Today’s Quiz: Who wrote the following quote?
“The members of the church have a right to question and ask for Bible answers from those who are doing the preaching. But this is considered almost tantamount to heresy by the preachers of today; and if a member persists in such he is usually slandered and called a trouble-maker…We should know our Bible and we should be ready and willing to take a stand for the truth. We are commanded to ‘contend for the truth.’ But this can hardly be done seeing that the church is ignorant and the preachers are content to have it so. Individually and collectively we should take scriptural stands upon all subjects…”
Answer:
a.) Thomas Aquinas
b.) Joan of Arc
c.) Bruce Springsteen
d.) Merie Weiss
Correct answer: d.
Any irony here?
When a revolutionary movement stops moving, it is no longer the revolution, but the establishment. We see this all the time in international upheavals. There is a coup d’état, and the leader of the revolution seizes power. He becomes a dictator, accruing followers based on lofty-sounding ideals like income inequality, or universal healthcare, or a roast in every pot.
Sound familiar? The Stanton sect is no more immune to this natural flow of human power over its peers than its secular counterparts. If you familiarize yourself with its richly ironic history linked in the main menu of this site, you’ll see the seeds of a movement that wanted to seize power away from what it perceived as the corrupt “preacher system.” They encouraged their fellow revolutionaries to fight the establishment by questioning those doing the preaching.It is very apparent that Stanton’s modern leadership does not want the same spirit of Biblical inquiry turned against them. And so the revolutionaries become the establishment.
Very insightful Kevin. Anyone who would dare question the established teachers and their teachings would find themselves in hot water and probably silenced through withdrawal. Some people have tried in the past but failed and were accused of causing division or sowing seeds of discord. One peep of disagreement and the 'fun' begins.
Absolutely Anon at 3:47! And often times it's just the insecurity of the teacher that makes them think that you are questioning them and their teachings.
For example, my teacher VM told me that he couldn't get the men in our congregation to talk to him anymore. I thought that he was telling me that it bothered him and that he didn't know what to do about it-so I suggested to him to maybe call out and talk to another teacher and ask if they had any suggestions as to what to do!
Next thing I know, this teacher and his wife pull me aside after class and ask me why I would suggest such a thing! They accused me of saying that there was something wrong with VM.
Needless to say, I was shocked. All of my time in that group I constantly heard that when we hit a brick wall we can always go and get counsel with another. I didn't know that if you did it meant there was something wrong with you.
At least one good thing came of it, I realized the mind set of a lot of teachers in the group. That to ask or help/counsel means there is something wrong with you. It shows a weakness, and they are ready to hear what it is.
I never made another suggestion to my teacher or his wife again.
Oh! And it wasn't long after this that they launched their attacks on me and my character with false accusations. They made me out to be something different than I was, and the others in the congregation had no way of knowing any differently. When things are put out as rebukes, there is no way to prove to others that you didn't say or do those things. When the congregation hears those rebukes from teachers, its presented as FACT, not questionable.
That is the power that teachers have. They can falsely accuse without reprisal. They can slander you without consequence, and they can evil surmise without fear of withdrawal.
And you have no recourse. And yet the "world" that they despse so much at least gives a person the chance to prove their innocence!
I have to share with you all that after all of this happened to me, and I chose to leave the group (I did not "fall away", I purposely left), I had to wonder about all of the others who had left. I wondered about all of the rebukes and how much falsehood and false accusations were in them.
After someone left, the teachers always had things to say about them in the next few classes and sermons. They always said that the person left to pursue their sin and follow their lusts.
To this day I wonder how much truth was in those "lessons"? My own experience at being maligned made me realize that it could have happened to others before me, and after me.
I only share these things so that ones who are still in the group and reading these posts can see that some of what they are being told is NOT true. They need to understand that their sources of information are very limited, and intentionally so. They are not given the chance to find out if what the teachers are saying are true.
And they need to ask themselves why leaders in the group firmly, loudly and frequently discourage them from reading blogs like this? What is it that ones fear they are going to believe "hook, line and sinker?" (Quote from Gary's talk that Kevin referenced)
Well said Kevin! Oh! And BTW, Merie was withdrawn from for questioning those preachers! Very ironic, isn't it??
Sound familiar folks?
Irony flows like water with this group.
The amount of bashing and criticism shared privately between teachers about the people they are 'teaching' (and by teaching I mean bossing around) is pathetic, And as Debby said, when rebukes and 'exhortations' come from the pulpit or from the mouth of a teacher, defense or disagreement is out of the question. If people knew how much teachers rake their congregation members over the coals in private they would be disheartened. Nobody can question the teaching or have a critical word toward the teacher or swift judgement will befall them in the form of rebuke, withdrawal and a permanent black mark on their reputation. Anybody who would dare try to practice what Merie advocated (demanding scriptural explations from preachers) would be stopped dead in their tracks. Revolutionary thinking is NOT tolerated. Being a 'yes man' is the only way to stay out of the line of fire.
Anonymous 5:01 I think Merie did more than questioning those preachers, but I was not there and I am going only from memories of Meries letters and tapes, and maybe something Dianne once said.
This is not to justify or condemn her.
But this does bring up a question open for all to try to answer.
At what point does a person perceive things unscriptural in a group and then the way they go about to correct it; especially when you or I may feel convicted on a subject or discipline that the group does not. I am speaking of the conscientiousness of the group towards an individual as well as the individual towards the group.
I believe this would fall into the category of conscience. How far perhaps a group would allow a person to openly express their conscience with out binding their conscience on others.
I believe Merie encounter that dilemma and I think we all encountered it with the SCOC binding things of conscience onto others. Such as intimacy, withdraw, College, masturbation and addressing the subject of corrupt minds and so forth.
I think the answer lies with what John and Paul each said and did. First with John with Diotrophys in the third book of John. He did mention him prating and then suggested to follow that which is good as he recommended a person with a good report.
Paul in Romans says to mark and avoid one who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of Christ.
John in The third book of John seem to be doing the very concept Paul spoke of. Marking and avoiding is not necessary a withdraw or putting someone out of the church.
So now in retrospect, perhaps, just perhaps Those preachers did right by Merie. (If I understood it correctly). They allowed her to follow her conscience until it went beyond a point and affected the group.
I wasn't there. Never knew her.
I went to the COC for awhile after leaving the SCOC group.
I tried to follow Merie's lead. The COC were very understanding and they did allow me to follow my conscience while they also instructed. I was never withdrawn from among them, but I did seem to present them with a new challenge.
I just hope I wasn't to problematic with them. I sit here cringing at some of the things I said and did among them. I am always welcome still to come back and fellowship with them. May God bless the COC and those of you who follow Christ in sincerity.
I believe we have a right as individuals to "question with boldness whether there be a God." That's the Berean attitude.
But especially in a social setting such as the church, we must be humble about it, and proceed with love. More like a fellow traveller seeking truth than a prideful know-it-all telling everyone else how it is, or a disingenuous leader seeking power over people.
Humbleness Vrs. Arrogance? Trump Vrs. Mother Teresa. I am sure Trump considers himself humble.
That's why churches should have elders with a good measure of wisdom to discern when there are arrogant teachers trying to tear apart the flock.
That is just it. They, The SCOC do not see what they do as arrogant or contrary to the word of God. And when they come to that crossroads over a previous teachings and their new perspective on it, They Put up a white washed statement as; Well that was God who decided to wait on revealing that to us until now.
So I wonder? Would they actually in good faith locate a person to try and tell them, their withdraw has been lifted, so they could seek a renewed relationship with their estrange child or wife? I guess only God would know that answer. May God be praised and keep the lower lights burning.
Another advantage to having Elders is their experience and age help in making good judgments. For example, they are less likely to rebuke out of emotion, or personal feelings. I have seen and heard too many rebukes based on how a teacher felt about an individual, not on the sin committed. An Elder is also more likely to be more careful with a rebuke, to consider all aspects of the situation and as to it's outcome.
Most rebukes that I saw were more knee jerk reactions to situations. The teachers didn't try and gather facts or talk to the individuals first to see what really happened and why. They saw what they wanted to see and reacted.
There are reasons why the bible speaks of Elders, and the Stanton group is in dire need of them!
I wholeheartedly agree anon 5:19!! Here is the catch in today's SCOC. The men who would qualify to be elders have been acting in the capacity of an elder for their entire Christianity, some since they were as young as three years in the faith and in their twenties. The current leadership raised themselves while leading their flock using "merie said" or "Diane said" doctrine as their authority and with no examples of the correct type of leadership/eldership. 'Punch first and ask questions later' is/was the mode of leadership, sad to say.
Concerning Bishops/Elders:
It may have been said during the American revolution (Paraphrased) Is it better to have one tyrant 2000 miles away or thirteen tyrants as neighbors?
So be careful on the elder you elect; Weather he is a tyrant or Shepard. Kings can be tyrants and sometimes they can be good Shepards.
But Christ says:
Matthew 23:10 "One is your Master" an we are or should be His Servants. Verse 11: "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant".
Have you ever thought on how a servant should serve their Master. Is it proper for a servant to blame the guests of the feast for spills and pettiness? So how do faithful servants bring improprieties to their master?
Does he beet his eyebrows yelling "You dumb Ass"? No!
Note what Christ speaks of next: Matthew 23:13-34 This is where He speaks to the teaching authorities. You can read that on your own while considering the following examples.
In the book of 2nd Kings chapter 9 Nehu was declared King by the prophet and told to slay all the kings children possibly just the sons and that woman called Jezebel. He did so. But his religious zeal took him well beyond the commandment of the man of God. He slew the king of Judah and many of his brethren. After it was all said and done; Nehu followed his own zeal and understanding rather than the commandments of God and lead the people into further idolatry. Ultimately to his own destruction and the demise of Israel.
Sometimes I wonder why Nehu just didn't send a message to the king of Judah informing him of his authority by God to rule the tribes of Israel up to four generations. At that point they should a, could a, would a, just make plans to reunite all the tribes after four generations. Perhaps Jehu just could not fathom unity after killing so many of the tribe of Judah.
Keep this in mind as I go through this chronicle and not necessarily in order.
In 1st Kings 21 we read of Jezebel and she says to Ahab in verse 7… "I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth", although Naboth has already refused to sell his Land seemingly implying maybe it is God's will…Then she wrote letters to turn people against Naboth, especially the elders. In verse 9 She says to proclaim a fast; not a feast for Naboth.
Why a Fast? I believe the answer is in 2nd Kings chapter 9 vrs 26 " Jehu recites what the Lord previously stated: Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth and his sons, saith the Lord;.
In order to take Naboth's field and turn justice against Naboth, Jezebel also had to have Naboths sons removed or killed first, because:
1st) These Boys/men would have fought for their father according to the Law. And they would have pointed out all the errors in the case against their father Naboth. See: Psalms 127; "As arrows are in the hands of a mighty man; so are children of thy youth"? … "They shall speak with thy enemies in the gates".
2ndly) Jezebel wanted to give the field to her husband Ahab, but would not be able to do it if they were alive to inherit the field.
3rdly)Jezebel wanted to give a false illusion that she was sympathetic towards Naboth lost. So she falsely honors Naboths' lost with a Fast.
Even today families can be divided and conquered in order to have a successful withdraw by talebearers (who can be teachers also)
who pulls a wife or child to the side and councils them against their father or mother. Maybe this is why Paul said for a woman to learn thing from her husband at home and children to obey your parents. (continued) next page.
Continued from page one
Page 2
Anyway; It was at this Fast for Naboth, Jezebel previously had suborn the elders to find evil men who would falsely accuse Naboth at his weakest time; I suspect it was just after the death of his sons.
But who Killed Naboths' sons? The scriptures do not say. We all suspect Jezebel, who moved people to do her biding. She was a queen and more than likely would never actually carry out such a deed. Thus she uses her position to suborn others. Remember in Acts 6:11 How certain of the synagogue suborn men to falsely accuse Stephen. In Mathew 26: 59 The Chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus. This is the way of suborning others.
Nehu a captain in King Ahab's army and possibly known by Jezebel, seem to have first hand knowledge and he was the only one to bring up in scripture concerning Naboths sons. So I suspect Jehu was used by Jezebel to kill Naboths sons after all he was only following orders; but Regardless of speculation, The irony I guess is he, Nehu goes forth and has to kill all the king's sons.
I think the question had to go through Nehu's thoughts, Why am I killing this mans sons? And possibly why God chose him for the task.
So I wonder if he just went so kill happy and it was this madness that just drove his zeal in killing others beyond Ahab's sons and the commandment of God?
Or possibly was it the other way around? Did Jezzebel first have Naboth killed and when his sons try to defend their father, they were killed to keep them quiet? Plausable but I doubt it.
But again regardless of speculation It just makes more sense they died prior to Naboth's death so to send a signal to all who might think to stand in Naboths defense. Also Jezebel knew there could not be any children to inherit the field of Naboth if Jezebel is to have her way and while Jezebel was suppose to be credited with sympathy towards Naboth after the Fast is finished.
Now that is when the Lord intervened and God Establishes Nehu King.
Such are the devises of men. Proverbs 19:21 "There are many devises in a mans heart; Nevertheless the counsel of Lord shall stand".
We teach no one can make another person sin; and I believe this is correct; Although I say; we can be the (CAUSE) behind another persons mischievous and sinful deeds. I believe James refers to this action as superfluity of naughtiness in the book of James. But Jezebel was the driving force behind Naboth's death and that of his son's. Jezebel was full of superfluity of naughtiness.
As it was in those days so is it today. God has made so many Kings and priest whom we rightfully call saints; by the washing of Christ blood in baptism Revelations 1:6. Yet we are still to follow Christ and not a king or earthy priest, only the High Preist: Christ.
Because of these institutions of bishoprics, Teachers, Elders, marriage, the Church: that God created, we are to still show all those belonging to God the proper love and respect. So the entire concept of unity is reciprocated.
So Why did Jesus tell the Jews, (What they say and bid you obey, just do not do after their deeds)? To the Jews? to us Today? perhaps to both?
Ironic! OK how do you spell legitatment as, This is a legitement question although spell check insist upon Lamentations; So OK a question of lamentation per spell check. But sincerely in Christ. and sorry my comments are so long.
So always remember they; the Bishops, teachers, Elders, husbands, or the Church are subservient to the Word. And that word is Christ.
Alternating between love and disdain is how most leaders gain emotional control over their followers. Love is the milk; it is easy to see and understand. Disdain is the meat; and is difficult for babes to comprehend. Babes are suppose to get the milk but in the COC many of the teachers/preachers are narcissistic and will love the new members as long as the new member is providing the required narcissistic supply.(That is undivided attention upon the narcissist, and praise and adoration.) When the babe asks a question, or points out an incorrect understanding that makes the narcissist think they are wrong, the narcissistic leader gets offended, and turns on the disdain. Never tell your narcissistic preacher they are wrong; they will hold a grudge against you until the day they day(even after your death the narcissist will still point out your wrongdoings.) I was told one time, that I had murmured against my teachers personally. I don't know how that is possible but that is what I was told. Solution: avoid narcissistic preachers/teachers whenever possible, and do not talk with them at all. A narcissist can take any piece of information about you, and use it like a weapon against you; the less a narcissist knows about your life the better off you will be.
I have to disagree with you Anony12:39.
Jesus did not do it that way, John who baptized in the wilderness did not do it that way. Moses did not do it that way, but once he did mess up and God dealt with him. Samson real messed up and God still used him. David had a man killed but repented and seem to lay low for many many years, We do not hear much about him after his indiscretion with Bathsheba. Then there is Stephen, and Barnabas, Mary and Martha Paul and the twelve. They were All Good people. We see Deby Stevens and hear her words which to me sound graceful, and Mommyuv4 who's words were gentle and graceful, even as late Kevin who seem to be sharing through the grace God gave him and Mathew Ezel who's word seem graceful. Some of the Ezels Children and One of the Brauds. I listen to these folks and try myself to be as graceful in my words as they were, but seem to fall far short. I think of Daniel who seem to be so graceful regardless of who was in power; and those he served were gentile Kings.
I believe the things I share.
Pour your heart out to God and praise him for his mercy and maybe He will guild your heart from bitterness to love and the true meat of his word without bitterness. Follow not that which is evil, follow that which is good. Keep the word as you know it and seek for the mercies The Psalmist seems to speak so much of.
But keep the words you know until you come to the transformation. When the bitterness of the heart is a distant memory and the words of God seem to jump off the pages at you, as you embrace ever one of them even those that seem harsh will transform in your mind as warnings, not to return to those bandages of sin again.
To the carnal mind it does seem harsh, So keep the word as you know it, continue to read the word, when you feel that nastiness begin to creep back in, and for awhile it will seem to jump right in; stop do something else and pray God he will help you forgive and I have to say forget the bad. Like a dead stump in the ground with a little scent of water begins to flourish so will those who turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Have a merciful night.
Your correct David. I left out perhaps the most important part and that is I was talking about one man, DS. DS uses the method of alternating between love and disdain. I have seen him reject and disdain people at four days into Christianity. If you ever tell DS he is wrong he will disdain you for the rest of his life, he holds unreasonable grudges. One week as we held our non member class at a member's house off of 21 ave and myrtle, here in Phoenix an "off church" christian attended and questioned many of DS understandings. The next week I was late arriving to the non member class and DS was going off on that weeks attendee's about the audacity of the previous weeks man questioning him (the man did not come back the second week) DS was so loud that I was on the other side of the street and could hear him yelling at the top of his lungs at the class, (I was 75 feet away.) No one got baptised that week and I could not help wonder what the neighbors were thinking. This is the church that I knew, loud intimidating, oppressive. I share in hopes other who have suffered under DS will see just how evil he truly is and that he does not represent God but himself.
Here you go This is what I was trying to say in David Stankowski 11:03 Don't follow man unless you know his works.
I believe this is Madison COC response to my question I sent him.
Bulletin Article for September 4, 2016
MADISON STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST·SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2016
Jonadab or Luke?
by Charles Blair
[This article originally appeared in the Garfield Heights bulletin on May 11, 2008]
In last week’s study we consider the power of influence. Each of us can make a choice what we will do with our lives. We spoke about the importance of living our lives for the Lord. Likewise, we spoke about the importance of being in the church and the strength we get from fellow Christians. All of this is God's way to keep us going in the right direction toward eternity with Him. He has given us His Word to be placed into our thinking so that it serves as a powerful tool to be used by God to light the direction of our lives (Psalm 119:105). The use of that Word continues to touch our hearts so that we will not cease in our love for Christ (Romans 8:37-39).
We influence others and others influence us. On one hand, we can choose to use our lives to influence others for good. In another way, we can choose who it is that will influence us.
God reasons with us that evil companions will corrupt good manners or good living (I Corinthians 15:33). We chose, then, who it is that will influence us by our associations together. We cannot live in a perfect world, wherein no sinners are present (I Corinthians 5:10). Our task is to not allow the sinner to have control over us through his influence (II Corinthians 6:14). Let us then use some examples from the Bible to illustrate this point.
The first case is found in II Samuel 13. Amnon is a son of David. He begins to
Part 2 from Madison COC.
have unhealthy thoughts toward his half-sister, Tamar. As we showed last week, temptations are all around. Here is a young man whose lust, not love, is beginning to take control of his life. God says he was so vexed for his half-sister that he was "sick for her" (II Samuel 13:2). Being sick in this sense is the thought that lust was growing so strong in his heart that he no longer cared for God's wishes for his life. The growth of lust for things that God does not want us to have is small steps being taken which will lead us away from God.
The righteous man is limited by God to not allow the influence of the ungodly to gain control over us. The righteous man does not walk in the wisdom of the ungodly; nor stand where the ungodly is, nor sit where the ungodly is (Psalm 1:1). Instead, he makes the choice to meditate in the law of God. He does not allow the sinner to influence him away from God.
The passage then in II Samuel 13 reveals that Amnon had a friend called Jonadab (verse 3). God, also, in the same verse, shows us that Jonadab was a subtle man that is he was crafty. Amnon had chosen to allow his friend to be an influence in his life. Jonadab encouraged Amnon to be deceptive to allow him to fulfill his lust.
For sake of space in writing, let us just note in passing that Amnon forced his half-sister. Following this horrible act, the Scriptures show us that the hatred he felt afterwards was greater than the love he had felt before (verse 15). The pain that came to the house of David and the suffering of Tamar could have been avoided had Amnon had better friends.
It is a good test of the influence of those around us to evaluate what we do when we are around them. If, by their words or actions, we are more inclined to do wrong than right, then such association is not good.
Second case is the coming death of Paul. He was discouraged. His friends had to leave and go and do other things. One, however, deserted Paul because he loved this present world (II Timothy 4:10). In the midst of everyone leaving, some for good reasons and others for evil, Paul was indeed, alone. Yet, we find in the next verse, these beautiful words; "…only Luke is with me….” God used this godly man, Luke, to touch the heart of Paul and strengthen him.
Who would you rather have around you, a Jonadab or a Luke? Another way to consider the matter is this. Are we a Jonadab or a Luke? Are people brought closer or driven away from God by us?
Let us use our influence for good and chose for the same reason the people we will allow to influence us.
This article was meant to follow a previous article. I apologize that is out of order. I don’t believe I still have the article it was meant to follow; it may have been run in a previous bulletin.
As I was reading this post it reminds me of some in the Des Moines congregation who always attempted to discuss the meaning of scriptures, as they were very studious. What would follow, if the exegesis went against current understanding, was a stern rebuke. Then would follow someone getting "sat down". Then due to he 'past' of some(which we ALL have) they would dig themselves a hole in the ground, considering themselves unworthy to lift their face to God- all because a 'teacher' did not approve of the light in which scripture was shared. Months or years would follow, with brethren sitting down and trying to get their head on straight, only to find that the only way they could land in good graces with the reaching brethren, was to concede and repent and confess. End result : men who were made incapable to examine their lives, to guide their homes with authority, and who never felt worthy again, to stand before their brethren. THESE ARE THE ONES I PRAY FOR MOST OFTEN because I have been in these shoes.
Very true description Donna. Ever notice how many people who have been in the church for DECADES have absolutely no credibility because of something that happened years and years ago? They are forever destined to keep their mouth shut, keep their opinions to themselves, and to obey the counsel of the 'teacher', incapable of making a judgement about their own life again.
I saw the same thing in Phoenix. It was a quick decision, either you were an insider or you were rejected. WP, the preacher from Albuquerque, spoke openly about having an inner circle in Phoenix that made the decisions for the whole Phoenix church and "those on the outside just wanted to be insiders." So much resistance built up to WP that no agreement could be reached on anything in business, such as: were to rent a new building for worship, that WP started using the preacher teacher rule and just announced how things were going to be done and it was never brought up in business again. We are going to have only one talk at this (holiday) meeting, or the personal work now starts at 6:15, and many others. It became a dictatorship very quickly and the outsiders were vilified by the preacher and teacher. Being asked to contribute so much time and money and at the same time being treated as unwanted resulted in many members simply leaving. At one point WP threaten the whole congregation that if the Phoenix members did not calling the evangelists on him that "they had better watch out" Meaning he was going to drive the out of the church. Being threatened by the teaching preacher is such a blatant example of false religion that I got up and walked out and never did return.
One of the clearest signs of the falsehood is how new preachers and teachers are selected. We were told that every man is expected to preach, but the men chosen to serve at the Lords table and the women chosen to teach in class caused one to wonder. One of the Donnely boys (his mother sat at the feet of Merie) got baptized at age 19 and then his high school girlfriend got baptized and they were married in the church. It was a short time latter he was selected to preach and then him and his new wife were selected to be sent out to one of the Carolina congregations to be preacher and teacher there. His wife was not raised in the church, did not know the bible and was quite worldly wearing revealing clothing during bible class and worship services. Why were these two "babes" chosen to be teacher and preacher for another congregation? Simple they were easily controlled by the church authorities, they were puppets. Most men will never be chosen to preach because they are independent thinkers and question the behaviors of the church leaders that they find wrong. I questioned child abuse, lazy and freeloading men, financial exploitation of babes, and other things and was told that I was the problem. Teacher/preacher knows best is the underling belief and when followed opens up the church to exploitation by wicked. Not being able to question leaders on the behavior is not Christianity and leads to a church being turned into a cult of the respective teacher/preacher.
RU refering to your mate?
No, I'm not.
I would like to discuss how teachers in the SCOC reach the 'must-be-counseled-with/must-be-obeyed/the-teacher's-opinion-is-fact' status. Some of the people who have told their stories might be able to shed some light from an insider's perspective. Please share.
It's the "murmuring" charge. Anyone speaking against the teachers are following after the sin of Korah and hos followers who grumbled against Moses and had to be destroyed. The chief difference being, of course, that God spoke directly and audibly Moses. Minor difference.
Anon 4:40- from my standpoint I believe it is a process over quite a period of time in most cases. I remember the first time my teachers told me to teach on something I took to them about a young sister. Pride swells in you when you see that you are approved by your teachers.
The more you conform to their teachings AND take information to them about other Christians (esp. Your spouse), and don't question anything they say or do- you will go far being their pawn. When you disagree or take a sin to a teacher – you're on the other side of the fence, can do nothing right, and everyone will know it. when you speak against the words or actions of a teacher- the 'counsellors will join the Frey to side with the teachers.
Thank you for your input Donna, it serves to confirm my belief that every member of each congregation was a church spy (tattletale) in an effort to gain favor with the teacher. The rank of babe is the lowest, then spy, then enforcer. The ranks are unwritten but clearly exist. If you are not accepted as a spy you do not advance and are stuck at the rank of babe. It eleven years in the church I was still being called a babe.
This too, confirms my suspicion, why there are so many "loveless" marriage in the Stanton group. Being required to spy(tattletale) on your spouse and report back to the teacher causes many men not to speak to their wives. i never saw any of the great romances between the lovers in the COC, no great love stories of christian husband and wife, just quite separation from each other, sad really sad.
Actually any one murmuring against a teacher are actually following what the Grecian have done in Acts 6:1-5, and perhaps in the book of Joshua 9:18 where the congregation murmured against the princes of Israel. It is still complaining against them and in the new testament it is discouraged. When your complaint contains false information then it becomes withdraw able. But Kevin is correct about Korah and his men; they murmured against God and Moses, the man God spoke to face to face and thus going contrary to God Himself.
Paul makes reference to this kind of murmuring in 1st Corinthians 10:10 Take a moment and see what false information those men used.
1st) They said Moses took things upon himself when God actually told Moses to do as he was told.
2ndly) Many time they would assumed Moses lead them into the desert to allow them all to die. Again a false assumption and a false argument. = a false statement.
The kind of murmuring the Grecian did was quickly corrected by the Apostles quick and good example, and it was gentle; this kind of murmuring is still complaining but because what they said was true it is best corrected with a town hall style meeting were people come together and find a solution for the problem instead of complaining. The same thing in Joshua 9:18.
The kind of murmuring that is withdrawable would be more like Shimei in 2nd Samual 16:7-8 which included false accusations but it was also an attempt to stir up a riot and that made it that much more grievous.
Complaining against Church government is also a grievous thing to do. Even when a governing body is found consistently in error it is still proper to keep your composure and speak the facts against them. But make sure you have your facts straight. With the "Stanton" COC you probably won't be allowed to do so and there for must leave it in the hands of God.
We see even in Galtians 2:11-16 Paul is bringing up a complaint or rebuke against Peter "before them all" because he was to be blamed. So again we have this example of a rebuke that is not murmuring because what is being said is true and a rebuking for actual sin. Besides Peter's action was causing other people to be actually carried away with the dissimulation. And there was a skilled Apostle there to make such an distinction. Other wise we would do like Paul say in 1st Timothy 5. at least until some one shows me other wise.
I guess most of the time one would do as spoken of in 1st Timothy 5:19-21 concerning Church Governing offices such as Elders or deacons and teachers. First be not quick to rebuke as it says in 1 timothy 5:1 One should wait until everything has been established first before 2-3 witnesses who can verify every word spoken if it should need to come before the assembly. And do not give the teaching body preferential treatment just because they are Teachers or elders. In those kind of offices they should know better.
Again That would be the one who brought the original grievance against the man alone plus the one or two more who were brought in if the Elder or teacher failed to repent. Only afterwards may you bring it before the Church with it not being consider complaining or railing. Be careful on your presentation until all the facts are first established and your words are not just hear say information.
The governing body should have first done a diligent inquisition, But I believe in the Stanton COC this may not always get done first. I think this is really where they maybe getting themselves in trouble; Therefore possibly withdrawing from people who really should not have been withdrawn from. If I made any mistakes please let me know.
How many Christians can you think of who were 'sent out' to help start a new church or help with the work of an existing church who were under 5 years in the faith, in their 20's? I can think of close to a dozen such examples. They either became a teacher/authority when they volunteered to 'go out' or they became teacher/authority quickly after going out due to circumstances such as their preacher/teacher getting sat down or withdrawn from. They went from zero to sixty in 2 seconds flat! A NOVICE with little marital experience, little parenting experience, no leadership experience, little Bible knowledge, little experience making personal judgements because they had always relied on their teacher (who was also a novice) to make decisions for them… suddenly they became the teacher/rebuker/know-it-all; the one who could not be questioned or disagreed with; the overseer of the flock; the one with the inside scoop on everyone in the congregation and the one privileged to know the 'insider' information of the other congregations etc. A recipe for disaster.
The 'church shepherds' of today were raised by the novices (themselves included) of yesterday who had no guidance from older, seasoned Christian men or women because one zealot declared every one of them lost.
I quickly saw how my home congregation was lacking in true love. It was explained to me that there were certain people sent to that congregation to deal with that problem as they already knew it existed. One of the preachers told me that we were getting a preacher from the south to help with this, but it never got better.
I tried to talk to the preacher, from the south, about it and he eventually told me that if I didn't quit bringing it it up that they would withdraw from me. Mind you, I wasn't a complainer or a murmurer. I saw something in God's church and believed it should be dealt with. What's interesting is that it was always brought up in the congregation that there was a lack of love there, but nobody would do anything about it.
This lack of love was defined by the indifference that certain members would have for others. There was a great imbalance as to how people would prefer some over others in the dispensation of being there for each other.
I found this article on Russia and thought of this post on Stanton. Both have similar dilemmas…they want to lionize their founders, but their founders were revolutionaries who fought against the establishment of their day.
Tragedy or triumph? Russians agonise over how to mark 1917 revolutions
The dilemma is this: Stanton only exists because of Merie's open and vigorous dissent, for which she was "withdrawn from." But now, Stanton uses withdrawal to shut down dissent. The revolutionaries have become the establishment.