave us ____________ and _______________, and the tables were all decorated soooo gorgeous...etc." Flesh, flesh,flesh. (how was the WORD? what was the message?)

If a church constantly uses the coolest sound system, or the most awesome computer tech. and the neates power point presentations, but The Holy Spirit is not allowed to have His way, what good is it? Or, it borders idolatry. It borders being a part of the Apostate Church. One foot in the world and one foot in the church.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 12:01 AM

MCMstaff: Read above. I know it goes by quickly. But I answered your question.

By the way you are missing a double negative.

I am not the one calling for any 100% correct interpretation of the trinity.

As usual, you are getting your facts wrong and all in a tangle.

I accused YOU of demanding that EN AGREE WITH YOU, because naturally the world revolves around you.

I am answering your question,but I reject the premise of your remarks.

I was REJECTING your narrow-minded insistence that everyone else in the Body of Christ must agree with you or else be banished to perdition.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 12:10 AM

wiseasaserpentgentleasadove

10-25-2006, 12:11 AM

jon, see my response. you re-posted your earlier post.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 12:19 AM

I distinctly remember several occasions during Sunday sermons at EN when the preacher would start preaching from a Bible verse and would specifically tell the congregation, "You don't need to turn there."

MOSELEY: Yes, that's true, but always in CONTRAST to the MAIN scriptures that we were going to spend much more time on in the very next moment the pastor WOULD tell us to turn to the scriptures for the main theme of that Sunday's sermon.

The point being that everyone was expected to bring their Bible to church meetings, to know where to find things in it (even if not the Book of Hezekiah, nor the Book of 2nd Confusions).

The suggestion that somehow EN told people not to bother with their Bibles or did not tell them they should be reading their Bibles is simple a falsehood.... a slanderous lie. Everyone KNEW that they were supposed to be reading their Bible and were supposed to have it with them at all meetings. The occasional mention that a preacher was not going to spend very much time on a minor point was in sharp contrast to other scriptures that were read in detail.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 12:23 AM

Okay, I tried to delete the extra post. But I have tried that two dozen times before, with no success. We'll see. Sorry.

IN TERMS OF EVERY NATION AND BIBLE READING, now you are making me remember.

NOT ONLY was everyone expected to read from the Bible and bring it to church meetings, but in Brett Fuller's Church, Brett made a special point of having the key passage from the preachers' sermon READ ALOUD NOT ONLY IN ENGLISH BUT ALSO IN SPANISH.

If you don't speak Spanish, it forces you to look at your Bible to understand what is being said.

It was a special ceremonial part of the service that a Hispanic member would come up and read the sermon's main scriptural passage out of the Spanish Bible in Spanish, and it would also be read in English.

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 02:06 AM

Moseley - I don't "demand" that EN agree with me, I simply reject what much of what they stand for (as I do most self-appointed, self-created, self-annointed "christian" groups).

So, can you point me to an "official" statement by EN regarding the Trinity. Would they agree with the statement that God is "one Essence in three Persons". That each Person is "consubstantial", "coeternal" and "co-equal" with the others? That the Father is Unoriginate? That the Son is the "only-begotten"? That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father?

BTW, what "facts" am I getting "wrong" and "all in tangle"?

The rest of your post is simply silly.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 03:17 PM

My comment about facts and issues in a tangle was not directed at you, but was in response to wisedove narrowing down the issues of what she was concerned about, the Trinity not being one of them, but instead other issues concerned her. I would say that the rambling discussion on the board overall (which is unavoidable to be sure in a round-robin discussion) leaves it entirely unclear as to what people are objecting to, but creates a mish-mash of emotion and hyperbole. I think being precise and specific is a benefit. Therefore, I accept WiseDove's comments that she has other objections to EN, to be discussed elsewhere, and that is just fine. THAT IS WHY I tried to create a separate thread confined to one clear question. I tried, anyway.

EN's official statement of faith is on their website, and it is frequently referenced above, and in the discussion a year ago, the link to which is above. The linked discussion from 2005 goes into nauseating detail about every mention of the trinity from EN.

EN's statement is nothing the slightest bit out of the ordinary. The only defect that you or anyone else has identified now, or a year ago, is that it does not go ON AND ON AND ON plumbing the depths of every aspect of this eternal mystery which the Bible tells us we are incapble of understanding. However, that is not the purpose of a summary. A summary is a summary. It is not "a seminary education in a box."

You DO demand that EN (and doubtless every other church) agree with you 100% because you cannot adopt an attitude of "You believe the Bible says X, I believe it says Y, PEACE BROTHER... God Bless you. I sure will be curious to find out in Heaven who is right."

Instead you attack EN (and doubtless any other church you may leave) as being ILLEGITIMATE for not holding to your theological beliefs... EVEN WHEN YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY ANY ACTUAL DISAGREEMENT.

The Bible says do not receive an accusation against an elder lightly, and then only on the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.

Since it is you who are calling EN bad, heretical, whatever, the Bible makes it your responsibility to identify something wrong. It is not my responsibility to disprove THEORETICAL complaints that have not even been made yet (in any specifics). It is your burden to show where EN's theology is wrong, SO wrong as to not simply be a product of wording of a summary or honest disagreements of Biblical interpretation.

PAUL WARNED US against contentious disputes over doctrine to no purpose.

COULD THERE BE ANY MORE CLEAR EXAMPLE of a contentious person, creating strife, where you accuse EN of being illegitimate WHEN YOU CANNOT EVEN IDENTIFY any particular aspect of their beliefs on the trinity that you don't agree with? And if you could, why is EN disagreeing with you a problem? Are you not simply engaging in endless and pointless disputes over doctrine as Paul warned against?

miltietoast

10-25-2006, 03:24 PM

jon, pharesee's had statement of faith called Torah. They read from it all the time.

speakword2004

10-25-2006, 03:27 PM

Jon

EN clarified and rewrote its official statement after pressure was exerted here and elsewhere by other former qnd current church members. A bible school dean who previously expressed Modalism (as exposed here) was subsequently redeployed.

miltietoast

10-25-2006, 03:33 PM

I talk about mcm because they are a brood of vipers. The vipers moved to EN. When you look at these mens paths you see a trail of mangeled,butchered sheep. The fruit reveals the root. No video conferencing,conventions, and glitz can cover this up.

It is so simple to me ,sheep do not kill sheep--wolves in sheep clothing do" By the way jon your fangs are showing-need to pull up your sheepskin. PEACE BROTHER

miltietoast

10-25-2006, 03:34 PM

miltietoast

10-25-2006, 03:34 PM

miltietoast

10-25-2006, 03:38 PM

wow ghost went crazy

matt_hatter

10-25-2006, 03:47 PM

It was worth repeating thrice, Miltie. They have refused to look in the rear view mirror to see the human debris and body parts strewn on the road. Onward and upward Jon-Jon!!! Yeehaaa!!!

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Miltietoast wrote:
jon, pharesee's had statement of faith called Torah. They read from it all the time. UNQUOTE.

WOW, you are really reaching to find some way to be contentious.

YOU (as a group) are criticizing EN for *NOT* having a statement of faith to your liking.

It is my point that you are being unbiblically contentious and ridiculous by trying to find something wrong with tiny changes in word.

Now, here, you whip around 180 degrees the other direction to once again criticize EN. So EN is criticized for not having a statement of faith. Then they are criticized FOR having one. Do you see a common thread? EN must be criticized at all cost. The imperative: Smear EN no matter what.

I began this thread by trying to pin down the idea that there is no problem regarding the trinity, so that we may cross one issue off the list, and focus on real questions.

In response, NO problem has been identified, yet you continue to try to SEARCH for some way to slander EN. IT IS THE SEARCHING MIND that is FISHING to find a problem that says more about what is really going on here. If you have to work this hard to HUNT for something to criticize EN for, what does that say about your motivations?

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 04:03 PM

miltietoast: The "vipers" apologized to you and repented. Read the words of Jesus Christ. Where in Jesus' words do you find justification for your refusal to forgive?

freedom43

10-25-2006, 04:23 PM

Speaking of human debris... Jon has still not answered me on the salaries/money thread if it was okay with him that a church elected elder was dismissed without consulting/notifying the church and lied about from the pulpit. And if it was okay with him that a man on Brett's/Grace Covenant church's first financial board owned Brett's home (undisclosed to the church), was a fairly new convert, had a bad reputation in the community, was firing other church members from their jobs, evicting them from their homes for daring to visit other churches, and whose wife was verbally abusing other church members. As I said, my problems with that church were not necessarily rooted in their view of the Trinity -- but that they abused and controlled the sheep, among other things -- and would not open the books.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/22587.html?1161716058

And, Jon, I had to laugh that you said Mark Caulk kissed Ed Buckham; so we know they parted on good terms/with Mark's blessing. Are you that naive? Judas' betrayed Jesus with a kiss. That means nothing to me. I would not want Ed on my bad side either. Besides, a whole host of people who had been in leadership over the years left without their goodbye kisses -- and a trail of human debris followed. And, how dare you imply on another thread that those departures had anything to do with race. I might still be in that church if Brett had been a stand up guy and dealt with the issues I am describing. On second thought, thank God Almighty that that was enough to finally wake me up from my 12 year stupor and give me the nudge I needed to break away. Perhaps you are so angry and worked up because your stupor was closer to 20 years? Again, I repeat -- you need to look at more than theology here, Jon. Theology doesn't capture what I am talking about here -- unless there is a theology of abuse.

matt_hatter

10-25-2006, 04:33 PM

jon, please, using your most infinite wisdom, please share how the vipers have repented. 'Nasso told me in 1981 that he spent the day at the pool with his little girls while his "boys" were delegated to do the kingdom work. It is lifestyle I have heard year in and year out from MCM days to EN days.

You take people to task for blanket statements, yet you make some tremendous overblown generalization like you just did and it is hard to take you seriously.

Oh. Still waiting on that "thank you" that you need to issue to our friend for all those rides. LOL!! I say this tongue in cheek, but it does make your above words all that more insincere, I have seen one former MCM pastor after another come in here and beg forgiveness from unknown people, yet there is a real incident for you to address and you refuse. So don't tell me about repentance and forgiveness!!!

upcase20

10-25-2006, 04:47 PM

Whew ! I'm glad my stupor lasted less than 2. I can't understand why everyone didn't see so early what I saw.

matt_hatter

10-25-2006, 05:37 PM

upcase, forgive me for referring to this incident, but....

upcase said: "I was shunned by everybody when I left, but my first instance was from Jon. He didn't have a car at the time but he had no problems asking me for rides home after church to his apartment. On the eve of the Clarence Thomas Nomination I ran into him on the US Capitol Grounds passing out political flyers the night before the Senate confirmation. I remember walking up to him and saying Hi. He recognized me, was rude, and quickly dismissed me. This was my first taste of a post Maranatha relationship, and a rather distasteful one at that."

Jon, you have a perfect opportunity to walk out your faith with fear and trembling here, yet the real kingdom things you have ignored. Not that upcase even needs an apology, but it is that hyper-religious theoritical talk that is like the smell of a good old southern paper mill to me. Lets see some real kingdom in action bro!!

Read the board over the last year, you seem to have an abundance of time on your hands. You will find former MCM "pastors" (including myself) with sincere repentant hearts, due to a "haunting" over the years of how WE (not some system) treated people. I am just giving you the same opportunity!

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 06:07 PM

upcase said: "I was shunned by everybody when I left, but my first instance was from Jon. He didn't have a car at the time but he had no problems asking me for rides home after church to his apartment. On the eve of the Clarence Thomas Nomination I ran into him on the US Capitol Grounds passing out political flyers the night before the Senate confirmation. I remember walking up to him and saying Hi. He recognized me, was rude, and quickly dismissed me. This was my first taste of a post Maranatha relationship, and a rather distasteful one at that."

MOSELEY: Sorry, never happened. I always had a car during my time in Washington, D.C. I was never passing out fliers at the Capitol about the Clarence Thomas nomination, not to say that I wouldn't have if I had had the time and initiative.

Could you be thinking of Jim Backlin?

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 06:11 PM

FREEDOM43 WROTE:
jon, please, using your most infinite wisdom, please share how the vipers have repented. UNQUOTE

Read Tik's blog. He admits that Phil Bonasso, clearly speaking not only for himself, apologized profusely to him after Marnatha broke up saying repeatedly SHAME ON US (former Maranatha leaders).

Rice Broocks admitted that Maranatha was wrong in his book.

Mark Caulk has certainly apologized profusely.

Bruce Weiner has even apologized.

WHO HASN'T apologized?

And other than Mark Caulk I am drawing only here from this Board, and you ADMIT that all of these leaders apologized. INDEED YOU BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON IT, at one moment using it as proof that Maranatha was wrong, at the next moment refusing to forgive as Jesus commanded and hanging on to your bitterness.

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 06:13 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Moseley: You DO demand that EN (and doubtless every other church) agree with you 100% because you cannot adopt an attitude of "You believe the Bible says X, I believe it says Y, PEACE BROTHER... God Bless you. I sure will be curious to find out in Heaven who is right."<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Well, you don't know the half of it. To be acceptable, a "church's" doctrine should not be made up on the fly by those thinking they're getting "new revelation", but be the historic Christian faith "which was once delivered unto the saints". (Jude 1:3) But there are certainly religious organizations that do not adhere to this which I would not characterize as a cult. However, as I responded to an earlier post, it is not the doctrine as much as how the doctrines are used. Our Lord had a lot to say about those who had "correct" doctrine but used them "incorrectly" in Matthew 23. Also, some specific doctrines have been pointed out as being especially egregious and given to spiritual abuse. The teachings on shephedship, "covering" and spiritual authority would definitely fall in this category.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Moseley: The Bible says do not receive an accusation against an elder lightly, and then only on the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>But that assumes that these men are legitimately "elders", an assumption to which I do not adhere. Why should I ascribe "eldership" to those who are self-appointed in a schismatic group that arose out of another schismatic group started by a disaffected little men with delusions of grandeur?

Your quoting this also begs the question of what is "lightly". I would suggest that the testimonty of hundreds, and even thousands of people, regarding spiritual abuse is not to be taken "lightly".

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Moseley: PAUL WARNED US against contentious disputes over doctrine to no purpose.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Not sure precisely what scripture you have in mind here, but again, this begs the question of what "to no purpose" means. Quite honestly, I believe that exposing abusive religious systems is a very worthwhile and God blessed purpose. You may think differently. But you seem to have little grasp of what "spiritual abuse" consitutes. I would suggest a bit of study. Google the term and you'll find a load of stuff.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 06:14 PM

I GAVE people rides home. But I don't think I ever got a ride from anyone. I was the one always moving the equipment to and from church in the morning, etc., etc. I remember frequently giving people rides. I remember driving Sarah home out of my way to Alexandria. (I did get completely lost one time after promising to drive her to Eric Holmberg's home group. I felt very bad about that. I ended up getting there after she did, after she got another ride. I went around in circles for an hour trying to find the right intersection.)

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 06:15 PM

An apology isn't an apology when there it is done to manipulate and control a person. Read in context, that is clearly what all these "apologies" that you seem to place so much stock in amount to. Also, the fact that there is no change, that the same abusive behavior continues, puts the lie to the "apology".

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 06:20 PM

TO mcmstaff78: Your point is completely off the topic.

You (all of you, Y'ALL) have identified NOTHING WRONG with EN's theology about the trinity.

YET YOU STILL find something wrong with it.

In fact, you have admitted that you don't know what their theology is... yet you STILL assume it to be wrong.

mcmstaff78 WROTE: But that assumes that these men are legitimately "elders", UNQUOTE

MOSELEY: And your Biblical text is ... what? There is no authority for that statement. Since you ought not to be gossping about ANYONE without evidence, where do you justify that exception from the Bible?

As to WRONGLY engaging in contentious disputes, see above. You admit YOU DON'T KNOW what EN's theology is on the trinity. You have identified nothing wrong with it.

AND YET YOU STILL WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT IT!!!!!

How much clearer an example could there be? You have identified no fault. You admit that YOU DON'T KNOW enough to know if there is a fault. AND YET YOU STILL ATTACK ANYWAY?

I rest my case, before the Courtroom of Heaven.

sameo

10-25-2006, 06:26 PM

I stand to be corrected....the only apology I have received are the former/ex maranatha pastors and a couple of EN ex fulltime ministry people that are posting here on this board. They have repented and apologized to us here publicly. Since you say, Mr. Moseley, that the "vipers" have repented, you are then admitting they had reason to repent, correct? and hey, if they really want to repent, they should come here on this public board, since many of them read here, and do so. That would be nice. A "golden opportunity."

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 06:28 PM

How did they become "elders"? Who made them elders? How did EN start? C'mon, Jon, give us the history and demonstrate how they aren't schismatic. What exactly is their Raison d'Être?

And if you can't tell I'm not discussing a particular doctrine, but the underlying assumptions in your argument then, well...you may rest your case, but you haven't made your case.

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 06:31 PM

And sameo, if they have repented of the things they've been accused of here as Jon says they have, those actions they've "repented" of disqualify them from being presbyters, assuming for the sake of argument they could ever had been legitimately considered such in the first place.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 06:41 PM

FREEDOM 43 WROTE: Jon has still not answered me on the salaries/money thread [ETC]

MOSELEY: Sorry, I didn't know that was intended as an actual question instead of as rhetoric.

I don't know what you mean about a church elected elder was dismissed without consulting/notifying the church, but I assume you mean dismissed from his job. Well, a private company should NOT be linked to the church, in either direction. A private employer has every right to let someone go or hire them. A Christian employer OUGHT NOT discriminate against anyone for any such reasons. Did it happen? How did it happen? WHy did it happen? I don't know, and I really don't think you do eiter, in spite of gossip. But if someone were to come to me with the scenario as YOU describe it, I would counsel them that that would be wrong.

NO ONE was ever lied about from the pulpit in the D.C. Maranatha. As I said previously, people were not even MENTIONED from the pulpit when they left. Their departure was usually ignored. Once again, those meetings are on tape, and the tape can prove what was actually said. I would like to get the tapes from Metro Morning Star.

Was it okay for a young convert to be on the finacial board? Hmmm. I didn't even know at the time that there WAS a financial board, much less who was on it, so I don't think one should carelessly through out opinions based on loose facts. Since it was NOT announced to the church or discussed I believe such a financial board was ADVISORY and had absolutely NO governance authority whatsoever. It may have simply been people with business experience providing some advice.

IF -- and I doubt it -- such a Board had any governance responsibility or leadership over the church then CLEARLY the Biblical requirements for recognizing an elder apply. Paul spelled those out. THOSE ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS -- from the Bible.

However, I ran the sound board and supervised teams of guys moving and setting up the equipment for church. Was I an elder? I DON'T THINK SO. And no one else did either. I led a team that sometimes had Brett Fuller serving UNDER me for that limited purpose, moving equipment.

CONTRARY TO THE SMEARS HERE Brett Fuller did not think it right to ask other men to get up early on Sunday morning if he didn't either so he put himself on the rotation and he served UNDER me from time to time setting up the equipment just like everyone else.

Would I need to qualify as an elder in order to set up equipment and lead others setting up equipment? I don't think so.

Must the doctor (I am guessing you are talking about a young man who was a biking enthusiast? I am treading carefully in describing him since I do not know) qualify as an elder to give business advice? No, I don't think so.

But if the Board was more than advisory then YES, HE WOULD have to qualify as an elder.

Does it matter how young in the Lord someone is? Well, it is a consideration. But in the Book of Acts EVERYONE was young in the Lord.

You are overlooking the fact that -- at the time -- the church abruptly dumped in Brett Fuller's lap was COLLAPSING and shrinking.

So there was not a lot of people or talent to choose from.

You ask was it okay for a member of the church, even on the financial board to own the house where Brett Fuller lived?

I have always lived in a house or apartment owned by someone else. It's called RENTING.

Wnat's wrong with that?

YOU ATTACK BRETT FULLER for owning a house. AND you attack Brett Fuller for NOT owning a house.

When Brett Fuller did not own a house you attack him for that. When Brett Fuller bought a house, you attack him for that, too.

Could it be the problem is in you, not Brett?

sameo

10-25-2006, 06:49 PM

Well, evidently my first post didn't go through, so my follow up doesn't completely make sense. But speaking of apologies and repenting....ONE can SAY with their mouth they are sorry and were wrong....BUT it's the action behind the words that show the heart.(whether truly repentant) I believe that mark caulk truly repented...it shows in his actions-as it does in those ex-pastors on this board who repented.

Also, I feel I have forgiven the "vipers" for their wrong. But it doesn't mean I should forget it happened. We remember things for the history of it. We can move on from slavery, or the holocaust, etc....different wars, we can find forgiveness in our hearts....but doesn't mean we should stop talking about it, or keep it from happening again. If we pretend it didn't happen, then we deny the truth. For instance, If we quit talking about Jesus dying on the cross(painful as it was)....then we forget why we need Him. Ask any counselor who has counseled the wounded....they must be able to talk about it, in order to heal. I don't really care if Jon Moseley believes my experience....doesn't matter. I have nothing to prove. Those who abused know. Just as I know I played a part in Maranatha. There are those today who still don't believe the Holocaust happened. Does that make me doubt? there will ALWAYS be those who doubt, and who deny the truth. God help them.

ulyankee

10-25-2006, 06:52 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

You have identified no fault.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Actually, as stated above, a fault WAS identified a year ago, and the statement of faith was changed last fall.

Some local churches, including MMS, still have the old statement of faith however, which is still at least potentially modalistic (it may be an oversight on their part, though they might want to change it in line with EN's statement of faith). The "old" statement of faith differed from the NAE's ONLY in the statement regarding the Trinity.

Old version: We believe there is one eternal, almighty and perfect God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

PROBLEM: It does not indicate whether the Triune God is One God in three coexistent, coeternal Persons. It at least allowed for modalism.

New version: That there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So I really don't know what the argument is here when even Every Nation realized there was a problem with their statement of faith as discussed here and changed it a year ago.

(Message edited by ulyankee on October 25, 2006)

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 07:58 PM

THe fact that the statement was refined does NOT mean the previous one was wrong. Perhaps just insufficiently descrptive of the truth that EN shared in common with 99% of the rest of the church.

ULYANKEE WRITES:
PROBLEM: It does not indicate whether the Triune God is One God in three coexistent, coeternal Persons. It at least allowed for modalism.

MOSELEY: NO, the problem is you are being ridiculous. A very brief SUMMARY is not a catalog of every theological issue known to man.

IT IS RIDICULOUS for you to fault a very brief summary for being brief.

In fact, I think the statement CLEARLY indicates the truth, and you are WRONG for criticising it.

But you are even more absurd by asking for a brief summary to delve into deep, obscure theological controversies.

There are a hundred things about the trinity which the NAE statement also FAILS to mention.

So what?

There is nothing false in that old EN statement.

THERE IS PLENTY FALSE -- and sinful -- about your false accusations.

jonmoseley

10-25-2006, 08:04 PM

Since I am not even sure what modalism is, I guess it was never taught in EN. SO your accusation is shown to be even more false and despicable.

If I understand previous references, from this Board, if some teach that the three parts of God relate to different periods of time that is CLEARLY ABSURD in terms of what EN and MCM taught.

In fact, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A PURPLE BOOK... It is an EXPANDED statement of faith that gives every member the same basic foundations.

WHAT DOES THE PURPLE BOOK SAY?

I don't know where my Purple Book is, so I am at your mercy. Once again I wil bet you $50 that the Purple Book CLEARLY teaches that the three persons of the one God have always existed eternally.

I would also dare say that YOU KNOW in your heart you are lying by scraping together this false accusation.

What church do you go to? I want you to tell us right now (without cheating and looking it up) what does your church's statement of faith say?

I dare say you have never read it, right?

If so, how long ago?

j2theperson

10-25-2006, 08:30 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

JonMoseley: Since I am not even sure what modalism is, I guess it was never taught in EN. SO your accusation is shown to be even more false and despicable.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
It could also show any number of other things...(a) that your specific church did not preach that teaching (as opposed to the entire EN organization not preaching that teaching) (b) that you did not attend VLI (c) that you simply didn't pay attention to what was being taught (d) that they did teach it and you didn't understand what they were teaching (e) that they taught it and you forgot.

mcmstaff78

10-25-2006, 09:08 PM

Well, I can tell you that, based on my recollection, the Red Book from MCM (which from what I've read here has turned into the Purple Book) taught at least a rudimentary form of modalism in the teaching on baptism and baptising in the name of the Jesus rather than "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". The argument that the "name" of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is Jesus is pure modalism. The same argument you get from the Oneness folks.

Just because they didn't call it "modalism" doesn't mean it wasn't (or isn't) taught. You probably haven't heard of Sebellianism either.

ulyankee

10-25-2006, 09:11 PM

Jon, I'm not going to argue with you since I don't wish to argue, just present the issues that were discussed a year ago and what happened, and I don't see the need to argue a point which has been for the most part settled at least on an international/movement-wide basis. Every Nation knew what modalism was (that the three persons of the Trinity were not coexistent and coeternal but operated at different "modes" or times throughout history), and as discussed a year ago if you follow the links above, taught in VLI/ENLI that it was historically considered a heresy as compared to trinitarianism but was not in the opinion of VLI's dean a "damnable heresy" (quote meaning in context that those who espoused it could still be considered saved/Christians and would go to heaven) but EN as a whole apparently felt there was enough of a problem with its old statement of faith to change it. BTW, I do have my Purple Book and I don't see anything in there specifically teaching about the Trinity... this is why a year ago several posters discussed the VLI/ENLI teaching instead with regards to the statement of faith.

(BTW mcmstaff78, the PB teaching is less specific than the BSFF teaching you recall in that there isn't anything in the PB regarding the name or names in which one should be baptized.)

Here's the other cheek. You can say what you like about me personally and I count it all as joy in Him, the Lord Jesus Christ!

blessings,
ulyankee

(Message edited by ulyankee on October 25, 2006)

freedom43

10-25-2006, 10:00 PM

Great post, ulyankee.

Sorry to soil this thread. My response to Jon on DC church finances, etc. over here:

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/22587.html?1161809449

dust

10-25-2006, 10:53 PM

The Purple Book is limited scriptures.

Let's compare it to our body. We can live without eyes, but it's hard to see. We can live without legs, but it's hard to walk. We can live without ears, but it's hard to hear, We can live without a heart. No we can't live without a heart. We can live without our head. No wait can't do that either.

God gave us the inspired scriptures perfectly. We have our faith built on that. If we are not GROOMED, EQUIPPED, and TAUGHT the full counsel of God, we can't see, we can't hear, we hobble around in the dark, and perhaps it's not enough to live off of.

This is what we are saying here......It's the indoctrination of an INADEQUATE body, a shortened story of God, a HUMAN AND VERY FALLIBLE REWRITE!

And there is no way to MULTIPLY God's truth through it.

It is barren.

coppertree

10-26-2006, 12:42 AM

Hi All
Thank you every one for your defense , and trying to respond to Jon M. Thank you Freedom and Upper case for your first hand accounts. I was on staff, and it was my duty to cover the baptisms in MCM. After a while ie. 1982, there was a concerted effort to stop using only Jesus name, but to include also ,name of Father God and Holy Spirit. This was a directive from Gainesville.}

flo1151

10-26-2006, 12:43 AM

I am sorry I have not been on board for the past few days. Been very busy. Everyone here is doing a great job except for Jon he is just boring.

Flo

maranatha1984

10-26-2006, 01:11 AM

Jon:
Bob Weiner apologized and then followed it up with "but the real problem was that I had immature leaders that could not handle things the way I did."

As far as Phil apologizing: I asked readers to draw thier own conclusions. Now Mitlie, Matt Mark ,j2P CopperT,FLO and others who knew Phil- do you think Phil was apologizing or was there SOMETHING else going on...

with regards to EN: here is the secret; it is NOT about public theology it is about money power and control.

With regards to apologies- my Blog is not to castigate people (okay I got close to the line with Nick) but to write a story that would help people understand what MCM was and to help people stay out of Sociological Cults.

Now as the "report" said "MCM is something new...it is not their theology that is primarily errant but their application of control ...and setting themselves apart.

Jon you should down load twisted scripture...why do I feel like I am talking to a brick wall...oh well time to check my e-mail and read the seven or eight e-mails from you...

another_brick_in_the_wall

10-26-2006, 12:46 PM

84:

Thank you for all of your painstaking efforts with your blog and your purpose of sharing your heart and story to help the "next generation".

Please hold steadfast.

Blessings,
Brick-

mcmstaff78

10-26-2006, 01:40 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

copper: I was on staff, and it was my duty to cover the baptisms in MCM. After a while ie. 1982, there was a concerted effort to stop using only Jesus name, but to include also ,name of Father God and Holy Spirit. This was a directive from Gainesville.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Thanks for this copper. I was long gone from MCM by then (in fact, I either was about to or already had graduated seminary in '82, depending on when this happened).

But Jon misses the main point, straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel. The theological anomolies (heresies) perpetuated at different times in the history of these groups is only a sidelight, a symptom, of the deeper problem, which is when you have a group of self-appointed men and women building their vision of the "kingdom", there is no check, no accountability, no responsibility to anything or anyone but their perceived understanding of the "will of God." You had power-oriented people who elevate those who look like them and act like them to positions of authority over easily manipulated people who have no clue what it means to follow Christ, but just believe what they're told: come to meetings, give as much as you're asked and obey your leaders.

This is a system that fosters spiritual abuse. As someone has pointed out, Jon wants to blame the victim rather than the victimizer. This is like blaming the 19 year-old girl who falls for the wiles of the 40 year-old corporate exec, goes out with him, winds up back in his apartment and is date raped. "What did she think she was doing?" How the heck should she know? She's only 19, for goodness' sake! Yeah, if we weren't serving God but man in MCM it was all us babies' fault.

maranatha1984

10-26-2006, 05:21 PM

MCM78:The theological anomolies (heresies) perpetuated at different times in the history of these groups is only a sidelight, a symptom, of the deeper problem, which is when you have a group of self-appointed men and women building their vision of the "kingdom", there is no check, no accountability, no responsibility to anything or anyone but their perceived understanding of the "will of God." You had power-oriented people who elevate those who look like them and act like them to positions of authority over easily manipulated people who have no clue what it means to follow Christ, but just believe what they're told: come to meetings, give as much as you're asked and obey your leaders.

Tikie: You said in 50 words what it took me 500 pages to say in my blog. I like your date rape analogy- lets blame the victims- although it is a little more complicated for,a t least in my case I was a co conspirator in my entrapment and a victim and victimizer

mcmstaff78

10-26-2006, 06:13 PM

84, thanks for the compliment. But a story gets a point across far better than a lecture. You're a great story teller and have touched a ton of lives.

I think a better analogy is a child that grows up in an abusive home. Not only is he abused, but he tends to wind up being an abuser, perpetuating the cycle of violence. This is what spiritual abuse does to us unless we learn.

Sad to say I sat in on many sessions in the WoF church I was part of in support of my "pastor" as he tried to "correct" someone or talking someone into staying who said he was leaving, or talk into coming back someone who had already left. I did the very thing to others that I had done to me - because I thought that was what it meant to be a leader, beating the sheep into submission. But, thank God, I wasn't very good at it and didn't really have the heart for it and God used my own precious child, though I didn't see it at the time, to separate me from that "leadership" and change my focus.

Now, I wouldn't be a "leader" for anything in the world. All I want to do is follow the example of Christ to the best of my ability and according to the Grace given me; to learn humility, the spirit of prayer and meekness; and to love my neighbor. Long way from it, but that's my goal.

St. Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism, said in the 3rd century, "Whoever hammers a lump of iron, first decides what he is going to make of it, a scythe, a sword, or an axe. Even so we ought to make up our minds what kind of virtue we want to forge or we labor in vain."

jonmoseley

10-26-2006, 10:05 PM

J2theperson writes:

It could also show any number of other things...
[Read full quote above]

MOSELEY: DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND that you are FISHING for something to find wrong against a church. When you have to work that hard to IMAGINE something wrong about EN, when will it end? When will you repent?

When you have to find IMAGINARY problems to feed your need to hate a church, when will you understand that the problem is in YOUR HEART, whether or not EN is perfect?

jonmoseley

10-26-2006, 10:11 PM

NO, mcmstaff78, YOU MISS THE POINT.

Those on this Board have made FALSE accusations that EN's theology about the trinity is in error.

THAT IS A LIE.

You have LIED.

You are LIARS.

Even MCM's theology was correct on the trinity.

THe fact that a 1/2 page summary did not expand to cover 100 pages is not wrong.

The fact that people provide improved updates to their statement of faith is not wrong.

The bottom line is : YOU LIED. You made FALSE accusations against a church.

This is about YOU.

mcmstaff78 what you describe is all about an environment in which MAYBE this or that might happen. Do you realize how far you are stretching? Do you see how badly you are reaching?

THe fact is you on this Board made a charge THAT IS CLEARLY NOT TRUE.

NOW IF YOU CANNOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG, then how can you accuse MCM or EN for not admitting when they were wrong?

YOU DO THE VERY THING YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT.

ADMIT IT: EN's theology on the trinity is correct and has always been correct.

If you want to play Hemingway and critique their writing skills, go to the local university and teach writing. But stop lying.

mcmstaff78

10-26-2006, 10:45 PM

Jon, if you're going to make charges like this, at least provide the quote to which you're referring. No one has "lied" that I'm aware of, and I have certainly not lied about anything. You are "judging" me, a violation of the very thing you have touted so "loudly" here.

MCM's theology on the Trinity was deficient when I was there. The teaching on Baptism "in the name of Jesus" was pure Oneness/Modalism/Sabellianism. The initial statement others provided from EN was prone to misinterpretation and others, in fact, reported that some EN preachers (probably those not well enough educated theologically to even be in a position of teaching - oh, wait, that would be just about all of them) taught modalism.

If you want to dispute specific statements made here, then at least have the decency to provide the quote/message # that you're disputing.

coppertree

10-26-2006, 11:07 PM

Hi MCM 78 and Jon M.
Thank you for your post -368.MCM 78. I think that you hit the nail on the head when you discussed that point of deficiency in MCM theology, and relating it to En. This what the AD-HOC Committee said about this group, that they were lacking in this area. Jon M, please research about their school and the prior dean thoughts. Why do you know that you have people here that have given you primary information, in this. And might share, if you were really seeking to know.Yet you do not see, be careful you could wind up in a world that you only have created. I don't wish that for you.}

jonmoseley

10-27-2006, 08:12 PM

MCMSTAFF78 wrote: MCM's theology on the Trinity was deficient when I was there. UNQUOTE

MOSELEY: As we have abundantly established THAT IS A LIE. Right there, you have LIED.

MCMSTAFF78 wrote: The teaching on Baptism "in the name of Jesus" was pure neness/Modalism/Sabellianism.

MOSELEY: I have my baptism tape from 1985. BOB WEINER PERSONALLY baptized me "In the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost, and in the mighty name of Jesus"

I have it on tape. Do you want a copy?

Furthermoe, it is a FALSE accusation that a simplified statement of baptism implies modalism or anything else.

The Bible itself says that we should baptize people in the name of Jesus.

Obeying the Bible DOES NOT involve any such ridiculous suggestion as you now want to falsely imply.

Your comments are just as twisted and corrupt as politicians in an election campaign and the defense attorneys I deal with constantly. You are twisting words and concepts in such a deceitful manner that I say YOU are the wolf among the sheep.

COPPERTREE: The ad hoc committee said that the teaching was "unclear." That is all.

mcmstaff78

10-27-2006, 08:24 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Moseley: As we have abundantly established THAT IS A LIE. Right there, you have LIED.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> No, me boyo, no lie. You have "established" nothing. You are one lone voice against a multitude of witnesses who all disagree with you. The Red Book was modalistic. That Bob may have changed by the time you got there (very late in the game, I might add) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The Bible says Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Mat 28:19)

Yes, I'm aware of the scriptures in Acts that talks about being baptized in the name of Jesus. But even so, Jon, you miss the point. The teaching that "the name of Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is modalism. If you won't, or can't, admit that, then either your simply deliberately being obtuse or you are ignorant of theology.

No one here is lying as far as I can except for you.

40days40years

10-28-2006, 08:53 PM

Well I thought MCM believed in the trinity but I remember someone posting here awhile back that Bob was a little upset by the trinity teaching and other leaders/staff had to cajole Bob and convince him not to mess with it.

As far as E/N is concerned. What did Leo Lawson believe in regards to the trinity? Now he has been removed but that is important since he was the main trainer/theologian working for E/N. And he controlled the teaching and training of up and coming leaders. Unless I read wrong and please correct me if I am but it sounded like he had room for the idea that Jesus was not always God 100% of the time? Leo had some strange beliefs and he was allowed to maintain his position for a very long time even after these beliefs became known. So it sounds like there is some sympathy for modalism but it is hidden.

coppertree

10-29-2006, 12:32 AM

hi 40/40
I would add what Leo said, he did not start on his own. It was through Maranatha, these things that were reported here. What he taught was commonly taught in Maranatha. He invented nothing, he reported what the group believed. He became the scapegoat as I see as Pilgrim noted in her post about roles.}

40days40years

10-29-2006, 11:28 AM

Copper I keep on forgetting that, keep reminding me, they did an excellent job making him the scapegoat. I am curious what Jon has to say about it. Leo was officially sanctioned for a very long time so that has got to at least be the hidden belief structure of some of the leaders.

40days40years

10-30-2006, 10:34 AM

Jon I have had it confirmed that the main EN teacher/trainer believed that Jesus was not God 100% of the time, so much for your Trinity/nothing wrong here theory. Now this person is gone and was removed but was allowed to mantain office for many years.

40days40years

10-30-2006, 11:54 AM

Hey Jon will you respond? probably not. Hey lets just put a few nails into this threads coffin.

40days40years

10-30-2006, 12:11 PM

See Jon when they baptize you in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit and then baptize you in the name of Jesus all at the same time?

They are trying to cover all their bases. They are making those who believe in modalism happy and those who believe in the trinity happy all at the same time.

There are quite a few NOLR roots in this group and Branham was the prince of that movement and he was a oneness pentecostal. That is why you have both theologies present.

dust

10-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Regarding EN teaching on the Trinity

This is an area on this board that has confused me. I completed the 2 year VLI/ENLI course. The teaching of the trinity was sound, was biblical, was correct. And, Jesus was considered 100% God, 100% human. How did this get to be a topic here?

In fact this teaching of Jesus WAS STRONGLY TAUGHT, so I am doubting that Leo Larson taught anything differently in the grad school. People usually did VLI/ENLI before the grad school. But, I would like to hear from EN grad school students if that's true or not.

ulyankee

10-30-2006, 06:33 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

See Jon when they baptize you in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit and then baptize you in the name of Jesus all at the same time?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

They did this at the last baptism I attended at my former church (spring 2004) which I thought was a bit strange. The pastor said, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," and "in the name of Jesus." This was immediately after Leo Lawson's visit but I don't know if this was a directive from him and/or EN leadership or not. But it was different from previous baptisms which were done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And it seemed the pastor was trying very hard to include the "in the name of Jesus" part of the baptism as he hadn't done it before at least not that I had personally witnessed.

This church is no longer part of EN but I don't know if the baptisms have changed back as well.

mdillon

10-31-2006, 03:11 AM

I remember the staff meeting (not sure when) when this issue was discussed and voted? on. Baptising in Father/Son/HolyGhost AND the name of Jesus was a CYA to appear more evangelical and appease the cult watchers.

apparently we could have used something more. like follow Christ or something, I dunno....

dilly

oh_my

10-31-2006, 04:20 AM

Branham was the prince of that movement

Not really they wanted him but he did not
go with them. Its true he did his baptising in Jesus name.

40days40years

10-31-2006, 04:27 AM

Dust I do believe that EN is Trinitarian I believed Maranatha was also. In my opinion the baptism in the name of Jesus means (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in contrast to the baptism of John which was a baptism of repentance. There are people like TD Jakes out there that believe that the baptism in the name of Jesus means in the name of Jesus alone. That guy is a Oneness Pentecostal.

The reason why there is some grey area here and there is because Rice Broocks and Phil Bonasso were very much into Hagin and Copeland who adored William Branham who was Oneness and had a profound impact on the NOLR. Who really knows what some EN leaders believe in regards to this? For instance Kenneth Copeland said some outrageous things in the 80's about the blood not atoning but if you look at his statement of faith today it seems fairly legit and seems to acknowledges the Trinity and the necessity of the blood atonement. Hopefully Copeland believes his own statement of faith today. I knew a guy in the 80's who walked out of Rhema (Hagins college) because one of the profs there was teaching modalism and they would not stop him. A lot of wacky stuff was being taught at that time in WOF. My guess is that most in MCM accepted the faith stuff, were Trinitarian and hopefully rejected the more dangerous stuff but others here say it is not the case.

Leo, Rice and Phil and many in MCM were profoundly influenced by these NOLR guys. Phil was into the Copeland planet creating thing for awhile according to Ginger. Copeland has pushed a God-Man sort of theology and you do see some of it in regards to Jim Lafoons interpretation of Rev 12 which is an NOLR interpretation. The Trinity is so important because it clearly seperates man from God.

So it looks like theres two systems going on here. In regards to Copeland if he wanted to stay viable he had to clean up some of his 80's beliefs. In regards to the Trinity if MCM/EN wanted to become a major player (priority one) in Christendom then they had to be Trinitarian.

Anyway, in regards to most people in EN they are Trinitarian but some of these guys at the highest levels? Who knows?, hopefully they all believe in their statement of faith but I could see a situation arising here where some could choose their statement of faith for reasons of expediency. Only God really knows. Leo was at the very top for a very long time and that says something.

freedom43

10-31-2006, 03:33 PM

40/40: hopefully they all believe in their statement of faith but I could see a situation arising here where some could choose their statement of faith for reasons of expediency. Only God really knows.

me: I think you are onto something. I hate to say this because I am not an education elitist but here I go. I know some of these guys (maybe many for all I know) went back and got some schooling, but let's face it, back in MCM days, they were flying by the seat of their pants with NO formal theological training. Maybe I have bought into the system of religiousity, but I tend to think there is a reason that the Christian church in recent centuries has required ministers to get degrees (not Nick's mysterious doctorate)-- many holding PhDs. Moving forward, I think I prefer my minister to have an edg-u-ma-ca-tion and know a little something about theology and what he believes -- not just to pick a belief on the Trinity so as not to be labeled a cult.

mcmstaff78

10-31-2006, 03:58 PM

Well, if you look at MCM's modus operanda I think you see a pattern of obfuscation and mis-direction. No one seemed to actually lie about stuff (well, not often) but a whole lot was left for people to assume. Take for instance the status of MCM on campus. A lot of places they go presented as an "official" or "recognized" campus group when, in fact, they were not. When I first started it had been presented as something of a inter-denominational college bible study type thing. In fact, IIRC, they resisted even calling themselves a "church" for a long time. I recall one staff meeting in which Bob said something to the effect that we needed to not "kid ourselves" and we were a "little denomination". I thought it pretty obvious at the time, but it kinda rocked a few folks heads at that point.

Funny how, in our hubris, human beings so easily think they are doing or discovering something new when it is just another in a long series of things. Here we were doing this "new thing" for God when, in fact, it was just the same old divisive "do your own thing and call it God" trick the devil has been working since the beginning of time.

Well, got off track. My point is, that it would certainly be typical for MCM (meaning Bob, Joe, Bob N.) at the time to be deliberately vague regarding actual beliefs in order to accomodate as wide a variety of recruit "pool" as possible.

BTW, anyone know how long they kept up the teaching regarding God not knowing the future (okay, not really precise - God not know the future free choices of free moral agents). I know they got this from YWAM, which got it from a group known, at the time, as "One Way Fellowship" (now "Evangelical Education Ministries") which started as a men's evangelistic fellowship revolving around Finney's teachings on "Moral Government". At the time, that particular lesson in the Red Book caused the most consternation among the family/friends of those who already had a Christian background.

annelewis

10-31-2006, 04:24 PM

Freedom wrote: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I think you are onto something. I hate to say this because I am not an education elitist but here I go. I know some of these guys (maybe many for all I know) went back and got some schooling, but let's face it, back in MCM days, they were flying by the seat of their pants with NO formal theological training.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

I do remember that not only did they NOT have formal degrees but that formal training was actually something to be wary of. The first time I heard the stupid play on words of seminary/cemetary was in MCM. While I agree that a pastor should have a personal and vibrant understanding of God through Jesus Christ, I also believe that the ability to teach and reason using sound doctrine is critical.}

dust

10-31-2006, 05:29 PM

I went to EveryNation.org and after reading Steve M and Jim Lafoon's word for the day or blog, I ask, what faith are they representing. It's all "make disciples" talk. Mormons, Islam, JW, all same talk...make disciples. Grow the church, make disciples.

I ask, "disciples of what?" Read J. Lafoon's blog. What is he saying here? More often, a works based ministry will get in the way of a relationship with God, will cause spiritual burn out. He basically says that making disciples (doing something) will create a spiritual hunger in the same way that physical work creates a physical hunger. Huh?

He writes about Christians, "They seem to think that satisfying their spiritual hunger is all about hearing God’s Word. Whether it is a great sermon, a deep teaching, or a wonderful tape series, they truly think these are the things which will satisfy the hunger of their hearts."

NO, Lafoon further rebukes Christians, "When the ministry of one church doesn’t satisfy them, they simply look for another church. If that doesn’t satisfy them, they’ll simply watch some dynamic preacher on Christian television or buy a few more books to read."

STOP JIM. Maybe, just maybe, the congregation in Every Nation isn't getting what they need because you aren't providing it. I APPLAUD Christians who continue to renew their mind, especially by HEARING THE WORD of GOD. How can that ever be a negative? IT IS VITAL to our faith, as faith comes by hearing, and we need to build our faith daily.
Why so concerned?
Maybe they'll start to hear some truth and start asking some questions. Maybe they'll actually hear God's voice and it might drown out the skewed marketing plan of Every Nation. Maybe they'll actually get convicted to go help someone, not worry about whether they are growing the church, or training the "right" kind of leader.

Why the criticism? Because they aren't jumping to disciple people with the EN published discipleship books. Rice says in his recording, "perhaps God saved the best for last" meaning in this time we can do MORE than has ever been done. This makes me sick because the "best" in his mind are those who can DO more, Disciple more...This is never how Jesus decided best. Jesus embraced Mary over Martha, simply for doing nothing but sitting to listen to Him.

Continued....

dust

10-31-2006, 05:32 PM

Sorry to interrupt the Trinity thread...but I got curious and went to the EN website to see what they had to say....

NOW READ Steve Murrel's message: It's about church growth! Answer: Make disciples. Not feed the hungry, tend the sick, be a light in the community...no it's make disciples. And, based on his teaching, his CD's, it is already established what he means by "making disciples. It's not necessarily followers of Christ, but followers of EN, who perpetuate a chain of networking to grow their church. Those cell groups aren't out there in the community helping people....It's a marketing plan.

Jim Lafoon says people change churches (meaning leaving EN) because they don't want to change their lifestyle. Is THAT why people change churches? Maybe it's because they don't want to sustain the lifestyle of this ministry. Sadly, maybe they are both so busy "making disciples" they don't have time to HEAR God's word, or be taught anything, no time to be alone with God...too busy.

Jim Lafoon says, "Although it is wonderful to hear God’s Word, these Christians fail to realize that hearing alone will never satisfy them. Jesus told the disciples that His secret food was not hearing about God’s will, but doing God’s will. "

Now, there is a leap, a jump that Christians busying themselves with HEARING the WORD and READING aren't satisfied because they are not doing God's will. How on earth does he make this jump. He insults the Body of Christ that is running towards God, by diminishing a walk with God as contingent to "making disciples."

This constant beating of the drum of making disciples at the sacrifice of a relationship with God is out of balance...and Jesus taught us so much more about what it means to communion with Him. Every Nation is about marketing strategies, production lines and has the nerve to believe they know what satisfies the spritual hunger of every Christian.

coppertree

10-31-2006, 05:52 PM

Hi Mcm,
Thank you for your post, I quite agree. It would add about the Red Book, Studies for a Firm Foundation and the odd doctrine that involved God not knowing the future because of man's free will. I think that is this is important because it fueled their fire, to speak. They , or when I was there also, thought that we could hasten the day of the Lord. I remember a teaching in mid-80's about this. And that is the reason why those thoughts were prevalent.}

mcmstaff78

10-31-2006, 06:41 PM

Copper,

That's pretty prevalent in a lot of post-millenial teaching, even those who wouldn't hold to the same idea regarding God's omniscience. a lot of this is wrapped up in their interpretation of Mt. 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." They perceive the first phrase having a causal relationship to the second. Jesus is not simply indicating "signs" of His return, but somewhat of a formula for His return - preach the gospel to the whole world as a witness (parse that and see what you can turn it into) and I will come back. The sooner you do this, the sooner I'll come back. Poor theology, but what do you expect?

Dust, I confess I'm not interested in reading or hearing much of anything these guys write or say, but I do believe there is a danger in seeking to constantly "hear" the word and not do the word. Remember Christ's teaching about building on sand or rock, "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" (Matthew 7:24) And then the Apostle Paul's warning, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" (2 Timothy 4:3)

I've been around plenty of people in my time who gravitate to this preacher and than that, flit from one convention to another, and never seem to settle down and actually do anything with what they learn and for God's kingdom. While we surely cannot judge anyone, as a general principle I don't think this is behavior conducive to spiritual growth or love for one's neighbor. Just my $.02.

dust

10-31-2006, 07:35 PM

MCM, I appreciate what you are saying, but I this this kind of preaching is finger pointing Christians. It's like "are they worthy?' They are not doing anything IMPORTANT, like making disciples, leading a cell group, etc. I've changed my view of this quite a bit.

The "action-figure" Christian (and who on this board isn't guilty of this if you come from MCM, and EN) is not necessarily the perfect proto-type.

There are seasons in our life, and sometimes God calls us just to HIS Word, or to a "learning" season, a taking in....a refueling, or simply a rest.

Every Nation and other churches also, make the leap that if one likes to hear the WORD, a meaty sermon, tapes, books, etc. or is in that "taking in" time, then they aren't important to God. It's like we are in a race to see who is more of a walking ministry.

I simply reject this broad brush stroke of the Body of Christ as groupie, hypocritical idiots, swept up in a sea of Christian stuff. Sadly, I was right there once.

And, the message of EN isn't be a doer of the Word, it's be a DOER IN THIS MINISTRY BY PRODUCING. IMHO, they define "doing" as bringing in numbers for the church, not feeding the poor or simply walking in LOVE and GRACE and tenderness with each other.

Being a DOER of the word is not defined by making disciples. It's really so much more and yet more simple. The two COMMANDMENTS boil down to LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR BROTHER. And, sadly, one almost needs to JUMP OVER AND PAST those commandments of Jesus to tally up their disciple count and live out the commandment of EN.

I'm writing for those trying to work out the guarantee of their salvation in a production house.

I was Miss Action Figure Christian. It's easy for me to go that way and yet very dangerous. When you're good at it, you look down on those "not producing." And, producers can get very very dry.

I heard a sermon one time that said, God does not measure our performance on earthly terms. The DEVIL gives us a measuring stick and we use it to condemn ourself and others for what we think we are accomplishing. It's just something to think about, especially in perspective of the CHRONIC message of EN.

matt_hatter

10-31-2006, 11:00 PM

"The "action-figure" Christian (and who on this board isn't guilty of this if you come from MCM, and EN) is not necessarily the perfect proto-type."

Interesting discussion...I too have rejected this action figure zealot and have settled more on what one author I am reading writes: The biblical image of a victorious life reads more like the victorious limp. After life has lined their faces a little, many followers of Jesus come into a coherent sense of themselves for the first time. --Ragamuffin Gospel

I think this kind of sums up the what the Holy Spirit has done in my life in the past year, taken a large spatula and stirred things deep within; and it is with this victorious limp that I walk now...in a real understanding that His grace has given me genuine opportunities to share His love, transparent in my weaknesses and the lines on my face, not dependent on some action-figure facade.