Some commenters here wrote recently about disagreeing without being disagreeable. As a result, I thought it would be good to write about how to disagree with people you love. That should be everyone, right?
I’ve actually heard SCOC members mock the saying, “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” To them, that’s false unity, because disagreeing and remaining brothers in good standing are mutually contradictory. I’ll attempt to show you why they are not—in fact brothers in disagreement is the only way we can ever be. That’s because the basis of brotherhood is relationship, not shared opinions, and the basis for maintaining that relationship is love.
If you love someone as a brother, as a spouse, or as a son or daughter, of course you aren’t guaranteed to agree with them on everything. But you love them anyway, and you tolerate a lot, because they’re family. You have a pre-existing relationship with them.
But have you ever thought about the fact that we have a pre-existing relationship with our spiritual family, as well? Just as we aren’t the deciders of who gets to be our biological, or even adopted brother or sister, we don’t get to choose who gets to become our spiritual brother or sister. That decision is above our pay grade. Who is and isn’t our brother isn’t our decision. It’s God’s, and God’s alone.
In fact, brotherhood is the key to unlocking the related and wildly misunderstood topic of “fellowship.” Fellowship (the state of being “fellow” followers of Christ, or peers, or brothers) is not something that we establish ourselves, nor can we withdraw it. People talk of “withdrawing fellowship,” but this is a misnomer. Our job is simply to live out the relationship God has placed us mutually into. Stanton is big on emphasizing that we don’t join the church, God adds us to it. Exactly. And what God has added, we don’t have the authority to subtract. But I digress.
In both our family and brotherly relationships, love sometimes requires us to overlook a disagreement or fault for the sake of the relationship. Other times, love might require us to express our disagreement. In both cases, the criteria for voicing our disagreement or letting it go is love.
This, my friends, is how to disagree with someone you love, particularly a brother in Christ. Disagreement is inevitable. In fact, it’s impossible to be human and to agree on everything.
There are good reasons for that. The young have not yet learned all of life’s lessons (does anyone ever learn them all?). We all start out with beliefs and theories about life, parenting, and God; then those theories get tested by experience and (hopefully) scripture. The old may have misunderstood some of their early lessons of life, or lived a large portion of their lives apart from God completely. Now they’re playing catch-up, trying to make sense of life’s lessons from the rear view mirror.
As a result, no two people can ever be in the same place spiritually at the same time. And that’s OK. To pretend it’s even possible, as Stanton does—that unanimous understanding of the Bible is absolute and required—is ludicrous on its face. That’s not humanly possible, and this is evidenced by the fact that Stanton itself claims the Holy Spirit’s guidance “into all truth,” yet are constantly changing their “understanding” of that truth at their May meetings. If the Holy Spirit truly guided them into unanimity, pretended as it is, they wouldn’t need May Week to make It happen. It would just happen automatically, like Paul when he obtained the gospel directly from Jesus Christ without conferring with the other apostles.
Romans 14-15:7
The scriptures that have had the greatest impact on me regarding disagreement between brothers come from Paul, particularly Romans 14 through 15:7. Read the whole passage, then I’ll address some key points here. He writes:
Romans 14:1-4 – Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
First, what’s a disputable matter? Well, if we could agree on what’s disputable, it wouldn’t be in dispute, would it? Too many Christians like to limit this verse’s damage to their worldview by adjusting what’s a “disputable matter” and what’s not. That’s not a fair interpretation of this verse. Clearly, there is great latitude on differences of opinion between brothers. Paul’s instruction is to accept our brother without quarreling about those opinions.
Now notice a few more important verses:
Romans 14:19 – Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
Romans 14:22 – So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.
This is a particularly powerful one:
Romans 15:1 – We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.
We need to bear with, or be patient with the failings of the weak. That word failings is translated infirmities in KJV, which means an error arising from weakness of mind. This means our brother may be in error on something because they simply haven’t come to understand that subject. Or vice versa. Yet we are to be patient with each other nonetheless.
What can this mean other than that some people are going to be at different places in their faith and understanding than others, and we all need to be OK with that. Can it mean anything else? The real question is what’s our attitude and how do we act when we find ourselves in disagreement with our brother? Do we try to marginalize them and push them out of the church?
Paul gets even clearer at the end of this section of his letter:
Romans 15:7 – Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
We are to accept one another “just as Christ accepted” us, and this brings praise to God. Hmm. Let me ask you this: How did Christ accept you? Was it on the condition of a perfect understanding of the Bible, and all the ins and outs of doctrine? Did the Jews who were pricked in their hearts on the Day of Pentecost as recounted in Acts 2 have a deep knowledge of doctrine and the Christian faith?
I would suggest that we take this very seriously and think through the consequences of our answer. On the same basis Jesus accepted me, I need to accept my brother. If I was accepted into the body of Christ (not some denomination, church, sect, or cult) on the basis of the gospel and my obedience to it, that and that alone is the basis for me accepting my brother.
I would be remiss if I didn’t address Stanton’s go-to passage on unity, 1 Corinthians 1:10, when discussing differences of opinion. I discuss that more fully in the context of Stanton’s false idea of church unanimity, but I’ll briefly address it here:
1 Corinthians 1:10 – I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
The key to understanding this passage is (surprise) the rest of the passage:
1 Corinthians 1:11-17 – For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
The people in Corinth had serious unity problems, meaning they were literally dividing the church up according to their favorite teacher, or who baptized them. Paul’s letters don’t contradict one another. He didn’t tell the Roman church to chill about those different opinions and “judgments” and accept one another, only to insist that the Corinthian church be unanimous in all their opinions and judgments. No, being of the same mind is best undertstood as being of the same Christlike attitude, as he wrote to the Ephesian church:
Ephesians 4:1-3 – I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing [being patient with] one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
This is perfectly in keeping with his instruction to Rome here:
Romans 15:5-6 – May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes, while we’re in the flesh, brothers will disagree. There’s no other way we can be besides in disagreement over something. This is evidenced by the fact that Stanton’s so-called agreement has to be forced at the threat of withdrawal for murmuring. The key to disagreeing with our brothers while remaining faithful is to seek truth, obey our conscience, and be loving and patient with our brothers whose consciences are different than ours.
These principles should be self-evident, because they can be understood from the Golden Rule. If I would like my brothers to be patient with my wrong opinions when I have them, then I’d better be patient and loving toward them with theirs. That’s not so hard, is it?
I think the teachers in Merie's church believe they are willing to hear another opinion. For example, in my situation, they were willing to talk to me about the concerns I have about their church. However, once they saw my mind was set, it was taught for the members there to stay away from me. Including my own children have been told this. At the very least, they have been present when the sermon was to avoid me.
I was told by a Mainline COC preacher that he would like a debate with the teachers. They don't ever do that, do they? It seems their M.O. is to speak to people who are in disagreement privately and if that doesn't work, just rebuke them publicly.
It's interesting how they apply this discipline so often. Why don't they just let people and their families be? If someone is in disagreement about something, why can't that person speak to their loved ones about it? If Merie's church is so right, won't that rule at the end of the day without pushing people out?
I suppose the assumption is always that the person in disagreeement must be aiming to do something evil.
Just some thoughts and questions.
What happened to "we agree to disagree". And move on? Silly me for asking the question?
Anon 9:05, they have never agreed with "agree to disagree."
I agree with Kevin, the idea of agreeing to disagree is never an option. They would rather have fake unity (people in disagreement just keeping silent and following along) as was the case with the people who disagreed with the ousted female leader who pushed her 'Merie said' agenda on the entire brotherhood. Nobody dared stand up to her. Fake unity at its finest. I can't imagine the numbers of people who disagreed who either were withdrawn from or threw their hands up and walked away.
Years ago the church was very open to public debate. In the early eighties a debate was held in Boise Idaho between former evangelist Jim Mikkelson and a gentleman from the 'off' church. One of the subjects debated was the paid preacher system. It was a big deal and men flew in to attend. Gary Preman was a moderator for that debate.
That debate was before my time, but I live in the Boise area now and have talked to people who went to it. In fact, the preacher Jim debated is someone I think my mom knew from way back in El Cajon. There are former members of El Cajon who are still here.
So it is possible to just walk away from the church or quit it if you are a member? And then are you not shunned by the congregation who one minute your friends and the next minute not speaking to you? I still don't get it why so many people are "withdrawn" from or "rebuked". If only they would visit a healthy church and see how wonderful it can be to be a follower of Christ
Yes Jo, it happens all the time. People are not withdrawn from because they quit. It is definitely a good idea to just quietly leave rather than voicing disagreements.
Anon 10:24 is correct, it's definitely best to quietly leave without voicing disagreements if you have family members still in. If you start voicing disagreements, you'll quickly get on their naughty list and family members will start feeling the pressure. You'll be publicly rebuked, and if you're withdrawn from, your family dynamics will suffer greatly.
I'm fortunate and blessed to have stayed out of their reach because I left when I saw the writing on the wall that I couldn't grow and stay there. I would not put it past them to resort to dirty tricks to try to make me a member like they did Craig and withdraw, or invent some new application of scripture to punish me even though I'm outside the church. However, the only one they'd be hurting is my elderly mom, and that might very well push her into my arms if they tried playing dirty like that. My mom would not agree with "withdrawing" from someone who is not even a member. She's the one who told me as a child that that's what the "off church" does (withdraw from people after they already leave), and that the One True Church doesn't do that. Once they're gone, they've withdrawn themselves from the group, which defeats the purpose of withdrawal in the first place.
And this is why it is a cult? I have been members of two different churches in my lifetime. Actually I am still a member of one but when I remarried we decided to attend my husbands church which is very similar to mine Nazarene verses Church of God. No problems what so ever. I am friends with all my friends at my former church and have new friends in the church we are attending. I had no idea in my wildest dreams my family was involved in a cult. All I ever saw was the positive side of them attending church together although some beliefs very different than mine and they were much stricter than Craig's father and I were raising our two sons. It is bizarre to me that people are treated this way in the name of Christ. I can imagine he is shedding tears about this when he sees his flock going so terribly wrong.
Kevin, the point you made at 11:22 struck a nerve.
You quoted your mom I believe,
"Once they're gone, they've withdrawn themselves from the group, which defeats the purpose of withdrawal in the first place"
You experienced the awful effects of your dad being withdrawn from for decades, even after he withdrew himself from the group. This affected not only his marriage but also the relationship with your sister, her husband and grandchildren who chose the group. And all for what?
I know of people who have even repented of the sin that they were withdrawn from for and yet because they will not fully return to the church, attend worship and all classes for months, make confessions for the sins they were withdrawn from for, plus make confessions for every public sin that comes to their mind that they committed during the decades they were fallen away they remain in a purpetual state of withdrawal with no intention of ever coming back to the church. This makes no sense to me.
I agree. I believe disagreement can be tolerated if you aren't too strong in your expression of it. If you come out and say "I believe XYZ" and that is in contradiction to the party line, you're in trouble.
In most cult groups strict obedience to the leader who demands control of all elements of the followers life, both psychologically and physically is the norm. These leaders then surround themselves with a small exclusive click of followers and will not tolerate criticism or dissension. This is the church I attended to a tee. Those that disagreed with the leader were withdrawn from. When the woman in Des Moines Iowa was kicked out many of her victims were heard saying "so I was right", having realized that they had been withdrawn from not for sin but to force them into obedience to her will. Individual leaders maintain total control over their congregations and disagreement is not tolerated.
Romans 14:1-4
The congregation I came from does not follow these passages. They have little empathy towards those who are not right on with their ways of thinking. They actually look at it as you are in sin for not keeping up and you have to automatically follow what they tell you without you coming to the conclusion of it. Doing it this way you will get a lot of people who aren't really convinced that what they are doing or not doing is correct. There is no foundation
What the congregation becomes filled with are sheep that will just follow what they are told rather than what they understand. The congregation will lack biblical knowledge and wisdom that it needs. I read that they churches in the 50's did this and lacked everything they needed to follow the truth properly.
Billie Burke was a famous actress of the early 20thcentury. She played “Glinda the good witch” in the Wizard of Oz musical. The story is told that Ms Burke was once traveling on a cruise ship when she noticed a man at the next table suffering from a bad cold.
She asked, “Are you uncomfortable?”
The man nodded in the affirmative.
“Well,” she instructed, “I’ll tell you what to do.”
Go back to your state-room. Take two aspirins. Drink lots of Orange Juice. Cover yourself with all the blankets you can find. Just sweat it out.
Then she paused and said confidently, “I know what I’m talking about, I’m Billie Burke from Hollywood.
The gentleman smiled and said, “Thank you.” Then added, “By the way, I’m Dr. Mayo from the Mayo clinic.”
It’s amazing how many people speak with great authority about matters in which they have no education, expertise, or actual experience. But perhaps it’s even more amazing how many listen! And then accept the opinion of the “non authority”!
It some areas it may be inconsequential, but when it comes to spiritual issues, it is a serious matter. One that has eternal implications.
The above was taken from thepreachersword.com . He speaks about Christ being the Authority. Too bad the leaders in Merie's church think they are the Authority in our lives. I finally realized that I was allowing them to play middle man between me and Christ. Therefore I had no true connection with Christ because they were in the way. Yet another thing we didn't agree on.
Seeking,
That is an interesting statement of that they "were in the way". I can see that too. While you are studying for yourself and trying to grow in the knowledge of the bible there are many times that their instructions were the opposite. I once asked the preacher from the south which do I follow, the bible or example, because they are not the same.
You can disagree with the cult as long as you don't ever speak it out loud. They, however, can disagree with every other religion and do it publicly and be looked upon highly by the flock for their "courage". But oh the offense you are if you DARE follow their example of speaking as your conscience dictates. Only THEIR collective conscience can be heard! YOU will be silenced with threats and having those you care about cut you off. And all because of Christ. Oh wait, wrong person. All because of Merie Weiss.
Once again no freedom of speech. My goodness no wonder there is no open communication. This is crazy and I know for a fact there are so many with health problems within the congregation even the children. Especially children who are innocent and want to openly talk with others. I have noticed the women doctoring among themselves for various stomach issues probably because they cannot be honest and say what they really think. Just an observation …
I have seen a lot more leniency on a lot of the "rules" and members attempting to exercise their own conscience on minor things. So depending on where you are you might think those of us who have had our consciences bound in the past might just be in disagreement over nothing. However, I do believe it takes intellectual maturity and experience (time), as well as a willingness to follow a truly Christian system to see past their rules and specifics. Ultimately, and I'll keep repeating this, the MAJOR problem lies in the lack of eldership and therefore lack of autonomy. There is NO understanding there about elders and their importance. Sure, they can define elders and give a general idea of what their role is. But until you have truly gone to a church where there are strong elders, the deeper meaning and importance of their role in the church will not be understood. The affect they have as leaders of an autonomous church is really something else. By having a scriptural system with elders as overseers, so much is different.
For those still in, this needs to be your rallying cry. Like in many other things, if you can change things at the top, things will change. The neat thing is that this change would actually cause you to have the structure that the new testament Church had.
And I do believe that is the supposed claim of Merie's church- that it goes back to those ways.
Amen, I do believe Biblical eldership is key to helping the churches reform themselves in the pattern of the NT. I do question whether it's worth the wait, for those still in and stuck in neutral with Stanton. There is so much to Christianity that is so exciting and waiting to be discovered once you get out of that oppressive mindset. But some may in fact be uniquely called by God to change Stanton from within. God bless, and my prayers are with you.
Seeking- I totally agree with you on a church having Elders. My church has 10 or 12 elders, and it is a beautiful work designed by God just as Moses father-in-law advised him to appoint faithful men to help him judge.
I had to chuckle because an Elder at my church asked if the SCOC had Elders. I told him they did not, because, as far as they are concerned, NO MAN as of yet,has lead a life without blame- before and after becoming a Christian. in my opinion, this is merely another area of their ARROGANCE! Nobody is 'good enough" , unless they are a favored teacher or a member living to please and rub elbows with teachers and preachers.
Donna I came from a large congregation (by SCOC standards) and I almost hate to say this, but of the 5 preachers plus men there, none would qualify as elders! Not a single man there.
Now I had to wrap my mind around the WHY? And my conclusion was simply that the kind of man with the character and integrity, showing the good results from having lived a scriptural life, just wouldn't stay in the SCOC. That type of man would have either never gotten in or quickly have seen how wrong things were and got out of there.
Good point!
I agree with Seeking and Donna that those who are still part of this church should be asking and talking about having elders in each congregation more. In the 2017 May week discussions TC does say that there have been questions about appointing elders but they haven't had a discussion on it yet.
The biggest reason I would like to see elders properly used is because there are major accountability issues in this church. Unscriptural withdrawals, rebuking first and asking questions later, poor understandings given by unqualified teachers, etc. All of these things would be handled differently with elders as overseers, or at least I hope that it would but knowing them it might not do much. It would be a start and a big change if they do though.
The way things are now people can't really get fair counsel at times, or talk honestly about certain issues for fear or "murmuring". The "main preachers/teachers" counsel outside the congregations, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with this, locally placed elders as overseers just work better when situations come up and they hold everyone accountable including themselves. The older teachers people call to get counsel with aren't physically there in each congregation, and don't know anything but the often one sided stories that the leaders of each congregation tells them. They often side with the leaders instead of actually trying to hear all sides of an issue. Even if they did, like I said they aren't there and can't see how people behave themselves personally to be able to give proper judgements on different situations. And when it's leadership in the congregation causing the problems, often times the brethren just stay silent and go along with it too afraid to say anything. The current system is all dependent on the integrity of 1 or 2 leaders in each congregation deciding on issues, and there are times when they aren't allowed to be questioned and don't want to admit they were wrong about something.
No church is perfect, but scripturally elders are essential to help the churches function better. I hope the people reading that are still part of this church can speak up and help make some changes, or more people might start to leave eventually if some of these things continue. There are a lot already who don't follow all the rules and only stay for the sake of relationships with family or other members.
Anon 12:43 you nailed it about Merie's cult. Absolute truth this is them.
To Anonymous 9:35 your comment about the ailments within Stanton's cult, I know the oppression causes physical and psychological negative effects. The Des Moines congregation has to be one of the infirmed bunch of 'brethren'. I left this group almost three years ago, and now I have so much more to set my mind and heart on, besides infirmities of my flesh. I can look back and see that I denied being depressed. Of course, because "Christians don't get depressed". Here is where the FROZEN FEELINGS come in. "I'm not depressed, I just must be under the weather." I'm finally learning how to let God and myself be the judge of my self-worth.I am finally FREE after 36 years of slavery. I can only give God the glory for where I am now. And I thank Kevin for being there when I was ready to jump ship. Unfortunately ,my family (grown kids)have been ill affected by being raised in this cult.
I would be curious to know what percentage of kids raised in this cult have turned to addictions. We will never know, but many have left Stanton and stay as far from a church as they can.
Finding a thriving church that teaches love, mercy and truth has been a gift from God. Don't turn your back on all churches, just because of one (or 35) bad apples.
Exactly: "Finding a thriving church that teaches love, mercy and truth has been a gift from God. Don't turn your back on all churches, just because of one (or 35) bad apples."
The whole reason I started this blog is because I kept seeing the destruction to people's faith. When people leave Stanton, whether for principled reasons or otherwise (they don't always know what's wrong, just that something is not right), it's so tempting to give up on God altogether.
This is not because of the *truth* of their claims, as I think this blog has shown. I think it's because of the *falsehood* of their claims.
Good point Debbie! Frozen feelings is right on! I am thinking about what the Portland has done to his own wife and his own mother and his children not to mention his brother and their children not to mention what he has done to my family. Some put out on a good front whenever I run into them in a social setting Or grocery store or the mall. Of course, now I would probably be shunned except for the children who are always friendly to me and polite.
(Continued) as if I care I am shunned. I was thinking if he and his family left the church they would be down about 17 or 18 in the congregation so he tries to keep them in check too. Too much family in a small church can become dysfunctional but with the fact it is type of church would even be more so in my opinion.
Frozen feelings is a great way to describe them. Hardened hearts is another. God warned us about people with hardened hearts. Funny how they shun "emotion" yet speak about the "love" they have there.
For those of you who were in, how would you describe to someone who felt "loved" there (when they are going through the love bombing phase) what is REALLY happening? (overwhelming companionship and fellowship, being kept super busy doing "good" things, etc) I'm not sure what word or phrase best describes that feeling/phase of early membership there.
I would describe it as a feeling of belonging! You are made to feel a part of something important. And it's not so much love that you feel at first, if ever, but lots of attention. To someone who is only used to being in the background and never made to feel important, it's a very heady experience.
Suddenly, you seem to have people who care about you! They seem concerned. You now have places to go, things to do! They welcome and greet you each time they see you-as if they missed you since they last saw you!
And you tell yourself it must be real because these people are Christians, right? They aren't suppose to fake their feelings! And some of them are genuine, don't get me wrong. I was genuine, and I know others were and still are. Kevin's Mom is one that is real, and loving.
I met the preacher in Portland, and to me he seemed unwelcoming. Very serious, he rarely smiled. I thought maybe he was just shy, but now I think that it may just be his way. I know our teacher in Lakeland/Tampa could laugh and smile and then a few minutes later rebuke you soundly from the pulpit. This is confusing, and it takes awhile for you to realize that you have to look at their fruits in order to really see who and what they are. It was the scripture where Christ said "by their fruits you will know them" that made me start taking a hard look at what they did rather than what they said.
Cults have a very specific and predictable behavior pattern. A cult is usually a short temporary religion; when the leader dies the cult falls apart, generally. In the beginning the cult is small and the leader is friendly and welcoming. When the cult gets larger then the leader (or leadership) becomes more dominating and controlling of its members internally. The leader can grow more fearful and paranoid and start setting up members from the group to spy on others in the group (church spies) , and even spy on outsiders who criticize or threaten the leader or the group. One step in control is to dissolve marriages and take all the women as wives to the leader (this is a form of forbidding to marry) Another step is to separate the children from the parents and have the children raised communally by the cult. The final act of control and betrayal is to demand the lives of the followers. Where is the SCOC is this life cycle? I have seen the love bombing the oppressive domination and control, the breaking up of both scriptural and unscriptural marriages of those who do not please the leader, I have seen the communal parenting of the children in that when at babysitting the babysitters will freely beat the children without the parents knowledge or consent. (And once in Bible class one preacher would go and take a child who was sitting between the two parents lead the child into the back room and spank the child and then return the child back to the seat between the parents) The fear of rejection is used to keep members in line being told that if the members leave then they lose their salvation. Not all cults are religious, and not all cults use every method mentioned.
Scary! But I do not agree they fall apart that easily look at Scientology. By the way if you have not watched the show that Leah Remini Scientology and the Aftermath on A&E and that will open your eyes how cults are ran. Of course SCC this is small scale compared to them but with the same results ruining and destroying families. Do not keep your heads down, stand tall and let others know this is not acceptable. Save your children and save your families.
True some cults do turn into major religions; Islam is one example of a cult leader starting out small and growing large and hostile but surviving after the death of it founder. Mohammed started out in Medina with a message of love and peace to all when he was small but in time when Mohammed grew an army of followers his message was one of death to all outsiders; once he had the ability to exert his will on others. Mohammed was a pederast in that he married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage at the girls age nine and today being a pederast is fully acceptable in Islam. A muslim can be define today by which part of the Koran he follows the first half, which is peaceful, or the last half which is violent. By having a second set of commandments in "Merie said" the group is able to lead astray members from the Bible and get the members under the domination and control of leadership. Who knows what Merie said or not, there is no book of Merie in the Bible.
Another excellent article Kevin. Disagreeing I'd have to conclude since no one will tell me otherwise is the reason I was remade a member after four months of officially being declared a nonmember. Than being withdrawn from quickly for murmuring and sowing seeds of discord all because little oh me disagreed with scoc. I'd have to say I began silently disagreeing with ways of the scoc after I got wet 20 years ago. I'm guessing many members silently disagree in some way, shape or form as well. I really began stepping up my silent disagreement with the hypocrite preacher from Portland and the way the church was going back in 2013. I began vocalizing my disagreements in 2015 with him and of course soon after I sat myself down from preaching and all responsibilities I'd be publicly rebuked in which he lied during the rebuke. Eight months or so later the teacher also publicly rebuked me with a lie. Disagreeing Craig I'd have to declare was being targeted. So great when I became the nonmember which I am today to be able to disagree, read this blog, comment on this blog and tell my wife what I had learned. Than visit and shake my head in disagreement with the hypocrite as he preached his hypocrisy. That I conclude shortly after as I showed absolutely NO interest in becoming a member the two (preacher and his pet teacher) return from the unscriptural, waste of money and time May meeting declare about me their fictitious claims. Which I do not honor at all. Which has altered my family life. All because I disagree with the scoc whom recruited me through deceitful ways. So as said they disagree with all other religions I'll spend my efforts teaching against them and educating as many as possible about a very deceitful church. The door knocking coc
Craig, Portland preacher and teacher when I was there did lie.. they were telling me things that I was thinking and doing that weren't even true.. I kept thinking to myself are these people crazy or why in the world are they acting this way! .. They have to know they're lying or they are so confused it's pathetic.. I always have to giggle when you say "when I got wet" LOL LOL it cracks me up
I too have had ridiculously untrue things said and spread about me. There are times when a teacher or preacher starts speculating out loud about a congregant's actions; those speculations often turn into statements of 'fact' and can spread like wildfire. I am ashamed to say I have done the same thing. When a member becomes a teacher there seems to be no holds barred when it comes to discussing a members behavior as long as the discussion is not about another teacher.
Anon 9:06 spot on with your comments. The Portland preacher was the absolute worse example of a member that I was around. I too when I was supporting him as a preacher got caught up in listening to his gossiping and murmuring. It was as if he had a free pass. Seems to be a pattern with preachers and teachers. Others have shared about being lied about as well. When I first heard the account of Aninias and Saphirra in Acts 5 in nonmember class that has kept me from telling a lie in 20 plus years now. Some obviously think they are above the law.
Does this church ever give a normal sermon about the Bible and have song and normal prayers? It sounds as if it is full of rebuke,withdrawal,gossip,slander,no food or drink in the building. I visited the service once after my husband died so I could be with my family that day and all I remember about it was it was long,boring,could have no water and long. Oh did a I say long? I did want to watch how my grandkids were in church and they sat still and were very polite and quiet. That was 11 years ago.
I do not remember any confessions about anything. I felt out of place but glad to be with my family for the day.
To understand the type of group you are up against Jo you need to study cult group behavior. F.O.G. is a type of psychological control and it stands for Fear, Obligation, and Guilt. While in the recruitment phase cults use love bombing but in the second phase, the indoctrination phase they use obligation. Members of the SCOC are told of the law they must obey now that they are members such as attending worship, then "keeping the Lord's day Holy" which means attending all day Sunday which is why it seemed so long to you; most churches only keep the worship. Learn the commandments such as "Thou shalt not kill" and ask you family members why military service is prohibited on one hand but then glorified on the other by Marine Corp drill instructors whom many children looked up to and some even joined the marines (which teach men to break the commandment thou shalt not kill) Either military service is acceptable or it is not, the SCOC has it both ways: allowing men to talk highly of their own military service, and prohibiting members to join. Ask if child abuse is love, and if not why does the church condone so much child abuse is so many congregations. Ask if men are to pay child support and alimony and then ask why so many preachers do not; but in fact abandon their wives and children when they start preaching. One by one you can break the chains of obligation by showing the commandments and how the members do not follow them, but in fact go against them. You are up against some tough enemies.
Anon 2:31, I think we are on the same side, so please don't take offense at this, but "Thou shalt not kill" is not an accurate rendition of that phrase. In the Hebrew, translated into modern English, it actually says "Do not murder." That is what the English translation of the Hebrew Bible says.
Murder is far different than killing; it includes a moral judgement on whether the killing was justified or not. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. If someone breaks into my home and has a knife to my wife's or my daughter's throat, or is trying to violate them in some way, I have no scriptural problem killing them. To not do so would be immoral. Hiding behind the thinking that "God wouldn't let that happen to a real Christian" is intellectually dishonest.
Good points. Thanks for helping me on questions. Craig helps me a lot also now that he shared this blog with me. Without our military to protect our freedoms today where would we be? Probably living under the Nazi's?
Yes Kevin thank you. I choose the example based upon the teachings and beliefs of the SCOC from Merie's own book: "put up thy sword". The SCOC holds to a specific understanding of "Thou shalt not kill" and I argue against their hypocrisy based upon their own understanding. They believe this: no military service because the military is required to kill people but they still glorify military service by allowing drill instructor to praise the military, and be preachers in their churches. They are trying to have it both ways: it is wrong for others to do it, but it is okay for us to do it. They will argue that Christianity existed for 1776 years before the creation of this nation and the "freedom of religion" that is guaranteed by this country's constitution does not really exist, just try and say a public prayer in school. To break the chains of obligation put upon members in its obligation phase it is necessary to show that the church does not follow it's own teaching in many area's, but rather the will and whims of a few in leadership. The beliefs and obligation from those beliefs change with every new leader. The truth is like a rock in that it does not change and lies are like sand that constantly change with every wind. You are following a man and not God, if the man in leadership is an oppressor, then oppression is okay. If the leader is anti military then military service is wrong. What new doctrine will tomorrow bring depend on who is in charge and not the Bible itself. Free the individual by exposing the falsehoods of false teachers and the truth of God's word which never changes.
Anon at 5:04 pm-you gave some excellent examples of what I meant about looking at what they actually do and stop listening to what they say.
I can't tell you how many times I was told that "we" would work things out! Or how many times I was told with "counsel" that it was up to me-yet I knew if I picked the wrong answer, that I was going to be in trouble. They repeatedly state that they only follow the bible, yet there are so many unwritten rules and regulations that it's difficult to keep up. I remember one May meeting a teacher (was it you Tracy?) that mentioned a list of places we could and could not go and visit…that teacher was followed by one of the main teachers and was severely rebuked. I then remember that the teacher who had mentioned the list made a confession. At the time I was thinking the confession was unnecessary because she was right-there is a list. It's just not written down and handed out to members. They don't want any hard copies running around, because then they would have to admit they are lying.
Yes Debby, they face a serious dilemma if they admit these unwritten rules. If they write them down, then it's clear to everyone they don't follow the Bible alone. But if they only pass along their doctrines in person, over the phone, or through recorded talks, it's really easy to obfuscate by calling into question the context of the conversation, or denying the rules altogether.
There is a talk from a meeting between Portland and Tacoma in 2002 where someone may have admitted publicly that they have these unwritten rules. If anyone has a copy, I'd be interested in hearing it.
And no one was curious to see the rules? Or a handbook about the church beliefs before joining?
Anon 12:17, it's not like that. At the beginning, converts are not informed of all the rules. Those are slowly introduced as time goes on, like the frog in the hot water. People can go decades rationalizing and justifying the "rules" as just non-binding "judgments." But once someone openly or regularly violates those judgments out of disagreement with them, they'll quickly find out they weren't "non-binding" at all. They are very much bound, except for the privileged few or the quietly rebellious.
I attended a holiday meeting in Vallejo where we were instructed by the then teacher from Boise that there is to be no written doctrine only verbal. The Christians were the ones to interpret the Bible on a one on one basis and no written book of what the Bible means was to ever be made. On the subject of taking a human life I respectfully disagree that there is a difference between killing and murder; they are the same thing. I have worked with many men who have taken a human life, some in the military during war, and some criminals during a crime, and the effects of the sin of murder upon their minds is devastating. One man I worked with was raised up a Mexican gang member in south central Los Angeles, and on a Saturday he was at the city park with his gang getting ready to play a football game and a bunch of cars showed up. He thought the cars was the other team but it was a competing gang and a brawl ensued. He went to his car got a knife and stabbed a man to death and was tried and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to two and a half years. In talking with him and working with him I realized very quickly that he had no conscience at all, there was no door in his mind that said stop this is wrong, nothing bothered him; he had no problem talking about the most heinous subjects of gang life; murder seduced him completely and permanently. I work with Marines from the Vietnam war who have to be medicated daily just to function in normal life; killing in war made them psychotic. Christians do not belong in the military; the military requires you to kill. If a man broke into my house with evil intent I would quickly gather my family and flee and let the man have what ever is in the house and call the police for help before I would ever consider taking a human life. I take basic defense's like a security system, a large dog, and pepper spray as discouragements to evil doers. All sins have consequences and the sin of murder carries with it heavy and often irrepairable damages to the human mind.
Anon 4:39, I did not say that a morally justified killing has no negative effect on the soul or the psyche. Of course it does…anyone made in the image of a loving God will be scarred at having to take another human's life, even if morally justified. A lot of things that are morally justified leave emotional scars. A divorce for adultery, while justified (though not always necessary) will leave a lifetime of emotional scars on all involved: husband, wife, children, in-laws. That doesn't mean it's never morally justified.
Note that this is a different question from the war question. Similar, but not identical. And although I believe you are logically, scripturally, grammatically, and morally off-base on this, I do understand why and how you've come to feel this way. I was once there myself.
At some point, I'll write more about this, and you're welcome to share your reasoning further.
Here is an excellent analysis of the commandment do not murder.
Anonymous at 4:39pm; I was a member of the Stanton churches of Christ for over 30 years. By scripture we were taught that God protects the righteous both in the old testament and the new. Your letter is such great evidence to validate how right those who had taught me were. Christians do not raise up to dispatch a soul into hell. Our only God given right is to teach him so he might be able to go to heaven.
Anon 10:46, can you elaborate? I'm not following your train of thought.
That video you linked there is a good explanation and if those who have been taught just one viewpoint are willing to look at it they might learn something new.
But here's my limited experience. My husband is retired military. He never had to kill anyone. He's also never murdered anyone. We get great benefits from his service. However, he was raised in a family that holds military service high and honorably. His grandfather flew in WW2 and his plane was downed. Thankfully he was rescued by good guys. He never went crazy. He retired and became a fire chief and then retired from that.
However, in the church I knew a young man who went in and came out with serious PTSD. I heard several stories of others. And I think this is what it comes back to: conscience. If you're raised to believe that defending your country is wrong, you can rebel and go against and deal with the consequences. If you're raised to believe that what you're doing is helping others and saving lives, that is how your mind will deal with it.
There's a lot of in between. Some people just shouldn't do it for whatever reasons in their lives. But does the bible say not to join? Nope. Does it actually say "do not murder"? Yep it sure does. Having said that, what murder means to your conscience should be the deciding factor. But STOP BINDING YOUR CONSCIENCE ON OTHERS!
You are free to do you see fit I am not binding my conscience on other, but I am enjoying being able to reason out the meaning of scriptures with other believers; except one who is trying to bully us into silence just like the church did to her.
The problem here is that I haven't seen any reasoning of scriptures other than the explanation that the bible clearly means Do not MURDER. Please, feel free to reason from scripture. Right now all I've read is that so many were taught one way. But taught from scripture or taught by opinion/ inference/ judgement?
God clearly told us not to bind consciences. I neither claimed it was wrong for a person to join or not. Simply that it's a choice left to conscience.
In the case of the Roman soldier Cornelius: he was noted as an HONORABLE man among all before his baptism. There is no record of him leaving his post. However, in the church it was taught that one must INFER that he stopped being a soldier. Really? Why? Just because Merie said so. Not SCRIPTURE. Merie. And to me, they are not synonymous. But to some, they are.
I reason it from these scriptures: Mathew 11:12-13 that the kingdom of God (being the nation of Israel in context) suffered violence from the prophets until John; meaning violence in the Hebrew and later Jewish nation was not only allowed but commanded by God. From the time of John the baptist forward violence in all forms was prohibited in the kingdom of God (in context Christianity). The old testament was carnal with the requirement to go to war and kill various nations around Israel such as the Philistines but the new testament was spiritual and violence in any form; not just killing, was prohibited. In Luke 3:14 the soldiers (assumed Jewish men in the Roman army, why would any Roman care what a Jewish prophet taught unless he was also Jewish?) asked John the baptist what to do and he said "do violence to no man" again not just killing but violence in any form was forbidden by God through John the baptist. 1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. This scripture equates or make equal hated and murder as a path to hell. It is not limited to Christians who commit murder but says no murderer hath eternal life, (and assumed all haters go to Hell as well.) In Proverbs 6:24-35 Solomon teaches of the consequences of committing adultery: the spouse will not spare in the day of vengeance (meaning the adulterer would be killed by the spouse) the person committing adultery is wrong and goes to Hell but the spouse hates and kills and also goes to Hell. Both are wrong and die, and go to Hell, and Satan is delighted, getting two birds with one sin. Kevin's example is just that: if someone broke into his house to violate his wife or daughters he would have no problem killing the man, rape is one form of adultery. Kevin's premeditation to kill is obvious. Word's are the most powerful weapons on earth and many women have been able to talk the rapist out of his desire because the rapist objectifies the woman and the victim can stop the rape by humanizing herself in front of the man. Murderers can also be talked down and many police dept's have trained negotiators to do just that. There are other ways to deal with a violent predator than just violence. If a person is determined to kill then the example of Christ and Judas comes to mind. Judas was a thief and murderer and Christ knew this from day one and also that he would be the one to betray and conspire to kill Christ and Christ did not stop him. Mathew 5:39 say to resist not evil and Christ did not resist Judas. Romans 12:19 say avenge not yourselves but give place to wrath for it is written Vengeance is mine I will repay sayeth the Lord. Meaning that people will do you wrong but do nothing in return rather let God repay them for their evil deeds. And finally I look at the example of Christ and how he used his powers here on earth. In Job we see Satan using all of his powers to destroy Job, the power over the weather is seen in a mighty rushing wind (Satan being allowed to control the weather) and Christ in Mark 4:39 used his powers to calm the weather and save the disciples. Satan uses his power to kill and destroy and Christ used his power to save and preserve. These scriptures teach me that violence in any form is a sin for Christians and is the basis for me declaring the Church in Phoenix a dead church with its violence in the form of unmitigated child abuse.
Wow, that kind of reads like a Merie Weiss letter in its reasoning. A lot of the scriptures you cited are not relevant to the discussion of whether someone can join the military or not. (You are addressing that, correct?)
The one scripture that I will address is Luke 3. If you read the verses above your citation, you can see that John was teaching others to treat others FAIRLY. He didn't tell the tax collector to quit his job, he told him to only collect what was owed. He told the soldiers the same (don't intimidate), and he even told them to just be content with their pay! If they were supposed to quit being soldiers upon baptism, shouldn't he have told them that instead? Here it is, in NKJV:
Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?”
13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.”
14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?”
So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”
So here, think police brutality. Some soldiers probably had the reputation for taking advantage of the people due to their powerful position. He told them not to do that.
As for your reasoning on other things, such as rape, I'm wondering what makes you think a woman can talk a man on the verge of raping her of not acting on it. Same for a person wanting to kill or hurt a family. Do you have some sort of data to defend that statement? Because if that were the case (that a woman can talk a man out of raping her), then the assumption for the opposite would have to be true: That a woman who was raped must have not spoken up enough to her predator and was asking for it. Is that what you're saying here?
I will write in more detail on this Anon, but you keep conflating murder and killing. Insisting they are the same doesn't make it so. They are different words in English, Greek, and Hebrew. You can't just ignore that.
You say that my willingness to defend my family against a murderer or rapist by use of force is premeditation, but thankfully there is an actual legal definition for premeditation, and deciding in advance that I will defend innocent life is not even close to premeditated murder…morally, gramatically, or legally. This goes back to a very common Stanton abuse of language, literally changing the meanings of words for their doctrinal purposes.
You say that some women can talk their rapist out of raping them. I don't even know where to start with that. I can't imagine telling my daughters that.
Can I ask you, why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their belongings and buy a sword for their journey if not for self defense?
Luke 22:36 – He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
Jesus was not a pacifist. His passivity in the face of aggression was because he had a mission far greater than his own personal safety: the redemption of mankind. His self sacrifice was for a specific redemptive purpose. Allowing a rapist to rape and perhaps kill someone's daughter or wife has no redemptive purpose whatsoever. I will much rather live with the emotional scars of taking that man's life than the moral guilt of letting him proceed.
Seeking, you're exactly right on the "do violence to no man" meaning. The word violence wouldn't even have made sense in that conversation, since the job of a soldier includes carrying a weapon and being willing to use it. He clearly means unjust abuse of power, which is how literally every translation properly renders is.
It is not commonly known that Merie taught that the ASV was good in addition to the KJV. Here's how it renders it:
Luke 3:14 – And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.
Jo 9:36 yes they do have normal sermons, sing songs and prayer that is fitting. You may get reproved or rebuked in a sermon but withdrawals are not part of the worship. Gossip and slander could be part of a sermon though. No food or drink in the sanctuary. Which is not uncommon in other churches. Water is allowed in other places in the building such as restroom or kitchen if the building has one. Sermons can become long and boring for sure as well as redundant. I believe some preachers think the long sermons are something. What is funny is looking out into the audience and see how many have fallen asleep. You hear confessions concerning dosing which I call you fell asleep. Portland preacher is very boring. Been there preaching for 25 years how many stories can he share about his company and rarely share about his marriage and children. Very stale sermons.
Another point with disagreeing as scoc are known for disagreeing with all but themselves. For example they would make stands for such as attending a funeral or wedding in another religious organization building that teaches differently than they which would be everyone else. So they make their stand because we disagree with these others. So I'd like to conclude that I'm as others are simply making a stand against scoc teachings and practices.
I am so glad to hear this Craig and see it posted for all to see. Perhaps they do not want any other to see what a real church is like. I have attended Catholic funerals and weddings and that does not mean I was joining that religion it just meant I had an aunt and uncle that belonged to the Catholic Church for example.
Yesterdays lesson was so good! How does one deal with the desires that arise in the mind? The commandments are for our good and produce virtue when followed but still the heart can desire unlawful things. A person can understand the law and all the consequences of breaking God's law but still have a love for sin once enjoyed before baptism. The solution is when the desire arises is to resist the unlawful desire. The more frequently one resists an unlawful desire the weaker it gets until it stops appearing altogether. Resist unlawful desires when they appear.
I had an interesting conversation with my uncle, who is an evangelical. At some point, he told me that a friend of his told him that there is a man near the Catholic church, near the corner by his home, who yells about Catholics going to hell for praying to the Virgin Mary. That he's been doing that for months. The man wanted my uncle's opinion on the situation.
My uncle told him that one should respect Mary, Christ's mother, because she was chosen by God to be Jesus' mother. She is to be held as a special person because God selected her. However, he explained, God is a jealous God, and he has been clear that prayers are to Him through Christ.
He further went on to give him a scenario. If your daughter had a very serious need, would you be upset if she went to someone else with her need? Yes, the man replied.
And that is how my uncle taught that man that praying to Mary wasn't right. And my uncle's point to me, knowing that I previously went to the Church of Merie Weiss and pretty much had told him then he was going to hell, was that we were never going to convert anyone that way. That man came to him, knowing him and his example for many years, and that is what caused him to trust his opinion on the matter. I don't agree with some of my uncle's religious views, but he is a very good man and he certainly had a point.
Merie Weiss started her church and it continues even now, not growing much. Not only do their tactics– similar to this man who yelled from a street corner– cause most people to recoil, they can't keep most of the ones who were raised there because of their unkind and divisive ways, both to visitors and to their own members.