Is this a Cult? *UPDATED*
It's been several days since I've posted-- my mind and time has been occupied with a situation that I am at a loss as to how (if even how) I should respond. In a nutshell, the 18-year-old daughter of some friends has decided to "join" a group known as Smith's Friends. I've been able to find a little bit on the internet about the group. On the surface, they sound like a "christian group"--they refer to themselves as The Christian Church (no association with the Restoration Movement churches, some having the same "name"). But some of the teachings I've read about don't ring true with my understanding of Scripture. Here are some links that I've read:
Some of the teachings (according to one website) are that Jesus was not God and He sinned unconsciously when He was on the earth. The site also claims the group teaches that Christ died for His own sins, as well as the sins of man. Current day leader, Sigurd Bratlie's teachings are accepted by Smith's Friends as infallible.
Several things concern me about this situation (NOTE: I'm speaking from information I've been told by the parents and close friends of the family). First, is how quickly the group was able to convince this girl to join them-- telling her, in essence, that the church she belonged to was not a true church and the things she had been taught by the church and her parents were not right. Second, they convinced the girl to move into their home, out of her dorm where she recently began attending college on a full scholarship. This girl is VERY intelligent-- she graduated at the top of her class; the scholarship was to a well known, private university. Yet, somehow...
The most disturbing thing to me is that the person that lulled her into this group is one that should be a trusted individual in our community. It appears that he has been "grooming" this girl for some time by giving her literature, etc. to help indoctrinate her. I spoke with another parent who said their son brought home some of the literature; that boy did not join the group.
The parents are devastated. Please pray for John and Joanie. Also pray that their daughter will have her eyes opened to this deception.
UPDATE 08-21-09 : Updated broken or dead links
1,940 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 1940 Newer› Newest»Harold said: “I will say that, for me, it became a cult when the people from this group went to the university, and surreptitiously, with forethought and malice, moved this girl into their home to separate her from her friends and family. This, followed by threats, lies, secrecy, and fear, is not a sign of a healthy spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. And she still can’t join her own family on a trip, not even on holidays to visit extended family. When a group, exerts that kind of undue influence over people, and aggressively comes between them, their friends, and families, something is terribly wrong.”
I would agree. Why did they need to move her into their home if not to indoctrinate with a new belief system and intentionally separate her from her own family and friends? And, I also agree that threats, lies, secrecy, and fear are all signs of an unhealthy spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ and are an indication that ‘something is terribly wrong’. Behaviors such as these aren’t exclusive to cultic groups, but all cults do display these characteristic behaviors. These along with several other behaviors, such as taking certain Bible verses out of context and placing undue emphasis on them in an attempt to validate and justify wrong beliefs and practices are all indicative of cultic groups.
Many religious cultic groups also put heavy emphatic teaching upon isolated verses such as Luke 14:26 in order to separate people from loved ones. Interestingly enough, although these types of groups don’t appear to be related, they all seem to pick out and emphasize the same verses.
Mark 7:6-13 says, “He replied, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.’ And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
It seemed strange that these two verses would contradict each other, so I looked up some definitions. Here’s what I found:
CURSE-1a: to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon
1b: EXECRATE
2a: to use profanely insolent language against: blaspheme
2b: to utter imprecations: SWEAR
3: to bring great evil upon: AFFLICT
Execrate-to put under a curse; 1: to declare to be evil or detestable: denounce 2: to detest utterly: abhor
Insolent-1: arrogant in speech or conduct 2: exhibiting boldness or effrontery.
Imprecate-to invoke evil upon: curse.
Afflict-1: to distress severely so as to cause continued suffering 2: trouble, injure synonyms: torment, torture: afflict is general and applies to the causing of pain, annoyance, or distress; torment suggests persecution or the repeated inflicting of suffering or annoyance; torture adds the implication of causing to writhe with unbearable pain.
Annoyance-1.to make hateful: 2.to disturb or irritate especially by disagreeable acts: synonyms: worry, harass: annoy implies disturbing one’s composure or peace of mind by intrusion, interference or petty attacks: worry suggests incessant attacks intending to drive one to desperation or defeat; harass implies petty persecutions or burdensome demands that exhaust one’s nervous or mental power.
Abhor-1: to feel extreme repugnance toward: loathe 2: to turn aside or shrink from in scorn or disgust: reject
The Bible is the Holy Word of God, therefore it doesn’t contradict itself. So, how could Mark 7:10 and Luke 14:26 both be valid?
One says, you must hate (intense aversion, detest, abhor, loathe) your family in order to be Jesus’ disciple and the other says if you curse (execrate; detest; abhor; turn aside from; reject; afflict; distress severely; injure; hurt; cause pain) your mother or father you must be put to death. It is clear that the scriptures need to be studied in context and correctly interpreted in order to correctly follow Jesus Christ and obey Him. SF seem to place heavy emphasis on Luke 14:26. But, do they place equally heavy emphasis on the passage in Mark 7:10 and others like Ephesians 6:1-2, Matt.19:19?
Hate-1a: intense hostility and aversion b: distaste coupled with sustained ill will c: a very strong dislike: antipathy (strong feeling against someone or something) 2: to feel extreme enmity toward 3a: to have a strong aversion to: synonyms: detest, abhor, loathe
Aversion-1: a feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it; 2: a settled dislike
This girl’s family must be horribly troubled with heartache, unbearable pain, sadness, and grief daily because it sounds as if she can’t even spend time and have a healthy relationship as she once did with her own family. When a young girl moves in with her high school teacher and then all of a sudden turns against his/her own family and friends, then can’t spend any meaningful time with her own biological family, it is definitely a sure sign that something is ‘terribly wrong’. Jesus didn’t teach us to reject, hurt or cause pain to loved ones, the very people that we’ve built relationships with over a lifetime.
Harold: It's pointless. Rssianspy or SF people do not accept the testimony of anyone outside of the group as a testimony of Christ. Hence his prevarications about Mother Teresa.
Here is something interesting for you:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~rhetoric/morphing_textbook/cults/overview.html
If they did a course like this they would know what "cult" means in terms of their verbal trickeries and behavioural practices.
You can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
Keith are you scared of alot of people on here? So much that you have to know where they live. Well since you have to know I am Rachel Fisher, and i am from Arizona.
I have been reading on the website for a while now and it seems weird to me. Have any of you visited the SF "church"? I am just wondering. I think i have heard of them from other people but just not sure how they are in terms of you?
Keith are you scared of alot of people on here? So much that you have to know where they live. Well since you have to know I am Rachel Fisher, and i am from Arizona.
I have been reading on the website for a while now and it seems weird to me. Have any of you visited the SF "church"? I am just wondering. I think i have heard of them from other people but just not sure how they are in terms of you?
Rachel:
Thanks for stopping by. I'm not sure what you are asking, i.e. "am you scared of a lot of people...?" I don't require that people divulge their real names, although some have voluntarily. There are some current SF members that post here and they wish to remain "anonymous" to avoid conflicts within their fellowships. I don't allow anonymous comments, i.e. you must be a registered Blogger user to post. Using your real name is not a requirement.
I have banned one person because they lied about about their association with SF--he claimed to simply be curious about the group and this blog. I later discovered he was a well known member of a fellowship. I have no doubt there are other SF members posting here. As long as they play nice, they are welcome.
1 Peter 4:1 KJV
For as much then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same MIND: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1 Peter 4:1 ASV
Forasmuch then as Christ suffered in the flesh, arm ye yourselves also with the same MIND; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1 Peter 4:1 ESV
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same WAY OF THINKING, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
1 Peter 4:1 NIV
Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same ATTITUDE, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
Russian: There are different translations of the original Greek. I don’t know if this is the place in scripture that you refer to but having the “same mind as Jesus”, or the “same way of thinking”, or the “same attitude”, I guess that it can be loosely thought of as being “one with God”. I do not believe that this means we can be the same as Jesus, or the same as God.
First among many brethren…
I do not believe that this verse, in any way, means that we can become equal to Jesus Christ in any form. We can have the same “way of thinking” as Jesus. We can study His words and imitate His attitude. But there are a WHOLE lot of other scriptures that proclaim the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. We were created; not begotten. There is a big difference.
I do not believe in modern day apostles. The scriptures are clear that Jesus granted special powers to only to the twelve apostles and maybe Paul. There is no indication in scripture that these powers were given to any others, or that they were passed on by the apostles. I believe these powers were for the specific purpose of validating the gospel from those twelve apostles, at that time in history, as being the word of God.
I too have heard of miraculous healings but Peter also talked a lot about false prophets.
“Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.” 2Peter 2:2
God didn’t do anything in secret…
Neither I, nor anyone else knows the mind of God. I’m glad that you agree with me on that one.
“Not everyone can receive the message Jesus brought to the earth”.
I disagree with this. Everyone CAN receive the message of Jesus Christ. That is the great commission, is it not? Not everyone will accept it, but the mission Jesus gave us is to give everyone that chance.
There are a lot of references in the Bible to the “mystery of the gospel”. I believe it is a mystery to those who don’t get it. The Bible also unlocks this mystery for anyone. Eph 3:6.
I agree that God intervenes with select people at certain times in order to carry out His will. I also believe that His overall will and purpose for us, his creation, is laid out pretty clear in scripture. It’s no secret.
“If you don't agree that this took work (a mighty work), why did jesus have to pray to the Father as written in Heb 5:7? (work doesn't = own strength)”
I do agree that what Jesus did for us was “a might work”. I also believe Peter when he wrote “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” 1 Peter 3:18
Jesus paid the price for us. He did the ‘work’ for us so we don’t have to.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” Eph 2:8-9
The “gift of God” being the work of Christ.
Sophie: You wrote about how the girl’s family “must be horribly troubled”. It is important to understand that it is not the behavior of the girl that causes so much heartache. It is evident that she believes lies about her parents and family. Her decisions have been based upon wrong information and it is difficult, if not impossible to make correct decisions if you won’t listen to ALL the information. I submit, for evidence, the deception that Russian wrote about on Aug 15, 2009. It is apparent that the girl believes (and Russian does too) that her property is being vandalized. I believe that her church is manipulating what the girl believes by convincing her that her parents and family are somehow responsible. You really can’t blame her. She believes what she has been told by someone she trusts. Her parents don’t get the opportunity to share their side of the story. That is how they control her, they control the information she gets.
Governments do the same thing to control their people if they can. That is why a free press in this country is essential to our basic freedoms. Once the government controls the information we get then they can control what we think.
The real crime here is the people who are perpetrating this manipulation. For example, the girl did not spend this past Mother’s Day with her own mother. She spends all holidays, including Mother’s Day with the “church”. In other words…her in-laws. They know where she is. They know that she is not with her own mother. They know the pain and heartache they purposefully impart on the girl’s family. When they do this in the name of Jesus Christ THEY, the SF, pervert the gospel. And I believe they know exactly what they are doing and the pain they cause. That is just mean. No, more than mean, it is evil.
John: I know that you think it is pointless to debate with Russian, but unlike Russian, I do believe that everyone CAN receive the message Jesus brought to the earth. Even those who have been deceived, as long as they are still breathing, have that chance.
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” 2 Tim 4:2
Hi again,
Testing to see if this post appears as I cannot seem to access the blog save through a feed reader.
funnyman
Hi Harold
First among many brethren…
I agree that we cannot become equal to Jesus, that is made clear in Rev. 17:14, Heb 4:15 and 8:1. He made a new and living way for us to follow. You don't put much stock in, and have ignored, what Jesus accomplished on earth (other than to teach and die on the cross). He came to condemn sin in the flesh. That same action, condemning sin in the flesh, is the 'way' (Heb 10:20) that Christians are supposed to go. Jesus describes this way in the Gospels. The cross on Golgotha was the final step and final hurdle for Jesus to take the sins of mankind on Himself. There was also another cross (figurative), one that daily condemned sin in His body, that He 'took up'. Christians are exhorted to do this in the Gospels (Luke 9:23). We cannot BE Jesus, but we can be LIKE Jesus by doing the same things He did. We do this by by going the same path He went, by continuing the condemnation/mortification of sin in our own bodies (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5, Gal 5:24).
You wrote, "He did the ‘work’ for us so we don’t have to..." I have a strong reaction to those words, but it may be that I misunderstand your meaning. You quoted Ephesians 2:8, but I don't think this absolves Christians of doing 'work'. Could you explain what Christian's must do to be true Christians if they don't have to do 'work'?
Regarding modern day apostles...
Eph 4:11 says that there are modern day apostles, because the edification of the body of Christ continues until today. I couldn't find where the scriptures were clear that only the 12 apostles and maybe Paul were granted special powers.
What do miraculous healings and false prophets have in common? Are you speaking of Benny Hinn's type of 'christianity'? I agree that Hinn brings the 'way of truth' into disrepute, but if there are miraculous powers given to men today (and i believe this) then we shouldn't unilaterally lump them all together.
(continued)
Harold,
We exchanged this,
--“Not everyone can receive the message Jesus brought to the earth”.
I disagree with this. Everyone CAN receive the message of Jesus Christ. That is the great commission, is it not? Not everyone will accept it, but the mission Jesus gave us is to give everyone that chance.--
The great commission, lets take Matthew 28, says, "Go and make DISCIPLES of all nations ... teaching them to OBEY everything I have commanded..." It seems to me that modern evangelism wants to get 'heathens' to accept Jesus as their savior (which is the easy part because Jesus has done all the 'work') but not show them the way described above (take up their cross daily etc., which is the work Christians must do). Disciple and obedience aren't words often heard in conjunction with receiving Jesus as a personal Lord and Savior. We may disagree on this, but I'll share this too,
1 Cor 3:1-2: ...Could not speak to you as spiritual people but as to carnal, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.
These were the GREAT Corinthians (see 1 Cor 1:4-9) to which Paul wrote. I think that Christians that want to 'rest in the finished work on Calvary' (Jesus has done the work) are immature Christians and a bit like the 'babes in Christ.' I am not trying to say anything about myself, in that I'm 'better' than anyone, but I have been given the opportunity to believe in 'taking up my own cross' and strive to live it.
Aug 15, 2009
You 'submit, for evidence, the deception...' what are you talking about? Harold, you are misrepresenting what was said. I shared an uncorroborated story about the young lady's car as a rebuttal to a previous story about 'hiding her car in the garage.' Nothing about vandalism. You just presented, as a 'fact', that I lied. How can you take such liberty with what has been written?
I don't know whether John finds our interchanges pointless, but I do enjoy reading both John's and your (Harold) points of view (whether I agree with them or not).
Lastly, Harold, you pointed out an error I made. I wrote that I didn't believe that, 'everyone can receive the message Jesus brought to earth.' I know that God wants all men to be be saved, and that His Word will go to the 4 corners of the world, giving everyone the opportunity. What I meant to say is more in line with the parable of the sower. Of the ones that do receive the Word, many will not bear Godly fruit.
“It seems to me that modern evangelism wants to get 'heathens' to accept Jesus as their savior (which is the easy part because Jesus has done all the 'work') but not show them the way described above (take up their cross daily etc., which is the work Christians must do). Disciple and obedience aren't words often heard in conjunction with receiving Jesus as a personal Lord and Savior.”
“You quoted Ephesians 2:8, but I don't think this absolves Christians of doing 'work'. Could you explain what Christian's must do to be true Christians if they don't have to do 'work'?”
John 6:28-29, “Then they asked Him, “What must we do to do the WORKS God requires?” Jesus answered, “The WORK of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent.”
Ephesians 2:8, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works so that no one can boast.”
What do you believe the ‘taking up of the cross daily’ involves?
“There was also another cross (figurative), one that daily condemned sin in His body, that He 'took up'.
Can you use scripture to elaborate and explain what you mean by this statement?
We shouldn’t unilaterally lump together what all modern evangelism teaches and believes based only on what you’ve heard any more than we should lump together men with miraculous powers. Can you really say that you have first-hand knowledge that modern evangelism doesn’t teach Christians to ‘take up their cross daily’ by making a conscientious effort daily to be obedient to Jesus Christ and do what He would such as love others the way He loves us-unconditionally, tell the truth, and follow other Christian principles and truths that are in the Bible or is it just what you’ve heard about modern evangelism from someone else?
Perhaps the words ‘disciple and obedience’ aren’t words often heard in conjunction with ‘receiving Jesus as a personal Lord and Savior’ because those words don’t really have anything to do with the ‘receiving Jesus’ part of becoming a Christian.
Receive: accept, to get something that is given, paid, or sent. To permit one to enter one’s household or company – welcome.
Receive normally implies passiveness but usually suggests physical contact or presence. Accept usually implies some element of consent or approval but a minimum of physical activity.
To ‘receive Jesus’ means that one accepts that He was ‘sent’ as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, He ‘paid’ the price for our sins, and that He was ‘given’ as a ransom for sinners.
Jesus says in Matt.10:40, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives the One who sent Me.”
1 Jn 4:10, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
Matt. 20:28, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Romans 3:22, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood.”
This is referred to as ‘justification’. We are ‘justified’ in God’s eyes just because of what Jesus did for us.
Justification: to release from the guilt of sin and accept as righteous.
Those who accept this free gift from God and consider themselves to be Christian should have a desire to be and should be obedient to God. Jesus even says in John 14:15, “If you love Me, you will obey Me.” But, SANCTIFICATION is a progression, a process, a growth, a development. When the Holy Spirit indwells and begins convicting us and we begin learning what the scriptures (God’s Word) teaches, if we really love Him, we will have a desire to have a deeper personal relationship with Jesus. If we hang out with Christ through prayer and studying God’s Word, it stands to reason that if we truly have the Holy Spirit living in us and we obey Him, we’ll become more like Him. As you’ve mentioned the parable of the sower, some seed may fall on believers that don’t grow into healthy, mature Christians. But, just because someone doesn’t mature in his/her faith, doesn’t mean that modern evangelism doesn’t’ teach how to be obedient to Christ or take up one’s cross daily, so to speak.
Sanctification is the act of becoming set apart as sacred: consecrate-to set apart to the service of God, to devote to a purpose with deep dedication. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the ‘receiving’ Jesus part of Christianity, but more the growth part. Jesus teaches us about loving others, showing respect and honoring others, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, kindness, graciousness, gentleness, honesty, meekness, patience, peacefulness. It seems to me if we become deeply devoted and dedicated to Christ, we would want to be pleasing in His sight and that others would be able to see our deep devotion or dedication to God by our actions: “You will know them by their fruit.”
In John 13:34-35 Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
John 14:21, “Whoever has My commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves Me. He who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and show Myself to him.”
And in John 15:17, “This is my command: Love each other.”
“I think that Christians that want to 'rest in the finished work on Calvary' (Jesus has done the work) are immature Christians and a bit like the 'babes in Christ.'”
There are many immature Christians; there may be many reasons why some Christians don’t get any deeper or perhaps they are a brand new Christian. These Christians are still Christians whether they are ‘immature babes in Christ’ or not, just as our children are our children whether they obey us all the time or not; they are still our child, just as we are God’s children even when we don’t obey Him. Only God is the Judge and sees each man’s heart. He knows who is really sincere in his/her belief and who isn’t. According to God’s Word, all it takes to become a Christian is belief in Jesus (Eph.2, Jn 6) In God’s eyes, the believer in Christ is justified (God sees each of us just as if we’d never sinned because of our belief in His Son, Jesus Christ). However, Paul is urging Christians to not stay ‘immature babes in Christ’ but to feel regret and sorrow for sinful ways (repent) and become a ‘disciple’ of Christ by being ‘obedient’ to Him.
In Matt:4:17 Jesus says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Mark 1:15, “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Luke 13:2-3, Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 17:30-31, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world.”
2 Corinthians 7:10: Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”
“We cannot BE Jesus, but we can be LIKE Jesus by doing the same things He did.”
I agree. We can do SOME of the same things He did, like show love toward all others, be patient, kind, gentle, generous, forgiving, truthful, share the word of God with others (not just those within our own congregations) by our actions, words, lifestyle, and behaviors.
So the question is: How is moving this girl from her dormitory into this teacher’s house, separating her from her own family and having her live in his home and spend all her time with his family even on holidays instead of being with her own family being Christ-like? How is that demonstrating love, honor, respect, kindness (which is what Jesus says to do) to her family and friends?
I am curious
Is It possible that the reason that
God instructred us to respect our
earthly fathers is because he knows
that if we treat them badly, we
are more apt to treat him badly.
Just curious
Another curiosity: What does SF
believe to be the Sabbath rest and
how it applies to us in our daily
lives. I mean I wana hear it, where the rubber meats the road
Personally I believe that we as
human beings like to run off into
ditches, in this case, either Mr
Calvins ditch or the Armenians ditch. Neither is much help, but
if we make enough rules then we
dont have to take the responsibil-
ity for our own spirituality, we
have a rule and we just go by it.
So then its the rules that r wack?
Sophie: You made some good points. Thanks.
Russian: I agree with what Sophie wrote but I do want to add some things.
You say “He made a new and living way for us to follow”. I assume that is a paraphrase of Heb 10:20 but that is not what it says. The NIV says “a new and living way OPENEND FOR US through the curtain”. The New American Standard uses the word “inaugurated for us” instead of opened.
Inaugurated means, to install somebody in office, or open or mark the beginning of something. Both connotations imply that Jesus did something for us.
I’m not arguing that we, as Christians, are not expected to live a holy life. We should follow the examples of Jesus and rid our lives of ALL sin. Not just sin “in the body”. We should have a sincere heart that demonstrates love and kindness to all. By doing that, your deeds (or your works) will glorify God.
Sophie brought up the concepts of salvation and sanctification which is a subject found in many Christian books, but it is clear to me that your works don’t get you into heaven. When Jesus said, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." He didn’t say you have to do everything He did; He said you simply have to believe. I agree there is a place and a reason for your works but that is not what has saved you.
I believe the scriptures are clear about granting special powers to only those apostles because I can’t find any examples of Jesus doing this with anyone else. Can you find an example otherwise?
What do miraculous healings and false prophets have in common? Jesus and other true prophets of God confirmed their status by miracles and healings. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” Heb 2:3,4
Jesus also warned us about false prophets who will perform signs and miracles. “For false christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible”. Matt 24:24. There are spirits at work in this world but not all of them are holy.
I am not saying that we should lump all miracles that may happen today as false. In fact, I know someone personally who claims that they were healed of a birth defect by God through a group prayer as a young child. I wasn’t there but I won’t deny that possibility.
I am saying that we should be careful and test the spirits. That is scriptural. If you claim that J.O. Smith healed someone, you can believe that if you want to, but don’t chastise me for being cautiously skeptical. Jim Jones performed healings as well, but there is also proof that they were faked.
Even if God worked a miracle through J.O. Smith or Benny Hinn, that doesn’t make them an apostle either. God can use any of us if He chooses to.
I find it interesting that you don’t want to “unilaterally lump” all the miraculous healings together as false yet you are quite willing to lump all Christians outside of SF together in their beliefs.
I also never said you lied. I did say the story you wrote about was not true and it was apparent that you believed it or you wouldn’t have repeated it would you? You yourself say that the story is “uncorroborated”. Just repeating the story doesn’t make you the liar. I also believe that “stealing one’s car” and hiding it from them is vandalism and there are other false accusations concerning the girl’s family, not written here, that involve more malicious vandalism of her property. The story you repeated adds more evidence to the lies she has been deceived with.
“Of the ones that do receive the Word, many will not bear Godly fruit.” I’ll say an AMEN to that.
Jarsmom: I agree with you. There are points about Calvinism that are good, and there are points to Arminianism that are good too. I think it is healthy to study and debate all the different viewpoints of theology, but at the end of the day I put more emphasis on what Jesus said in scripture rather than what Calvin, Arminius, or J.O. Smith said.
Isn’t this also the same reason that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees of that day? They were so focused on their man made laws and regulations that they completely lost sight of what God wanted. God was more interested in their hearts than the laws. If they got their hearts right, obeying His laws would follow naturally.
Don’t we face the same problems today? People don’t have their hearts right so we end up making so many man made laws trying to legislate morality. God is still more interested in our hearts. And what shows up in our actions come from the heart. “For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” Luke 6:45
So when this SF church picks this girl up from a college dorm and moves her into their home behind the backs of her parents, when they lie about her family, and then assault her family at her wedding, what does this say about their heart? How can we ignore this and not rebuke the SF church when they continue to defend those actions?
They can have all the right theology that they want. They can say all the right words, but it’s their actions that define what’s in their heart, and God is more interested in their hearts.
Jarsmom: You’ve brought up some good points about several things.
The rules may be ‘wack’ but rules are made by men who are all fallible. That’s why it’s essential to ‘keep our eyes fixed on Jesus Christ’ as Hebrews 12:2 says. If we claim to be ‘Christian’, we’re claiming to follow Christ Jesus, not Calvin, not Armaneious, nor any other ‘man’. We need stick to what the scriptures (in context, historical settings, time relevant and cultural practices) instruct us to do. Learning from others and having healthy discussions/reading books/studying God’s Word with other Christians is of value as stated in Hebrews 10:25, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” But when we put more value in what any person says or writes (whether they appear to be able to perform special miracles or not), then we can ‘run off into ditches’ rather than worship God. In the end, we have only One to answer to and that is the One True Living God. He isn’t going to ask us what Calvin or Arminius, or Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, J. O. Smith, Joseph Smith or anyone believes or thinks or what group or earthly ‘church’ congregation we belong to. He is judging each of us based upon Whom we believe in and place our faith, hope, and trust in.
As we can see from reading the scriptures, God has interacted with mankind since the beginning as we play a vital role in His plan. He used people like Noah, Moses, Miriam, Jonah, Esther, Job, David, John the Baptist, the twelve disciples, Paul, Steven, just to name a few. But, even of these mentioned in scripture, none were infallible. Jesus uses imperfect people who are willing to humble themselves and admit that they are fallible and in need of a Savior to do His will. None died to take our sins upon themselves except Jesus.
Russian: Most likely every congregation of believers has those who are considered ‘immature Christians’. Some are immature because they are brand new converts to Christ, therefore have not grown and some because they never partook of any ‘solid food’. Some may ‘join’ a congregation never really intending to become a Christian. There are those in ‘churches’ who are there just for the social aspect of belonging to a group of people. Sometimes people believe that by ‘belonging’ to a ‘church’ you look more like an upstanding person in the community at large. When people in ‘churches’ do ungodly things, hurt other people, lie, threaten with physical violence or lawsuits should we continue to defend their actions?
You said, “You quoted Ephesians 2:8, but I don't think this absolves Christians of doing 'work'. Could you explain what Christian's must do to be true Christians if they don't have to do 'work'?”
If one must work to be a ‘true Christian’, what is the ‘work’ we must do? How much work does it take to be a ‘true Christian’? And how do we know when we have done enough work?
It's been a while since I posted. Frankly, the posts have left me cold for a while now. Sorry, no offense to anyone. It got me to thinking, though.
I became a born-again, Spirit-filled Christian in the spring of 1972. I went along my life through different Christian circles and ended up in SF. I tried to reconnect to Christianity after SF. 15 years later I decided to dissociate from Christianity. One of the main reasons boils down to one word: belief.
For some reason, Christians think that beliefs are the Alpha and the Omega, the most important issue that there is. I'm sorry. The most important issue would be God. Rightly understood, everything does come down to our beliefs, because the springs of life flow from the heart, but Christians don't have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth. It's all in a book, now. People with a vibrant interest in life and living, regardless of their beliefs about God, feel their stomachs turn when they encounter the doctrinal discussions that Christians so love to engage in. It's not just the dry technicality about a doctrinal discussion. Academics are dry and technical, too. It's the conflicting mixture of dryness and technicality with things that should be anything but--life, love, and God--that evokes the non-Christian gag reflex. That's not to mention the small fact that Christians damn people to hell (or burn them at the stake, which is worse?) as a result of those discussions.
My mother passed in 1997 from cancer. She was a great, wonderful woman. She did not believe in the Trinity, immaculate conception, or Jesus' resurrection. She lived a life of care for others and fidelity to truth that puts most Christians I've ever met to shame, including me. She loved. She exemplified the life of Christ every day since I can remember. I told one of my brothers once that we'll see her in heaven. He couldn't bring himself to believe that at the time because her beliefs were wrong.
Christians use beliefs as a categorizing mechanism, a screening filter. If you believe in the Trinity, Jesus as the Son of God, His crucifixion and resurrection, etc., you pass. You are validated. If you don't profess the correct beliefs, even if you live a godly life in every way, you are going to hell. This categorization happens before and largely in the absence of any information about how a person lives, what he or she otherwise thinks, whether he or she loves or lies or hates or stands by the truth. It even happens in spite of undeniable information that a person's thinking and behavior are godly and, ironically, especially if their thinking and behavior are ungodly. Christians bend over backwards to make allowances for people who commit the most abhorrent acts, if only the perpetrators profess the correct beliefs (and that they "fell into sin") or at least profess willingness to adopt those beliefs and reject their atrocious behavior. Christians put up with repetitions of those atrocities under the "70 times 7" rule, as long as the perpetrators again profess the correct beliefs and willingness to change. Christians bend over the furthest (not sure that it's backwards though) if the perpetrator has a position of authority in their church. That's a certain kind of “faith” I guess.
to be continued, of course...
Christians use belief in a way that disconnects doctrine from life. This is what James calls dead faith.
There is a reason to elevate "belief" to such an all-determining level of importance. If you have nothing better, e.g., a life, you make a big deal out of what you do have: belief. If someone could walk on water, wouldn't that be more important than whether he or she professed the doctrine of the Trinity? There was no doctrine of the Trinity until Church leaders devised it to use against other Church leaders that they considered to be heretics centuries after the NT was written.
What would Trinitarians conclude if someone came walking on water and denied the doctrine of the Trinity? They would conclude, without looking for any additional information, that his power to walk on water ultimately came from the devil or some other source opposed to God. This is what I call belief bigotry. I'm not saying walking on water proves anything, except that the water-walker can do a remarkable feat. That's not the point. The point is that a Trinitarian would already “know” what the feat proves merely by knowing the water-walker's position on the Trinity. Many Trinitarians would actually resist the idea that they should consider something more than the water-walker's beliefs before they consigned him to hell.
No matter what a person does, belief bigots will find something wrong with it unless that person subscribes to their way of looking at things. So where did their way of looking at things originate? Is there any basis in reality for their beliefs?
Getting control over the basis for belief was why it was so important for the 4th Century Church to canonize the Bible. Canonizing the Bible was what we in information technology used to call "putting a stake in the ground." By canonizing the Bible, the ultimate authority for determining correct belief or true doctrine was replaced by a book, the new standard by which to judge such things. By the way, that put the power over any process that determined doctrine squarely in the hands of those responsible for putting the standard in place.
What was the original standard? It wasn't the Apostles' writings and it wasn't even Jesus' words. Paul said it doesn't consist in words but in power. The writer of Hebrews called it the power of an indestructible life. Peter called it divine nature. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The words and the writings described the standard. All of the writers were talking about reality, about real stuff they experienced in real life and real power to do the right thing about it. They had no book. The early Christians had the Apostles' writings and other writings that were not included in the Bible, but they had no book.
Canonizing the Bible made included writings more important than any other writings. It was such an effective move that most Christians are unaware of the other writings that were available at the time and which ones are available today. Many who are aware of those writings actually refuse to read them because of the “heresies” that they promote. How do they know that they promote heresies? Church leaders in the 3rd and 4th Centuries said so. I'll bet that more than 99% of the Christians who argue against an “-ism” have never read a single line of the writings of the supposed heretics or doctrinal prodigals they disagree with. Any takers?
For a long time now, the standard for Christians has been a book. People who have no clue about the realities written about in the Bible must satisfy themselves with arguing about what the book means. For them it's a Paper Pope.
People who are living the realities that are written about in the Bible have no need to argue about what the book means, because they are experiencing how the book works. That's not dead faith.
to be continued...
Sorry, I see a lot of discussion about what the book means on this blog. I see lots of questions about how SF can do what they do when the book says x, y, or z. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but I don't see how it will make any difference one way or the other. I see little in the posts based on experience with SF and little based on experience with what the book promises, but lots of speculation and back-and-forth about what the book means. The best that can come from doctrinal discussions is that people go away thinking that they proved their beliefs to be right. I'm not interested in that. I think it's hypocritical for Christians to be interested in that when it becomes more important than real life. Proving right or wrong changes nothing. This blog started out with real concern for a specific situation. How have we improved that situation or anything else?
I have an attitude about the doctrine/Bible thing because I'm fed up. I'm not fed up with discussions per se, not even doctrinal discussions or arguments about Scripture. They can be very helpful, interesting, and challenging. I'm fed up with the denial of life and reality which most of them represent, a deliberate, institutionalized, rationalized closing of eyes to what Jesus explicitly said we must pay attention to: real life experience. It's part of the same denial that has allowed the corrupt organizations that evolved out of the work of Jesus and the Apostles, collectively known as the Church, to talk sweet talk for almost 2,000 years while they perpetrated some of the most horrendous atrocities known to man. And it's not like all that changed yesterday. It doesn't matter whether it's Smith's Friends or the Catholic Church or the Mormons or the 20,000 to 30,000 Protestant denominations. It would be unbelievable even if it was only 2,000 to 3,000 denominations! See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm.
The proverbial trees stink. Their fruits are that bad. It all must be an awful stench in God's nostrils.
Jesus had an striking way of looking the situation in his day.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers." Matt 23:29-31
The only way for the scribes and Pharisees to avoid that condemnation would have been to dissociate from those who killed the prophets, to deny any connection to them, to deny that they were their fathers. Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees because they identified the prophet-killers as their fathers, even though they decried what their fathers did. Christians today adorn the monuments of the prophet-killers that were built with the sweat and blood of the masses who they conscripted to fight their wars and enslaved to build their cathedrals and fund their empires.
If Christians wanted to be like Jesus, they would do what He did: damn the atrocities that have been done along with those who did them. Instead, they call it “Church History.”
That's all this time, folks.
Actually, this blog is interesting. Here we can see those who have been affected by SF in many ways and the consequences of entering into this cult and its belief system which is a prison like no other. Because of the things this cult makes you experience/suffer:
1. You can end up being entire anti-Christianity, anti-Christian religion.
2. You can end up in deep psychological depression and even pushed into schizoid phases.
3. You can end up retreating into mainstream denominational Christianity but always be left unhapppy because it seems so "insipid" after experiencing all those "special revelations" and "real fellowship" in SF.
4. You can end up retreating into some other group that claims to have the "full Gospel".
5. You can end up a very lonely person who feels that God and Jesus are illusions.
6. You can end up with a broken family with SF seducing wife or husband into its closed closet and encouraging the seduced wife or husband to abandon the "harlots" in the family.
7. You can end up being in SF and getting ripped off of all your money and never even realise what is happening as the business empire is constructed.
8. You can end up being in SF and finding that you cannot be "sinless" like its leaders profess and end up in a total mind-mess but have no courage to leave SF.
8. You can end up leaving SF having lost lots of money and your faith.
9. You can end up leaving SF feeling you are the greatest failure on earth and never realise that their teachings set you up for the fall.
10. You can lose your children to the SF and experience them treat you like the scum of the earth.
11. You can end up imagining that you are better than everyone else on this planet and keep away from the harlots and the sinners like the Pharisees and enjoy condemning them.
12. You can end up permanently brainwashed so that even if/when you leave the SF, the "holy" ghost of the SF will continue to haunt you. Not many know how to exorcise themselves of this ghost.
John,
You have much to say about how powerfully destructive SF is, or "can" be. A few questions:
Specifically which of those 12 things have you experienced or witnessed?
What did you do about what you experienced or witnessed?
If you did anything, what was the result?
Thanks.
Millard:
Read carefully. I was pointing out that all these "effects" or "consequences" are clearly noted across this blog for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
John,
I did read carefully:
"Here we can see those who have been affected by SF in many ways and the consequences of entering into this cult and its belief system which is a prison like no other. Because of the things this cult makes you experience/suffer:"
followed by your "12 Things That You Can Suffer in Smith's Friends" (my title for your list.)
In what you actually wrote (in contrast to what you might have intended to write) you were ambiguous. Your choice of words sounds knowledgable. People who put knowledgable lists together actually have knowledge that is represented in their lists. Their lists are only as valuable as the knowledge that lies behind the lists.
How informative, convincing, and otherwise valuable would people consider your list to be if you made it clear that you have no first-hand experience with any of the 12 items that you listed, and that all 12 items are second-hand information that you gleaned from a web blog? Unless, of course, you have first-hand, personal knowledge about some of them.
Given the way you responded, I'd have to take it that you have no experience with any of the 12 items, that you have done nothing about any of them, with the result that nothing has changed.
Otherwise, if you have specific and substantive information about some of those items, why not share it with us?
Millard:
I do understand you carry deep scars from your SF encounter.
The materials here are adequate to show the theological, psychological, physical and spiritual damage the SF does to those who do not toe its line and question its fundamentalist and skewed tenets that are man-mane "revelations" and aimed at promoting the worship of god-men and prophets as in Hinduism.
The information and experiences about those damaged by SF that I have are confidential by their request.
They are part of a project that is tracking the moves of this group in India and is aimed at informing Indian Christian groups about the danger of getting involved with SF.
In India SF numbers are not more than 250 spread across several centres - the headquarters being Alwaye. The other places are Mumbai, Coimbatore, Valparai, Bangalore, Trivandrum, Pune and there are some connections to northeast India too. They live in hiding and never reveal themselves to be SF to other Christians till they feel someone is in their "net". The one who falls in is then slowly indoctrinated in the "ways" of SF till he is a fully brainwashed "son of God".
At present a multi-million dollar project to create an Asia conference centre for "missionary" work in India is going on close to Alwaye and the international airport in Cochin.
The information on hand and on this blog is important because it is primarily meant to protect and save Indian and other simple and perhaps naive but believing Christians from the activities of this sect/cult.
If impressionable young people who are under pressure from today's world are not sucked into this group, the objective of the information at hand is achieved.
All the digging around into who, what etc is secondary. For instance, there is a compilation of all the key leaders in India, their addresses, their backgrounds etc. It is also understood that the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation is aware of the secret "religious missionary" work of this group conducted by "foreigners" (Norwegians and other Europeans) in India. Likewise, an entire list of their top international leadership has also been compiled, names of those they will never put up on their public websites.
The objective is not to damage the poor souls inside SF, but to go by the principle that "prevention is better than cure". There is no real cure for those who suffer inside SF or have been excommunicated like you, Millard. The suffering is long-term, the damage is deep.
But there is also a powerful prayer network now binding in the name of the Lord and God and Saviour Jesus, the work of this group in India and praying for the souls trapped in this deception and for those who have been damaged by the deception.
I would encourage you to set up a prayer network towards this end wherever you are.
"Watch and pray" for you know not when the SF "thief" comes for your children as Owasso testifies.
Hey all
I see Millards point, What I hear
him say is this: Correct doctrine
must go hand in hand with correct
behavior and thinking. Doctrine and
behavior can be outwardly perfect,
but one can be full or spite and
bitterness. I donot blame people
for saying christians are too full
of hypocrasy.. mostly we are. On
the other hand, there is not a
human alive that acts 100% accord-
ing to what he says he believes.
We do spend do much time bantering
about doctrine. Should women teach
Are there still apostles, are there
still miracles, are tongues still
for today, should christians drink
or play cards. You can go on and
on. Who cares about any that I mean
really. Read Isiah 58 what do we
think God worries about. Lets see
starving disease ridden cultures
or us, worrying about what's ap-
propriate attire for women or if
speaking in tongues is for real
or not. God forgive us all.
John,
I read carefully and thought carefully about how to respond.
Thanks for giving us some info about what is going on SF-related in India. It was interesting and was the kind of thing I was asking you about. Your information gave me a better sense of the background for your comments, besides being informative about SF-related activities in India.
Your comments also reinforced my impression that your experience with SF is indirect. That would not be a problem except that, again, it's clear that you make claims that go far beyond any reasonable basis for them. I have no problem with opinions based on second-hand information. You present yours as something much more than that.
About a couple of your comments...
Your statement about the “deep scars” I am “carrying” seems presumptive and disingenuous. You clearly understand nothing about me. And how could you? I must assume that you have assessed my psychological/spiritual condition (or whatever kind of "scars" you think I have) from what I have posted on this blog. I also can't escape the implication that the things I wrote are symptomatic of my “scars.” If that is your way of dismissing what I wrote, that's up to you. Summarily dismissing my points as symptoms of my damaged state would explain why you still haven't addressed any of those points.
Then comes your statement that, “There is no real cure for those who suffer inside SF or have been excommunicated like you, Millard. The suffering is long-term, the damage is deep.” Haha, thus says the most esteemed Dr. John, the one who has diagnosed these things... how? Your arrogance in making such a claim on the basis of so little can't be ignored.
You are wrong again, John. As you've seen, I like to challenge people to demonstrate the basis for their statements, but I won't challenge you on that one. You have already demonstrated that you have no basis for it.
As a matter of fact, I know many people who have left SF in this neck of the woods. You would be hard-pressed to show how their SF experiences have “damaged” them any more or less than other life experiences have damaged you or anyone else. All of us deal with past issues of all kinds, SF-related or not, with varying degrees of success. How is it that you presume to judge damage, scars, cures, or anything else about other human beings, John, even if you actually did have personal knowledge about them, knowledge which you clearly do not have? I shudder to think of the superiority that allows you to presume to judge the psych/spiritual states of others. You are thousands of miles away from us here and from the truth.
Finally, let me say that you are also dead wrong in your characterization of SF. To read what you write about the terrible effects of their power over people, I would think that they already have plans in place to pass out the Kool-Aid! I've met with most of the top leaders in SF over the years, some many times. I know that much, at least. I have no doubt that they are too busy building an empire (and enjoying the fruits of Kaare Smith's “revelation” that they need lots of money to do the Lord's work) for SF to become another Jonestown or Heaven's Gate or Solar Temple.
SF leaders might be wolves, they just aren't really big ones. SF might be destructive, but they aren't killing anyone that I know of. No dungeons, no burning stakes for heretics, no gallows for witches, no Kool-Aid. Don't be so scared of them.
I apologise Mr Millard for getting your goat which can easily be got at I can see now.
SF is mental Kool-aid. If they were all dead, there'd be no problem but so long as the virus thrives, prevention is better than cure.
There is spiritual work to be done in this area and I don't want to waste my time in these discussions anymore.
Matthew 24:4 - Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you."
Mark 13:5
Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
Matthew 24:43
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the (SF) thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
Mark 13:37
What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'
Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.
John,
No, you didn't get my goat. You tripped my BS gag reflex. There's a difference. I'm sorry that you are leaving without actually responding to me in a direct, substantive way. You are always welcome to.
John, I agree with your assessment of the situation at hand. It has been made very clear by the many different writers on this blog and I’ve also witnessed these behaviors first hand as well. Actually your twelve point list could be applied to any group that is considered to be a cult. Whether the leaders physically serve Kool-aid or physically kill someone or not, the members of such groups are still emotionally, socially, and sometimes mentally damaged and scarred by the constant physical and emotional manipulations and demands. Groups such as these keep their members so filled with lies and occupied with work, church activities, and other activities with only those inside the group that they have little time for any meaningful contact with his/her own family and former friends.
I also agree with some of the things Millard stated, however, the intent of this blog was not to criticize Christianity. It began by a question about a specific group who claims to be Christian and a specific incident that has destroyed a family. (It is apparent that this isn’t the only family that has been damaged by this group.) If there is a particular incident(s) with specifics that you (Millard) would like to discuss involving someone who claims to be a Christian, that’s one thing, but can you really lump all Christians together and criticize as if every one of those individuals think, believe, act, and live in the same way? There are those who claim to be a Christian that I don’t agree with either. Is it wise to make judgments about ‘the whole’ by the actions of ‘some’ that aren’t even related by any factor other than one calling oneself ‘Christian’? For example, I don’t agree with Joyce Meyers’ teachings nor want to be associated with what she teaches or believes. She calls herself a Christian; so do I. But, I do not attend the same ‘church’ that she does, or defend her when her beliefs and actions do not line up with Scripture. There are even those within my own congregation with whom I disagree on certain behaviors and issues. But, I don’t defend their actions when they do something that doesn’t line up with Scripture either. But, that is not the focus of this blog.
The teachings and beliefs of SF came into question because of the actions of a high school teacher who moved a female student into his home. That action alone raises red flags. Since the beginning of her association with this man and this SF group, she has been physically and emotionally separated from her own family and life-long friends by lies and deceit which is one way to ‘manipulate information flow’. So far, there has been no logical and/or truthful explanation or dialogue for this separation. This girl has ‘changed churches’ so to speak. So what? Is that a logical, good reason to sever emotional, psychological, physical ties with one’s family and friends? It is not completely unusual for one to begin attending a different church other than the one they grew up in with their own family, but the family doesn’t get threatened, lied to and lied about, assaulted, cursed by those in the ‘new church’ and physically and emotionally abandoned by their loved one. The person who attends this ‘new church’ (if it’s a healthy church), doesn’t change personalities suddenly becoming fearful and hateful of their family and friends, and emotionally disengage from them, never to spend holidays or other family events with their own family and friends and move in with the new ‘church’. That is unusual behavior and what brought the attention upon this SF group in the first place.
It seems presumptuous of Millard to tell John he has no personal knowledge of individuals in SF. Unless he knows who John is, he has no idea who and/or what John knows and doesn’t know. John has obviously proven to have some personal knowledge of SF because he’s posted quite a great deal of information on here.
Well, this is interesting. I was about to respond to Sophie. I looked for my original 3-part post which is referred to by every subsequent post on this board made since jarsmom's post on June 7. Lo and behold, it has disappeared! The last post on page 7 of the comments is #1400 by Sophie on May 28. The first one on page 8 is #1401 by jarsmom on June 7.
So, Keith, any idea where over a week's worth of blog posts disappeared to?
Sophie,
I agree that the intent of Keith's original blog post was not to criticize Christianity. Nor was it to criticize SF, although plenty of that has been done here without anyone objecting to its appropriateness for the blog.
The original August 29, 2006 post by Keith intended to try to understand an event that happened about 4 years ago with a view to helping that situation: 1) Understand the situation and 2) Do some good to help the situation.
After reading Keith's post again, I think that my post (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared) was square on in line with what his intents were. In my post I pointed out how lately the posts here have strayed from understanding the situation and doing some good to help the situation. I saw the doctrinal discussions that were occurring here, and looked at it from the perspective of a SF member. Such discussions just confirm to them the rightness and specialness of their peculiar slants on Scripture, as well as confirm to them how utterly in darkness non-SF religious people are. Those discussions do not further understanding of the situation that Keith posted about and will change nothing about that situation. SF members love doctrinal discussions, too, but not because they are looking to understand or help.
I see the doctrinal discussions that have been going on here and those I've witnessed (and participated in) for almost 40 years now as symptoms of a deeper problem that is pervasive throughout Christianity. So, I spent a good deal of space describing the disease that I think the doctrinal discussions here are but a symptom of. How is trying to get at the root causes of what I witness occurring ON this blog inappropriate FOR this blog?
You spent a good part of your second paragraph characterizing my comments as a kind of inappropriate one-size-fits-all criticism. Your comments serve as a one-size-fits-all criticism of the several points that I made. Specifically which of the beliefs that I discussed should not be applied to Christians in general? Believing in the canon of the Bible? Believing that the Bible as canonized is the Word of God? The fact that many writings extant at the time the Bible was canonized have been ignored by the church and by Christians for thousands of years since? Please be specific and show how I derived any of my conclusions from generalizations that I inappropriately characterized as Christian or where I inappropriately applied those conclusions to Christians/Christianity in general.
I was intrigued that you thought that I was "presumptuous" to "tell John he has no personal knowledge of individuals in SF." I'd ask you to please read my responses to John again, but again, they have mysteriously disappeared. Maybe you have them in your email. You would see that I did nothing of the sort, Sophie. In fact, you have it backwards. I didn't tell John that he had no personal knowledge, I INVITED him to share any personal knowledge that he did have, and I did that more than once. Here is a repost from my email record of my initial comment posted on June 6 in response to John's list of 12 things, which has also disappeared:
====
John,
You have much to say about how powerfully destructive SF is, or "can" be. A few questions:
Specifically which of those 12 things have you experienced or witnessed?
What did you do about what you experienced or witnessed?
If you did anything, what was the result?
Thanks.
====
John's response was to imply that I couldn't read and comprehend:
======
Millard:
Read carefully. I was pointing out that all these "effects" or "consequences" are clearly noted across this blog for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
=====
John chose to pass up my invitation to share the knowledge on which his list was based, but chose instead to take a personal shot at me, albeit metaphorical. This did a couple of things that are interesting.
tbc...
First, and most importantly, he ignored my request for information about his level of knowledge/familiarity of the items in his list of 12. His list clearly implied a familiarity with the effects of SF involvement. I wanted to hear about it. He dismissed my request as a function of my illiteracy. This raised a red flag for me. He did what I call deflecting.
Second, John worded his list of 12 as if he was talking about real possibilities, not theoretical possibilities or hearsay. He did not say, "People on this blog claim that you can end up" suffering this or that damaging effect. That would have left a different, less authoritative impression. He simply stated, "You can end up..." as if he knew about it personally. When I requested that he enlighten us about his experience with SF and its damaging effects, experience that I would expect someone to possess in order to write such a list, he backpedaled to the position that he was only restating things that had been written on the blog. This raised another red flag. This is what I call dodging.
Both deflecting and dodging are tactics that I learned about while in SF, especially once I left the group and experienced them six ways from Sunday. When John used them towards me, it felt just like it used to when the Seattle SF leader would use them on us "brothers and sisters" (while I was in the group) and on me and my children (after we left.) Maybe I reacted to this a bit? I really don't think so.
After John's deflecting and dodging, I formed a conclusion based SOLELY on what had transpired in our posts. That is not my idea of being presumptuous. Maybe it is yours. My statements in question (also gone from the blog) were:
======
How informative, convincing, and otherwise valuable would people consider your list to be if you made it clear that you have no first-hand experience with any of the 12 items that you listed, and that all 12 items are second-hand information that you gleaned from a web blog? Unless, of course, you have first-hand, personal knowledge about some of them.
Given the way you responded, I'd have to take it that you have no experience with any of the 12 items, that you have done nothing about any of them, with the result that nothing has changed.
Otherwise, if you have specific and substantive information about some of those items, why not share it with us?
=======
I posed a hypothetical question in the first paragraph. John was free to respond. He didn't. I even reiterated the possibility that he might (hopefully) have personal knowledge about at least some of what he wrote.
I then made a qualified statement based on John's own response to my request for information. This is called positing: you put something out there for the sole purpose of seeing if it will get knocked down. It was an invitation for John to knock it down. He didn't.
Finally, I YET AGAIN invited John to share any "specific and substantive information" about the items in his list of 12. He didn't.
Sophie, please explain how I was being presumptuous in challenging John to be up front about his basis for making the claims that he did in his list of 12. You apparently liked his list and other information that he has posted. I actually did, too. Liking/not liking his information is not the point. The point for me was to understand what kind of knowledge his information was based on. When he resorted to SF-like argumentation tricks, the point became that he wasn't being straightforward. Please explain how calling him out on deflection and dodging is presumptuous. Otherwise, please admit that you mistakenly characterized my posts as “presumptuous.” Thanks.
tbc...
I don't know who John is and I make no claims to, in contrast to his presumed "knowledge" of my personal condition, which from listening to him must be pretty serious! ;) I suppose that he could also provide me with a cure for my presumed condition. Oh, wait! I just remembered that he also clearly stated that there is no cure either! Again from another mysteriously missing post, this from June 6:
"The objective is not to damage the poor souls inside SF, but to go by the principle that 'prevention is better than cure'. There is no real cure for those who suffer inside SF or have been excommunicated like you, Millard. The suffering is long-term, the damage is deep."
Wow! Looks like I and all the other “poor souls” inside SF are done for! No cure for us, according to Dr. John.
Yes, John has posted a great deal of information on this blog, and I now seriously question its value. I challenged him to share what personal knowledge his information was based on. I didn't presume to know; I was clear that I did not know and gave him the opportunity to inform us. His responses were to dodge my request, impugn my capabilities, characterize my requests and what I originally posted as symptomatic of my presumed incurable condition, and then throw up his cyber-hands in exasperation and leave the blog to pursue "spiritual work" elsewhere. I hope he has better luck in that endeavor.
Bottom line for all of John's posts and your post too, Sophie: not a single significant point that I made in my original post has received a sincere, substantive response. I was hoping for much more. Is it open season to "shoot the messenger" or something?
jarsmom's reference to Isaiah 58 was right on, but what about specifics? I know that many of the things I posted would receive strong objections from a wide range of “Bible-believing” and “born-again” Christians. Where is some intelligent commentary?
Does ANYONE have ANY material objections to the points I made in that post? Please, someone have something to say...
I just read Isaiah 58 again. Thanks jarsmom. It was right on! Reading it made me ashamed. How little I have done and have been able to do. That is changing.
I just read John's last post again. I was so surprised by his decision to leave the blog that what he wrote didn't register at the time:
=====
SF is mental Kool-aid. If they were all dead, there'd be no problem but so long as the virus thrives, prevention is better than cure.
There is spiritual work to be done in this area and I don't want to waste my time in these discussions anymore.
======
Did anyone else get this? "If they were all dead, there'd be no problem." Is this a solution that John is willing to consider? Apparently so.
I'll allow that his metaphor that "the virus thrives" could refer to SF people as a group, to their spirits collectively in the service of evil, to their doctrine as a theological virus, or something else. Again, only master insinuator/obfuscator John knows for sure. Taken with his "SF is mental Kool-Aid" claim, which is clearly a reference to SF people, his virus metaphor definitely takes on an anti-SF-people bent.
What a clear example of how far from love and the Spirit of God someone can get, all the while spouting Biblical principles and quotations. Giving the impression of care for potential SF converts, he wants to inoculate against the deadly and incurable SF virus, which is like suicide for the mind. He seems to have written off SF members along with people who once were members and have left, all infected, all incurable. This seems very much like the old attitude towards lepers.
Aren't we talking about precious human beings here, or do people here somehow start looking at other human beings, after deciding that their church is a "cult," as if they were zombies, good for nothing but the business end of a 12-gauge shotgun?
Labeling people as a group, claiming that they are infected (mentally, spiritually,) and then quarantining them is EXACTLY the pattern that SF uses to deal with undesirables. They apply this pattern of alienation to everyone who stands outside SF, except for those who seem "receptive" (SF buzz term) to their message, and they apply it to everyone in SF who dares take serious exception to the controlling regime. It's nothing new. It's a pattern of control that's been used by humans for centuries in religious and non-religious contexts, large and small.
John clearly labels SF as an evil, insidious force in India, all 250 of them residing among a national population of over 1 billion. (Wow! SF must be incredibly powerful, prompting such rancor with such a small force!) His vilification of SF throughout his posts casts a different light on his comments about SF members in India hiding from other Christians. Maybe we would hide, too, if people thought we were children "thiefs" and could infect them with "ghosts" that can't be "exorcised." Seeing the death of SF people as a "solution" is the ultimate form of quarantine. I'm shocked that he would entertain such a thought, let alone put it in print.
Jesus told us not to return evil for evil. Paul said that we should overcome evil with good. At the very least, this must mean that we should use radically different methods than are used by evil. How does John or any other "spiritual worker" think that he will succeed in overcoming evil when he uses the same methods as his supposed enemy? How can he believe that he is doing God's work when he does the opposite of what God told us to do, which is what Jesus did: get down in there with us, understand us, love us, and lead us out of our depravity.
I'd like to say that this will be my last post about things that John wrote, but the truth is I reserve the right to comment further. He raised such HUGE and instructive issues, they just beg to be dealt with.
Millard: I don't know what happened to the posts to which you referred. I have been out of town for the past week and had little or no internet access.
Strange. Please let us know if you can recover them.
Thanks!
haha! Just checked and all the missing posts have reappeared. Cybergeists, I guess...
First of all I would like to point out that John’s reluctance to specify his involvement (or non-involvement) with SF is appropriate in that there are those who wish to remain anonymous on this blog, myself included. Millard has chosen to reveal his identity and I respect him for that. That’s OK too.
I will not identify myself, but I will acknowledge that I know the family and many others in this community that have had direct contact with this SF church. This family was threatened physically by members of SF and I therefore, am cautious of identifying myself and I understand and respect John’s reluctance to identify himself.
I have also not formed my opinions based solely on the content of this blog. John’s comments confirm what I have learned about this local SF church but also serve to help me understand that this is not an isolated local issue within the SF organization but that their religious beliefs are systemic and foster this kind of behavior worldwide. I tend to believe what John says because he validates what I have learned from other sources and that makes him credible to me.
I have said many times on this blog that my issue is not about theology but behavior. It is not theology that defines a cult but rather their behavior.
Having said that it has been my experience that it is the SF crowd that want to drag this discussion into the theological realm. And I don’t mind a theological discussion. I have not shied away from those discussions however I believe that is an attempt to divert the conversation because they cannot defend the actions of this SF leader or his family.
I agree with john and his 12 magic points he was 100% dead on in my experience! I've been haunted by the smith's friends fake "holy ghost". In the smith's friends I used to think I was the bomb diggity of the earth, and look down upon the petty outside the smith's friends commoners.
These days number 5. really is my uh struggle actually I'm 1-12 : ( "You can end up a very lonely person who feels that God and Jesus are illusions." Being in this cult your conditioned to believe that this cults super fieriness is the elect way to be all the time........and then the mainstream christians they aren't like that at all - they look like the lukewarm god is going to spew out of his mouth.........but then I'm like but the smith's friends can't be THE body of christ on earth because they are stealing people's jobs (even if these days the job stealing is only sweaping buisiness, serving food etc. etc. small things, they don't appear to be building boats or houses for "fundraising" anymore but what the hell demon possessed shit hole of a cult from satan does this??????????? - ya the smith's friends : ) A house can't be divided against itself bible says. Either they are elect and doing the good or they aren't! And they aren't!
But the body of christ the mainstream christians which must be the body of christ and do have a lamp they have lighted their light is burning across this earth - THEY DON'T HAVE THE burning FIRE! So I do sit here like well is god and jesus a hoax? Is satan and demons all there is? Are we all demons? Where is god's people on this earth? The ones with fire!
Sadly without the demon possessed smith's friends, I don't have the zeal and fire I once had, I've been struggling much. I'm sadneded by my sad pathetic efforts to follow jesus lately.
What if I gain this whole earth and loss my own soul what do I profit ----- I want to work much harder to make more room in my life for jesus........and at same time you know get in shape with p90x : )
Post the smith's friends it's a black dark world to me. I've been hallucinating a whole lot lately - I'm really schizophrenic though, my grandma was schizophrenic so it's in my dna. But the smith's friends definately helped greately in setting this mental illness off, and this mental illness is much more worse and extreme from my being a smith's friend in the 1st place.
Bible says seek and ye shall find, I'll continue to try and seek real friends, figure out who those people are on earth the ones that won't hurt me. Seek mental health I'll continue to seek that. Seek salvation for my soul.
I'd like to add option number 13 to the list, it's fitting that's it number 13.........
deciding there is no jesus, no god, just satan and demons and evil and joining the masonic lodge
option number 13
well actually the freemasons believe supposedly in a god.......my dad has spent most his life going on and on about how devilish the freemasons are. According to my dad they've all sold their souls to satan the freemasons have, they are devil worshipers in my dad's opinion. That the god of the bible must be FAKE. I guess being a freemason would be me holding out hope of a higher power - which I guess would be a good thing holding out the hope of a high power - though my dad would call me the devil : )
I've prayed and prayed for god to give me friends, for god to help me overcome the schizophrenia, for god to get vengance on this cult cause they very well destroyed my life - I don't know how to pick up the pieces, I sure as hell ain't yet! Counciling with christian pastor's hasn't helped me at all either!
It was rammed into my head that I am shit by this cult for years, I know it ain't the case even on this site they called me a dog any you notice that they call me a dog they don't even call me a human! That's how they treated me to, like I was a dog!
I got tired of it, I wanted to be treated well, I fought back, I left staying wasn't going to be the right option, the situation was never going to get better, rental cooking only got them finally saying hi to me at church. Rental cooking did not at all get me into their magic inner circle, I was totally forever locked out. Maybe cause I do believe jesus is christ? I'm really guessing so, that this cult is satanic, and having secret meetings where they are sacrificing babies to satan (seemed a lot of them pregnant a whole lot and I didn't see as many kids around as I did pregnant womens - though I guess maybe a slew of them miscarry - but I still hold out the theory that they are pouring their babies blood on satanic alters and eating their kids!) It wasn't god this cult served, getting me to this point where I am questioning god, christ like this, that's the work of the devil! That's the work this cult did in my life the work of the devil!
It's been super hard on my faith not having my prayers answered like this for so long. I just don't see god doing anything to remedy the situation in anyway? Maybe I'll go to my bible study this week, it's alright, mainstream christians are nice to me so, just this bible study now there's like 15 new people and they are all over the age of geez 45 at least, and they all pretty well have grandkids, I have a hard time just coming up with stuff to say to a room full of old foogies, senior citizens live a entire different life style then me -------- though I do several times in the day sit out and watch my chickens which is something a old foogie would totally do : ) while drinking coffee of course : ) love love love my chickens hell somedays my entire will to live is due to my chickens and my profuse love for them - they are the greatest little birds delaware chickens they jump on my lap wanting to be petted and everything! I try to think on the good that's what the bible says to do think on the good, but it's a struggle for me........cause my life has been so drastically effected by this cult, I'm reminded of the damage this cult did to me daily. I need to stay hopeful though, even know with my faith as depleted as it is. Maybe god'll show up in my life someday - it's good to hold out hope right?
Giving it to god,
I wonder where everybody went? You seem to be reaching out. I don't normally offer unsolicited advice when people are just sharing about their lives. I wonder if a couple of observations might help?
What we want is one thing. Those are the things we pray for. That doesn't always go the way we want it to, like you mentioned about needing/wanting friends. That's why Jesus said we need to be patient and persistent.
What we do is another thing. We all seem to fall for a trick that makes us think that what we do depends on getting what we want. It doesn't. We can be friendly to someone even when we are feeling very alone and friendless. It can seem like it's wasted when we do it, but it isn't, especially for the person we're friendly towards. It's hard to do, so I stopped setting idealistic goals for myself about how friendly or what I should do to be friendly. That just sets us up for disappointment, because we're never as friendly as we think we SHOULD be. The truth is that ANY friendliness is better than no friendliness!
There's another trick: thinking that if we're friendly, it will bring us friends. It might. We're probably more likely to make friends if we're friendly. But if that's the only reason that we do it, it's not very sincere.
Just this kind of thing--doing good when we feel bankrupt of goodness--is what I think the saying about casting our bread upon the waters is about. I used to read it and say to myself, "Well, I'm sure there's a great lesson behind this, but the parable itself makes no sense!"
"Cast your bread on the surface of the waters, for you will find it after many days." Ecclesiastes 11:1
Who would throw bread on some waters unless he never planned to see it again? And who would want it to come back at all, much less after many days? What's it good for then? Have you ever tried to eat soggy bread? ;) It's basically good for nothing.
So it occurred to me that this is exactly the point. Whatever might happen to it, once it hits the water, we really don't want it back. It's gone. No strings. And then the saying tells us it will come back to us after many days. Maybe in the belly of a fish we caught, or in the belly of a bird we caught, or in some other useful form.
I'm not implying that you don't already do this or that you aren't friendly. I'm just sharing something that has helped me in case it might help you. There's something quite different about throwing goodness out there like throwing bread on the water, a bit recklessly, with abandon, not caring if anything comes back from it or not.
So, it's just a suggestion: try throwing a little friendliness away! No responsibilities for what happens, no obligations about how you should or shouldn't do it, just toss a little kindness at someone, no strings attached. When I've done this, I've found that I had more to give than I thought I did, that it wasn't as hard to do as I thought it would be, and that I ended up not feeling as lonely as I did before. Nothing else changed. On the wanting side, I still wanted friends and love just as much as before. But on the doing side, I was stronger and freer.
Let me know what you find out if you give it a try.
Harold,
Please notice that I didn't make a stink about John not revealing his identity. I never asked him to reveal it. I asked him to reveal the type of knowledge and the depth of knowledge which his list of 12 things was based on. He could have simply told us. It wouldn't have required revealing his identity. Instead he stooped to tricks in order to avoid telling us. I made a stink about his tricks.
My opinion is that his list is an excellent summary of the anti-SF things that have been posted on this board. You and others think so, too. I also think that much of it is accurate as far as it goes. It's just not the whole story.
So I thought I'd weigh in on John's list. I do this from a particular perspective.
My interest is to understand and promoting understanding. Any fool can find people who agree with him and sit around the campfire with them, bashing the “opposition.” The “opposition” does that too. What's rare is to find people in either camp who will listen well enough to communicate. If the two camps can't communicate, the only alternatives are isolation or war.
That's why nations maintain diplomatic relations. We need each other, so isolation isn't an option. War is expensive and the result of it is either isolation (because we killed 'em all) or communication. Even conquered people need to be communicated with. Conquest is always temporary, anyway, and afterward we're back to square one, at best. At worst, the conquered overthrow and destroy us or conquer us, the first being more common. In short, whether it's by isolation or war, history teaches us the lesson: communicate or die.
So when I look at John's list, I look for what might communicate his perspective about SF, (which I largely share with him,) with someone from SF. The trick about making a point or proving something or persuading someone about something is to do it with someone who isn't already in the choir. At the very least, it should be accurate and have some evidence behind the claims.
By the way, there are 13 items. He had two items numbered as #8.
1. You can end up being entire anti-Christianity, anti-Christian religion.
Not so. From SF's perspective, they aren't against Christianity or the Christian religion, they define Christianity and the Christian religion. The rest of us are in the Harlot. If you wanted to convince someone from SF of this point, you'd have to show them how SF violates Christianity. I realize that this is what some have tried to do on this blog by getting into doctrines. Doctrinal discussions have gone on for thousands of years, with the result for example that we have created more than 60 new Protestant sects every year for the last 500 years. 30,000 / 500 = 60. That's over 30,000 Protestant denominations created because people FAILED TO COMMUNICATE. Yeah, let's have another doctrinal discussion and see if it will yield a different result.
How about talking with SF members about quality of life issues instead? Christians are supposed to have “rivers of living water” flowing from their “innermost beings.” Those who do will have no trouble showing SF that their lives don't measure up.
2. You can end up in deep psychological depression and even pushed into schizoid phases.
Depression, no doubt. I was on anti-depressants and I knew several others who were, even though it was something that NOBODY wanted to talk about. Claiming schizoid phases are attributable to SF involvement is a very serious claim that needs to be backed up by professional diagnoses. That's one point I hoped John might have had some info on. Asking SF members to talk about their depressions would be a good thing. We would probably have things in common that we could help each other with.
tbc...
3. You can end up retreating into mainstream denominational Christianity but always be left unhapppy because it seems so "insipid" after experiencing all those "special revelations" and "real fellowship" in SF.
Again, something that must either have been true for John or that he knew of people for whom this is/was true. I understand it and it's plausible. I just don't know anyone who feels this way, and I know many who have left. In EVERY case of those whom I know well or fairly well, they have adjusted well, some in and some outside of mainstream Christianity, and have happy families with thriving children. I know of one exception, but the cause of the problems there actually began while the family was in SF, long before they left. The problems were not related to leaving.
Claims like this and #2 would need to show that unhappiness and mental illness post-SF was a function of SF involvement AS OPPOSED to other personality traits and psychological predispositions that might have been present PRIOR to SF involvement. John didn't address this and didn't offer information about it. Again, I was hoping that he might have some.
Ironically, and apparently John didn't know this, but this is PRECISELY what SF says about members who have left. They boast that after having tasted the truth, members who leave can't let themselves settle for the mixture of worldliness and godliness in the “harlot” churches. I think that now that SF holds over 1 billion dollars' worth of real estate holdings (and growing) that the distinction between them and “harlot” churches will be difficult to demonstrate. Here is the original Tønsberg's Blad article in Norwegian: http://tb.no/nyheter/gigant-i-eiendom-1.1377648 Google translates it pretty well, and there are other translators online that you can use. Tønsberg is one of the “larger” towns near Brunstad Conference Center, population just under 40,000 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tønsberg#Population.
4. You can end up retreating into some other group that claims to have the "full Gospel".
Ditto my comments on #2 and #3
5. You can end up a very lonely person who feels that God and Jesus are illusions.
Ditto my comments on #2 and #3
6. You can end up with a broken family with SF seducing wife or husband into its closed closet and encouraging the seduced wife or husband to abandon the "harlots" in the family.
Now, inflammatory terminology aside, this definitely happens. My family is not the only example. For every family broken up, based on my personal knowledge on the W. Coast, there are 3-4 families in which one partner or the other chooses to “humble himself and repent” for the sake of keeping the family together. I spoke with several estranged men in Norway and Germany as well when I was going through it. In every case that I know about, it was the husband that was given the ultimatum by the wife. Hating father, mother, etc., is still practiced ala SF's twisted viewpoint to this day. It is twisted because of 2 things:
a) The “hating” is due to an issue that is irrelevant to the people involved. It's a triangle. My relationship with you depends on my views about your church. This makes all kinds of sense even to people outside SF. After all, religion is important, right? However, in psychological terms, it's like telling your loved one that your relationship with him or her depends on your views on a third party which you happen to dislike and disagree with. For a spouse, it can be like your spouse telling you that your marriage depends on your attitude towards his or her favorite political candidate, or even like telling you that your marriage depends on your attitude towards his or her lover. Explain to me how that makes sense.
John's list #6 continued...
b) The “hating” doesn't have anything to do with you as a person. It isn't about your body odor or your communication skills or your sinful behavior. It's about your position relative to their chosen authority. It's about your recognition that their chosen authority is valid and right. It's about what you think about their chosen idol. And if they can't get you to change your mind, you at least need act as if you recognize its authority. You might not believe, but you must bow. If you won't bow, you're hated. This hypocritical preference for appearances over truth isn't just found in SF or other so-called “cults.” Check out your local church, especially if it's Catholic.
7. You can end up being in SF and getting ripped off of all your money and never even realise what is happening as the business empire is constructed.
Haha! Another one I wish we had some reliable information to support. I see it happening from the outside where I am, but that's 10th hand info. (I'm exaggerating.) Actually, I think the standard of living might have improved for many SF families here. Just because you are filling Brunstad's coffers doesn't necessarily mean that there's nothing left over for you. In Europe, this point is quite untrue. You should see the houses they live in and the cars they drive. It definitely isn't true in Norway ever since North Sea oil started being pumped. We'll see what happens when it dries up which, according to my friend, an executive at one of the top 5 oil companies globally, isn't that far ahead. He didn't quantify.
8. You can end up being in SF and finding that you cannot be "sinless" like its leaders profess and end up in a total mind-mess but have no courage to leave SF.
Agreed, but what's the difference between that and more mainstream Christianity? Mainstream teachings tell you not to expect anything better than the "fact" that we will continue sinning. That's somehow better? Also, there is a big difference on this point between hypocritical SF members and sincere ones.
Hypocritical SF member: I just yelled at my wife, but I intended to do good, and the rebuke was necessary. The yelling was just a “deed of the body.” (See Romans 7:15-17 and 8:13)
Sincere SF member (weeping): I just yelled at my wife again! Why can't I stop sinning?
Protestant to sincere SF member: If you were a Protestant, you'd know that we'll never stop sinning. That's what God's grace and forgiveness are all about.
Catholic to sincere SF member: If you were a Catholic, you could just go to confession, say a few Hail Mary's, and you'd be cool with God. Why beat yourself up?
My opinion is that they are ALL mind-messed on the issue of sin. Paul explains the whole thing very well in Romans 6, 7, and 8. Sincere SF members are actually AHEAD of other Christians in this respect: they actually try not to sin. Those who have never actually tried to stop sinning have a hope or a prayer of understanding what Paul writes about sin in those chapters. Mainstream Christian teachings have lots of trouble with Romans 7 in particular. They basically explain the problem away. Explanations = excuses when all they do is explain it away.
8. You can end up leaving SF having lost lots of money and your faith.
Ditto my comments on #2 and #3, with the addition of my own experience. I lost lots of money AFTER leaving SF, thanks to primary custody with financial responsibility for my children and minimal child support. I didn't lose my faith. I did lose the wishful thinking/bogus beliefs that I thought were necessary for faith. They aren't necessary.
tbc...
9. You can end up leaving SF feeling you are the greatest failure on earth and never realise that their teachings set you up for the fall.
This one is right on, per my experience and knowing others who have left, except for one word: never. Geez John, what's with you and the superlatives?
No, it doesn't take you too long to realize that their teachings were bogus and set you up. But it's not nearly as simplistic as that, anyway, as with most things in real life. Never is a big word. I'm pretty sure that John's knowledge isn't big enough to use it.
Of course, SF also uses this one, too, to their advantage. I think that this is one reason that they love to freeze people in time in their own minds. They do this in part by their “hatred” doctrine. If you never talk to a person, you never find out that they have changed, grown, learned, developed. They remember you just like you were when you were crazy out of your mind because your whole world just turned upside down and backwards and kicked you out of it. I have family members that now nearing 20 years later still grudge me for incidents that they weren't even personally involved with. I guess that since I did it to their brethren, I did it to them or something. We're talking stuff like “bad” things I said about their leaders: I called them gutless liars. Well, they were. To these SF people, I'm still the same guy I was 20 years ago, and unless I “humble myself and repent” for 20-year-old “transgressions,” they don't want to know anything more about me.
10. You can lose your children to the SF and experience them treat you like the scum of the earth.
Right on. Check out Friedrich Griess's web site:http://griess.st1.at/sf.htm. Won't do most of us much good, being in German, but this gives you an idea of what an informed, rational person does when they want to deal with SF. Griess used to be a minister in Austrian government and is still very active consulting with N. European governmental agencies about SF presence and activities in their countries.
His and his wife's experience with their daughter fits John's point. He's quite open and informative about it. He's no less harsh on SF than John is, and he has verifiable info to back up what he says. Of course, every instance of this, like the incident in Owasso, will be characterized by SF as evidence of the humility, devotion, and faith of the SF member who treats you like the scum of the earth.
My experience dealing with this one is that you have to be willing to take a lot of scummy treatment to get past it. If you aren't willing to do that, you will probably wash your hands of the person. Parents have a hard time doing that with children that they love, so they will put up with a lot more. Anyway, parents can get that kind of treatment from their children at different times in their lives, SF or not, so they learn how to deal with it. It's usually condensed to, "I can't wait for him/her to grow up!" Patience rules here! Wish I'd had more of it sooner.
At some point, after you have gotten past thinking that there's something to the scummy treatment, (there isn't, of course,) gotten past the hurt and your reactions to it, you can then be consistently good to the person treating you like scum. After a while of that, you can point out, in love mind you, how hateful, angry, abusive, demeaning, and bitter they are towards you. That's the kind of truth that's living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword. No SF doctrine teaches them how to handle this.
tbc...
11. You can end up imagining that you are better than everyone else on this planet and keep away from the harlots and the sinners like the Pharisees and enjoy condemning them.
Also right on. Replace “better” with “humble.” SF members consider themselves better because they are more humble. Their humility consists of their veneration for God, His Church, and “those whom He has set in The Church,” and their ability to “humble themselves” to their own detriment in order to venerate those things. It's just about impossible to convince an SF member of their arrogance, because the more you do, the more humble they think they are.
This one is still a quandary for me. The best I've been able to come up with is to talk to them about their personal relationship with Jesus as a person. Most of them don't have a clue what this is; they are too busy admiring their “brotherhood.” I actually had people ask me what I meant when I described a personal relationship, as if it were a strange idea. When I elaborated, they said that it was “too nebulous.” However, when I talked to them about doctrines about Jesus, they could relate. See why doctrinal discussions are just playing into the SF program?
12. You can end up permanently brainwashed so that even if/when you leave the SF, the "holy" ghost of the SF will continue to haunt you. Not many know how to exorcise themselves of this ghost.
Wow. Lots more big words like "brainwashed" and "exorcise," putting us into the spooky paranormal/occult, too.
There is pretty much no rational or verifiable content to this last one. If he'd said that there are people who feel this way, then I'd say that's really interesting and I'd like to talk to them if I could and if they were willing. I don't know any, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any.
This last item was obviously meant to scare more than communicate useful information. I deplore scare tactics. SF and other religious organizations that I disapprove of use them.
We should be better than that.
That's it for now.
CORRECTION on John's list #8 about being "sinless":
Should have read:
Sincere SF members are actually AHEAD of other Christians in this respect: they actually try not to sin. Those who have never actually tried to stop sinning do not (originally ommitted) have a hope or a prayer of understanding what Paul writes about sin in those chapters.
Hi again
For all
I have been following all the posts but have not posted much in the past few months. I thought I just would write a few words as Millard asked where everyone was.
For Millard.
I appreciate your posts and the time and effort you take. I also greatly appreciate your balanced viewpoints. I do not post much now as allegations about the SF fly too fast here for me reply and I find myself taking an inordinate amount of time trying to defend unfounded allegations. Secondly I think I have said most of what I wanted to say in extensive posts earlier on. I find I am repeating myself. I appreciate your effort to facilitate communication. My email is scatterpillar@gmail.com and it would be good to hear from you if you so desire.
For all
My stand again. I do accept SF has its faults, faults that are different from what you see in other churches. I feel the magnitude of the faults are overemphasized in this blog. I do not desire to know anyone’s identity here. I am glad to communicate with anyone who desires to contact me.
Regards
Funnyman
To Sophie (from May 28)
You shared John 6:28 and Eph 2:8 regarding what Christians must do. Very good verses, but not very descriptive by themselves. Would you pretend I was a new convert to Christianity (with no understanding of Christian jargon) and explain what, “to believe in the one He has sent,” means in layman’s terms? Explain the ‘what’ (believe), not the ‘who’ (Jesus).
Regarding your question
--What do you believe the ‘taking up of the cross daily’ involves?
“There was also another cross (figurative), one that daily condemned sin in His body, that He 'took up'.
Can you use scripture to elaborate and explain what you mean by this statement?—
I was referring to the passages in Matthew 10:38 and 16:24 (NKJV). [There is also a book titled, “the way of the cross,” which is about SF and may explain it better than I]. Jesus told the disciples that they had to ‘take up their cross,’ (among other things) if they wanted to be disciples. The term is well known SF jargon but may take some time to explain how an SF person understands it. In short, it is striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, and deed. Jesus came in the same body, flesh, as you and I (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7), and condemned sin in the flesh. He did this by ‘being obedient to the point of death (here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary) (For this to make sense Jesus must be ‘peccable’, which is what SF preaches). If you’d like to understand it more you could email… rssnspy6@gmail.com. You don’t need to agree with my words, which is ok, just share what you understand (how Matthew 16:24 influences your life).
“Can you really say that you have first-hand knowledge that modern evangelism doesn’t teach Christians to ‘take up their cross daily’...”—I can. I’ll make a distinction… There is a difference between saying, “these are the virtues, good Christians try to do them,” and “this is how Christ condemned sin in the flesh, we must do the same so we can have Christ’s life in us.” I have experienced a number, two handfuls roughly, of different church services that extol Jesus’ virtues, but not ‘how’ to get them (lay hold of them) in my own day to day life. I’ve also spoken with many ‘mainstream’ Christians that confirm this. I concede that I can’t judge all mainstream evangelism by my limited experience, but there is a basis for my statement. You don’t have to agree.
--“We cannot BE Jesus, but we can be LIKE Jesus by doing the same things He did.” I agree. We can do SOME of the same things He did—Hebrews 6:20. Jesus was the fore-runner and we followers. That means that we are to follow his footsteps. Jesus says, “follow me,” in other places. Why do you insist on ‘watering down’ (which is what SOME means) the gospel? It seems to me that all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some. Is your issue is that you don’t think it is possible to be like Jesus?
Re immature Christians,
I am talking more about the message of the church, the preaching, rather than the progress of the individual members of the congregation.
Re ‘work’ and ‘true Christian’,
The work goes on inside a person. The work is to ‘deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me’. When a person does this (commits to it) then God’s work is to sanctify (Phil 1:6).
“How much work does it take to be a ‘true Christian’?”—It takes a complete life/will sacrifice each day. As more understanding is gained over a person, more must be ‘given up’ so that the work that God does can continue.
“And how do we know when we have done enough work?”—There is no enough. Until we die there is the chance that we discontinue our ‘work’ and therefore God can’t continue His. I don’t think we disagree that the life of Christ becomes our life, but we disagree on how.
To Harold (May 30),
Re: “inaugurated for us”
Jesus did do something for us like you mentioned. It doesn’t stop there though. The verses above about Jesus being a fore-runner continue our path.
‘special powers’
In 1 Cor 12 Paul talks about the distribution of gifts by the Spirit. At the end of the chapter Paul says, “Earnestly desire the best gifts.” (NKJV) I think this is an example of ‘special powers’ made available to all the Corinthians and people other than the ’12 apostles and maybe Paul’.
Millard, you do make some good points but I also believe that you read way too much into what John said about the Kool-Aid. I may be wrong, but I don’t think John is advocating the death of anyone. At least that is my take on what he wrote.
His metaphor of a virus is interesting to me. I do believe there is a virus that affects all of Christianity. I am not too naïve to ignore the fact that satan exists and delights in invading Christian churches and creating dissention and disharmony among believers. This all works in his favor.
Like you Millard, I also disagree with John’s statement that “there is no cure for those who suffer inside SF”. I believe there is a cure and the foundation of that cure is information. Information that you and others like you can provide.
I also appreciate what you wrote to ‘Giving it to god’. I have had the opportunity to talk with some victims from groups other than SF and I have learned that when groups use the Bible as a tool to abuse others, when the victims figure it out and leave the group they often want nothing to do with anything religious. Even if they do, the spiritual high of the groups they left will make it seem like nobody else has the “fire” that their group did. Steven Arterburn refers to this as a religious addiction.
One more thing Millard: you made the statement “Sincere SF members are actually AHEAD of other Christians in this respect: they actually try not to sin.”
Do you really believe that those who belong to SF are the ONLY Christians in this world that try to overcome sin? Do you include yourself in this category?
Funnyman: I’m glad to know that you are still engaged in this conversation. I have been careful to present my position on this subject and include events and/or statements that I know to be true. If you think I have overemphasized any faults of SF I would be interested in knowing which ones.
Russian: Regarding ‘special powers’: Your reference to 1 Cor 12:31 is misleading. You quoted “Earnestly desire the best gifts” but you omitted the rest of the verse which is “And yet I show you a more excellent way.”
I believe your implication is that ‘powers’, the power to heal people, the power to drive out demons, etc. like the apostles are the best gifts that we should all “earnestly desire”. In this whole chapter Paul is talking about all of us having different gifts as individual parts of one body. He goes out of his way in talking about how we all have different gifts (i.e. wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, etc) and he is celebrating ALL of those gifts, not putting any above the other until he says in verse 31 “And yet I show you a more excellent way.”
And what is that way that he is talking about? He starts right off in Chapter 13 talking about loving other people. All of those gifts he was talking about in Chapter 12, he says, are nothing if you don’t love each other. I believe he is talking about ALL people. Not just SF people. ALL people. Christians, muslims, Buddhists, whatever faith or nationality.
When this SF family moves this girl from the dorm, into their home and show utter disrespect for her family, is this showing love to them? Are they following Jesus Christ when they do this?
For Harold
I think you have taken the effort to be balanced in your posts and I appreciate that.
funnyman
Harold,
I agree to a point about my comments on John's odious statement. I don't think that he's somewhere in the world scheming an assassination plot. However, by our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned. I recently heard a quote by a philosophy professor to his students:
"If you do say something about something, don't think you can escape the consequences by saying you were only talking."
Excusing John's statement as if he was "just talking" misses the point. The point isn't how much ill intent his words might or might not express. The point is something certain. Something is absolutely certain whenever people start wondering if someone intended ill or how much ill they intended by what they said: It's certain that they did not hear goodness in what that person said.
Actually my reaction to John's words had less to do with Kook-Aid and more to do with his statement that "If they were all dead, there'd be no problem..." Another thing is certain. John has indeed thought about the death of SF members as a possible solution, and he has thought about that seriously enough and often enough for it to occur to him to write it in a post. I don't claim more than that, and that is certain. That is odious to me. It should also be odious to everyone who claims the love of Christ, including John. I notice that, so far, he has not apologized. I think that he owes SF an apology for mentioning that their extermination would be a solution to anything. You certainly would if he said it about you or your family or your friends or your church.
Another thing is absolutely certain. If John, a spiritual worker presumably filled with the love of Christ, had a better solution to the incurable "SF virus" than the extermination of its members, he would have shared it. Look back at his posts. The ONLY solution he ever offered to the "SF virus" was extermination. Take a look. He clearly believes that the "SF virus" is chronic, even terminal. The only hope he sees is prevention. Sorry, but I have to say it: this is bullshit. Defending it doesn't help.
I agree with you about "a virus that affects all of Christianity," which shouldn't be surprising given some of the things I've posted. I also agree that Satan is involved. What I don't agree with is that the virus/Satan "invades" Christian churches, as if except for the "invasion" everything would be peachy. Your invasion metaphor implies that the virus/Satan is naturally foreign to Christian churches and is introduced from outside sources that are independent from the churches. I disagree. There are now between 30,000 and 40,000 Protestant denominations. Protestants split from the Catholic Church, which has more "orders" than you can shake a stick at. The Christian Church has proved over a 2,000 year period that it has NO CLUE what the love of Christ is. I'm not talking about missing the mark here. I'm talking about having no clue where the target is. Christians can't even love their own. The only rule that has actually been followed by Christians in every place and at every time throughout the Church's history is: At some point, Thou Shalt Split. A second is like it: Should Splitting Not Suffice, Thou Shalt Kill.
I think that the virus/Satan are the very reasons that what we call "churches" exist and have existed since the time of the early Christians. I think that the virus/Satan is the reason that, whenever a group of believers ever actually tried to go back to the kind of Christianity that the early Christians had, they were wiped out by The Church.
tbc...
Thanks for your words of appreciation. I agree about the religious addiction you mentioned. It's real, judging from my experience. I don't deny it. I just deny that it's inevitable or that it has to be chronic. There is also a flip side to that coin. Let's say that there are people who take life and God more seriously than is the norm around them. That could easily be construed by others as a "religious addiction." Of course, this is a favorite of high-intensity groups like SF and others: we are "on fire" and everyone else is lukewarm. My point is that the simple fact that there are groups like SF that abuse this does not preclude it from being true sometimes. It certainly was true for Jesus and the Apostles!
You are right on about my comment about SF members trying not to sin. It was too general. My mind was stuck in my comparison of a stereotypical honest SF attitude with with some stereotypical SF, Protestant, and Catholic attitudes. There are holiness groups and movements in both Protestant and Catholic circles. I don't know much about them. So, ditto what I said about SF members for holiness people who take sinning seriously.
So, in answer to your question, no I don't think that SF members are the only Christians who try to overcome sin.
Concerning your question about me, I was very serious about overcoming sin. Once I left the SF environment and realized how that issue was (and I assume still is) manipulated by SF leadership, I reconsidered the entire issue of sin.
There are actually two important questions involved in the issue of sin.
The question that most Christians I am aware of spend most of their time dealing with is the question about what sinning means for them: How does it affect their righteousness before God, their level of spirituality/sanctification, their eventual entrance into God's kingdom and their "glory" in that kingdom, etc? In other words, what are the consequences of sinning or not sinning on MY life?
The second question is of course what the consequences of sinning or not sinning are on others, including God.
If God has forgiven our sins, then the first question should be settled. That is what "grace" doctrines teach, and SF agrees with this doctrinally. They just don't think it stops there and believe that most "grace" doctrines effectively do stop there. Holiness doctrines (those I'm aware of) tend to make the first question an issue. SF definitely makes the first question an issue, not in terms of simple salvation from hell, but in terms of the kind of beings we will be for all eternity: our "glory," our placement that the "wedding table," whether or not we even are "in The Bride" or get invited to the "wedding," etc. Same quandary as salvation from hell, just that they shifted the context to apply to what goes on inside of heaven. To their credit, it's a different motivational emphasis than the Catholics have with purgatory. Purgatory is an intermediate punishment. The best you can do is avoid it or reduce time spent there. SF is similar to Islam in that their "eyes are on the prize." Their motivation is to see how much treasure in heaven they can amass, not how much bad stuff they can avoid.
tbc...
What's interesting to me is that Christians I've known who hold doctrines that emphasize grace (and I was just such a one before I got into SF) tend to invoke grace in a peculiar way. They use it as a get out of jail free card. When holiness people point out that faith without works is dead, grace people use grace as the reason that they aren't obligated to do works. I haven't known many grace people who thought that good works were a bad thing, although there were some who took grace to an extreme. The grace folks aren't necessarily against good works, they just don't want to be on the hook to produce them. This is what is peculiar. I think that looking at doing good as an obligation is missing the point. The only way grace folks seem to be able to understand good works is as a means to justify ourselves and be forgiven. It's like an either/or with nothing in between: either we have no obligation to do good works, or we are obligated to do good works to avoid being damned.
My conclusion is that people with this kind of "grace" thinking haven't truly settled the first question, since THEY raise the question practically every time good works are mentioned. I think that they are in denial about the first question. They are much too concerned about staying far away from "dead works," to the point that they can't seem to understand "good works" except as "dead works." The converse seems to be true of holiness people. It was certainly true of many SF leaders I talked to. They were so focused on good works, "sancitification," and "working out your salvation with fear and trembling," that any mention of salvation by faith and living by faith got an immediate rendition of how faith without works is dead. It made me wonder at first, and now I'm pretty sure that people who react in either of these ways are unfamiliar with either living works or living faith. They seem to be very familiar with dead works and dead faith, though.
The reason I think that both "grace" and holiness teachings miss the mark is that they place too much emphasis on the consequences of sinning or not sinning ON US. Self-concern is not the same thing as love for others. By the same token, "grace" people and "holiness" people who focus on the question of the consequences that sinning has ON OTHERS, regardless of their doctrinal emphasis, tend to end up where Scripture says we ought to be: loving one another and doing good to one another.
This is why I often find doctrinal discussions so frustrating, unproductive, and frankly, stupid. The issues of life come from the heart, not from doctrine. People who have it right in their hearts live like Christ and "have fellowship with each other" (a favorite SF-ism, but scriptural nonetheless) REGARDLESS OF DOCTRINE. People focused on life and engaged in reality don't let theory interfere with them.
Millard on June 12, you asked, “Which of the beliefs that I discussed should not be applied to Christians in general?” and also requested that I “show how I (Millard) derived any of my (Millard’s) conclusions”.
Following are SOME of the statements I believe should not be applied to Christians in general. How you derived any of your conclusions? That, I’m not sure of.
>“For some reason, Christians think that beliefs are the Alpha and the Omega, the most important issue that there is.” (June 5)
>“but Christians don't have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth.”
>“That’s not to mention the small fact that Christians damn people to hell (or burn them at the stake, which is worse?) as a result of those discussions.”
>“Christians bend over the furthest (not sure that it's backwards though) if the perpetrator has a position of authority in their church.”
>“Christians use belief in a way that disconnects doctrine from life. This is what James calls dead faith.”
>“Christians today adorn the monuments of the prophet-killers that were built with the sweat and blood of the masses who they conscripted to fight their wars and enslaved to build their cathedrals and fund their empires.”
It is my personal opinion that these sentences that you wrote seem to be definitive about Christianity as a whole or anyone who claims to be Christian. To me, that’s like saying that ALL southerners like to drink sweet tea or are members of the Ku Klux Klan. They are sweeping generalizations and in my opinion cannot be applied to all Christians.
June 22: “My interest is to understand and promoting understanding. Any fool can find people who agree with him and sit around the campfire with them, bashing the “opposition.” The “opposition” does that too. What's rare is to find people in either camp who will listen well enough to communicate. If the two camps can't communicate, the only alternatives are isolation or war.”
I would agree with these statements. It appears that this girl’s family and friends aren’t the ones who created this division and ‘isolation’, which are tactics of satan-isolation from loved ones: family and friends. Members of SF ‘claim’ that they teach ‘follow Jesus’ but do they actually ‘do’ what Jesus would do? Jesus would not intentionally lie about people in order to cause dissension, division, isolation, fear, doubt, anger, bitterness, and sever emotional ties and feelings toward loved ones.
Millard, not to be argumentative, but just for the sake of clarity, on June 7, you wrote, “John, even if you actually did have personal knowledge about them, knowledge which you clearly do not have?”
And on June 12, you addressed me and said, “I was intrigued that you thought that I was "presumptuous" to "tell John he has no personal knowledge of individuals in SF."
And, “Sophie, please explain how I was being presumptuous in challenging John to be up front about his basis for making the claims that he did in his list of 12.”
I didn’t say ‘you were being presumptuous in challenging John to be up front about his basis for making the claims that he did in his list of 12’. On June 10, what I wrote was, “It seems presumptuous of Millard to tell John he has no personal knowledge of individuals in SF”.
Giving it to God: Your anguish is apparent and understandable. Hurt doesn’t just go away overnight or all by itself. Perhaps the ministers/preachers/pastors that you’ve spoken with don’t have a complete understanding of what you’ve gone through. We tend to sympathize with those who have/had similar experiences as our own, but because we are only human, we sometimes are limited in our understanding of others hurt, pain, and sufferings. Perhaps those you’ve spoken with haven’t experienced what you have. But, we have do have a high priest (Jesus) who understands and can sympathize with our/your pain. Remember, He too was tortured, rejected, abused. (Hebrews 4:14-16; chpt 8)
Russian said, “You shared John 6:28 and Eph 2:8 regarding what Christians must do. Very good verses, but not very descriptive by themselves.”
I will agree that when we read and study God’s Word that we should take it in its entirety rather than select certain verses and place emphatic attention on any one without the context of the others. By referencing John 6:29, I was trying to show what Jesus tells us God’s ‘work’ is.
“Would you pretend I was a new convert to Christianity (with no understanding of Christian jargon) and explain what, “to believe in the one He has sent,” means in layman’s terms? Explain the ‘what’ (believe), not the ‘who’ (Jesus).”
The word ‘believe’ means to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in, to trust , to have faith in, mere acknowledgment of some fact or event, intellectual faith, be committed to.
So, in laymen’s terms, that verse (along with what the Bible in its entirety says about Jesus and Who He is), tells us that Jesus says we are to be persuaded of, place our confidence, trust, and faith in and be committed to the One He has sent (Jesus) and that He is who He claims to be. “I and the Father are One.” Our ‘trust, hope, belief, faith, confidence’ is to be in Him, not how much money we can give, how many hours we can work, how many times we attend church, how many prayers we say, how many people we’re nice to, what kind of clothes we wear, car we drive, house we live in….
Our job (work) as a follower of Christ is to know that ‘through accepting that Jesus died for our sins, to take our sins on Himself’, we can rest assured that the debt has been paid in full for our eternal salvation. Now, does that mean that we are to sit back and continue to sin and then say ‘well Jesus paid my price so I can continue to hurt others, use others, lie to others, steal from others, be rude, kill, hate, cause division’? No, IF our devotion and commitment to Christ is real, our hearts, minds, and attitudes will become more like Christ’s. But, because we’re only human, we will occasionally mess up. I think that’s why some people believe Christians are hypocritical-they expect Christians to be perfect rather than forgiven and in progress.
Russian , I, in turn, have a hypothetical for you: If this new convert to Christianity dies just minutes after he ‘converted’, suddenly and without warning signs, do you believe he/she will go to heaven or not?
“Re immature Christians,
I am talking more about the message of the church, the preaching, rather than the progress of the individual members of the congregation.”
I appreciate your explanation regarding immature Christians. It seems that all Christians and the message preached are all still being ‘lumped together’ as if they all preach the same message. In my opinion, this is not only unwise, but also can lead to inaccurate assumptions and conclusions. One would have to enter every single church congregation in order to make a valid claim such as this. Every ‘church’ does not preach and teach the same way and the same message even if they ARE preaching God’s Word (which there probably are some that aren’t). Many (not ALL) pastors/preachers/ministers probably know their congregational makeup and understand where most of them are in their walk with Christ. Perhaps they know they are teaching ‘babes in Christ’ who are not ready for the ‘solid food’. Or maybe the majority of that particular congregation is struggling with certain issues so the message may address that issue more. People are individuals and different styles and approaches appeal to different people in different ways. So perhaps different people present the message in differing ways which may seem weak, shallow, empty, immature, or watered down to you but perhaps not to other people.
The phrase ‘sin in the flesh’ continues to be repeated in your dialogue. Can you explain to us what you are referring to as ‘sin in the flesh’?
“In short, it is striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, and deed. Jesus came in the same body, flesh, as you and I (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7), and condemned sin in the flesh. He did this by ‘being obedient to the point of death (here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary) (For this to make sense Jesus must be ‘peccable’, which is what SF preaches).”
Philippians 2:3-11, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: WHO BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (held onto, clutched), but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human LIKENESS (resemblance-implies similarity chiefly in appearance or external qualities). And being found in APPEARANCE (external show) as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
vs6) “Who being in very nature God” – Very: properly entitled to the name or designation, true, actual, real exact, precise, selfsame identical, in actual fact. Nature: the peculiar quality or character or basic constitution of a person or thing.
Why be selective in placing emphatic attention to Phil.2:7 (being made in human likeness) rather than vs 6 (Who, being in very nature God)?
“--“We cannot BE Jesus, but we can be LIKE Jesus by doing the same things He did.” I agree. We can do SOME of the same things He did—Hebrews 6:20. Jesus was the fore-runner and we followers. That means that we are to follow his footsteps. Jesus says, “follow me,” in other places. Why do you insist on ‘watering down’ (which is what SOME means) the gospel? It seems to me that all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some. Is your issue is that you don’t think it is possible to be like Jesus?”
If you re-read my original response, you will see that my issue is not that I ‘don’t think it is possible to be LIKE Jesus’; my issue is that I believe we cannot BE Jesus or even equal with Jesus. I agree that we are to follow in Jesus’ footsteps. I’ve made it very clear that I believe we can be like Jesus in many ways and I’ve already listed SOME of those; however, I CAN’T DIE ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR OR ANYONE ELSE’S SINS; I will NOT be seated at the right hand of God; my name is NOT above every other name nor will it be confessed that I am Lord; nor should every knee bow at my name; I was NOT begotten, but rather created.
Like Jesus, we can and should love and obey God, the Father. Like Jesus, we can and should be honest in our words and actions. Like Jesus, we can and should love and demonstrate it to everyone-no matter who they are or what ‘group’ they do or don’t belong to. Like Jesus, we can and should be unselfish, forgiving, caring, compassionate, patient, kind, peaceful, self-controlled, honoring others (those are just SOME fruits that one would expect to see demonstrated by true followers’ of Jesus, Eph.4:25-32,Gal.5) This does NOT mean that I believe these are ALL of the ways Christians can and should be like Jesus; just SOME. I don’t think that ‘waters down’ the gospel message at all.
In my last post (May 28), I asked, “How is moving this girl from her dormitory into this teacher’s house, separating her from her own family and having her live in his home and spend all her time with his family even on holidays instead of being with her own family being Christ-like? How is that demonstrating love, honor, respect, kindness (which is what Jesus says to do) to her family and friends?”
You may believe that I’m ‘watering down’ the gospel; but I believe that this type of behavior is demonstrative of someone who is ‘ignoring’ the gospel. How is this behavior ‘like Jesus, in all points, all facets’?
“It seems to me that all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some.”
To which indicators are you referring?
Haha, Sophie's been going to town with her posts! Cool.
My general comment on your last post addressed to me is that it represents yet another attempt to dismiss what I wrote rather than deal with it. I'll explain.
3 general comments in your post:
1. You objected to my generalizations about Christians/Christianity.
2. You agreed with some of my statements.
3. You reiterated your accusation that I was presumptuous with John.
Nowhere did you actually address the claims you objected to. You simply argued that I was wrong to make the claims. That's called invalidating the claims. Invalidating claims is more powerful than disproving them. Disproving a claim admits that the claim made sense and was worth considering. Invalidating the claim denies that the claim made sense and was worth considering. People like invalidating claims because it allows them to avoid getting into the substance of the claims.
I asked for 2 things:
1. Specifically which of the beliefs that I discussed should not be applied to Christians in general.
2. Give some reason, some evidence to show that those beliefs should not be applied to Christians in general.
I admit my second request was worded awkwardly, which probably contributed to your misunderstanding of what I asked for.
So, thank you for responding with something we can discuss! You responded to request #1, but misunderstood request #2, which remains without response. And the claims themselves remain unanswered, with no response from anyone on the blog.
I went back and read your June 10 post again. Please realize that your challenge that I'm overgeneralizing or misrepresenting some Christians by blaming them for what other Christians believe, IS EXACTLY WHAT MOST PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG HAVE DONE TO SF BECAUSE OF A SINGLE INCIDENT. This blog contains generalizations galore based on limited knowledge. Who here has been to Brunstad or to a single SF meeting? How many SF members have you or anyone here spent time with? Yet you charge me with "overgeneralization?" Unfair.
You said in that same post, "The teachings and beliefs of SF came into question because of the actions of a high school teacher who moved a female student into his home." The many became suspect, this time not because of the few, but because of the actions of just one person. How is that not a HUGE generalization? Since then, more info has been added, but it all started with a generalization, one that I think we agree turned out to be appropriate. The incident was not exceptional, it was characteristic of things that are generally true of SF. That's why generalization was appropriate.
We all generalize, Sophie. It's how we think, all of us. I generalize and you generalize. Generalizations are always inappropriate for some of the people that we apply them to. That is why they are called GENERALizations, not specifications. The exceptions prove the rule. They prove that the rule fits well for everyone else. Generalizing is not a problem unless we ignore the exceptions or blindly, stubbornly insist that a rule applies to them, too. We need to recognize the exceptions and admit that the rule doesn't apply to them. But that means that it does apply to everyone else, so the rule stands.
You said: "Following are SOME of the statements I believe should not be applied to Christians in general."
With that statement you confirmed one of the claims that you objected to: Christians think that all that matters is what they believe. My claims are based on 40 years' worth of experience conversing with all kinds of Christians and reading Christian writings from different periods. My claims stand, so far. If you want to object to them, please come with something more than that you "believe" that I am wrong.
tbc...
continued...
One excellent way to knock down a bogus generalization is to give examples that it DOESN'T apply to. Be careful, though. Pointing out exceptions only proves the rule. If what you say is true, it should be easy for you to name Christian groups, denominations, etc., which my statements do not apply to. I'd love to hear some.
If you have no examples, neither do you have any reasonable basis for your "belief" about my claims. In that case, what is your real objection? Do you simply not like the idea that what I claimed might be true? Do you simply object to any criticism of Christianity? Do you just not want to think about it, so you looked for a way to dismiss it? If you don't have information or evidence on which to base your "belief" that my generalizations were inappropriate, what is the real nature of your objection?
Please don't consider my questions presumptuous. I'm groping for an explanation. Can you help me out? Maybe I have you all wrong.
Regarding your third point, there is a difference between presumption and insight. Webster's Online says that presumption is "an attitude or belief dictated by probability." In other words, you assume something because you think it's probable. It's a guess. Webster's says that insight is "the power or act of seeing into a situation." So, what you are saying is that I guessed, I presumed. Insight can look like presumption to someone who does not notice the same things.
I in no way presumed, Sophie. I have dealt with John's type of behavior many, many times before. I encountered it often in SF and I've encountered it pretty much anywhere there are people who want to appear more knowledgeable than they really are. I saw certain things in what John wrote that were red flags. I didn't make them up, nor did I assume that what I saw was accurate. Instead, I asked John for more information. The more I asked, the more personal he got, another red flag. In the end, he left.
I saw things in what John wrote that did not make sense. I didn't presume them. I didn't accuse him of knowing nothing. He is obviously aware of many things concerning SF. I asked him about what he knew, what his basis was for his claims, something that is perfectly appropriate and which people are happy to oblige when they actually have a basis. He responded with more things that didn't make sense. In the end, he proved that my red flags were accurate.
John made claims that he couldn't support. The point wasn't whether or not they were correct, it was that he couldn't support them. His basis for the claims he made appears to be second-hand information. We don't know because he wouldn't discuss it. Claims based on second-hand information are OK, as long as a person is open about it and doesn't make it sound like his claims are something more than that. For some reason, John was unwilling to be open about it. And as I've already stated and explained, much of what he wrote was exaggerated, and some of it was deplorable.
You can call that "presumptuous" if you like, but you would be mistaken.
Millard - I have not left the blog. I don't have much time these days for indulging in rhetoric. I am not duty-bound to answer you on anything. You are free to read my posts and comment on them and make any presumptions or assumptions you care to.
Sophie - by "sin in the flesh", what SF means is that Jesus came like Adam AFTER THE FALL. He was "in sin" like all other human beings and He pulled himself out of the mire and we can do the same.
This EFFORT and WORK to escape from and "destroy", "deny", "fight", "crucify" the sin inside Himself was what gained Jesus His final resurrection - as a reward for being the first normal Adamic human being who always said NO TO THE SIN INSIDE HIMSELF. So he was rewarded with resurrection.
In effect, Jesus was just another Hindu Yogi who ATTAINED nirvana, enlightenment, freedom from sin, etc. The only distinction is He did it better than any one of us and now that He has done it, anyone of us can BE JUST LIKE HIM. That is the core SF philosophy.
To back up this error, they return to their argument, which is a kind of interpretation on their part, that Jesus carried a "figurative cross" inside himself from his birth (but Sigurd Bratlie had different ideas - he writes citing an obscure verse in Isaiah to imply that Jesus began carrying this figurative cross from the time he had understanding of it only and not before that - so it may have been when he was 5, or 6 or 13, God alone knows!) to his death on the actual cross on Golgotha.
When Russian uses that phrase "figurative cross" itself, he is off track. He is using his imagination and a few "selected" verses like SF to make this claim that this is what really happened.
As you put it, the key error is in their emphasising his humanity and rejecting the aspect of His "nature". The Nicean creed fought the Arians (SF is a variety of Arianism) on this aspect and that is why the Nicean Creed keeps us safe when it says about Jesus "being of ONE SUBSTANCE (NATURE) with the Father".
Let those who do not understand this remain in their error and let God judge.
A smith's friend cult member facebook messaged me today.........
"You don't know about brunstad?
It's really the best place on earth and even it doesn't look like that.
When you're there you feel it and you become happy.
Tobi"
my reply to this smith's friends cult member...............
It's the "it" that you are feeling that worries me much!!!!!!! Cause the holy spirit of mainstream christianity is a entire different entity then the holy spirit of your cult. And you all do chant when you pray and it's scary! But I believe you that you "feel it" that "it" takes over you and "you become happy" I believe you you are telling me the truth - but GEEZ couldn't you like just go get a cup of coffee and become happy what you got to be possesed by "it" for? Really you all need this demon?
------ I hope this smith's friend cult member replies back it's going to be interesting talking about their churches demon holy spirit.
Recently I learned about the illuminati, and beyonce has song about breaking some mirror and letting a evil spirit in, enimem also sings about talking to a demon in a mirror every night, and the cars sings about reaching through the mirror and not liking what he found and "I ran I ran all night and day, I just ran I ran so far away.........couldn't get away" he sang. I learned that this is what "familiar spirits" is...which is talked about in the bible........Leviticus 19:31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." I don't know if the smith's friends demon holy spirit counts as a "familiar spirit" but maybe - probably!
So I theorize more that maybe none the smith's friends cult members are able to get the real holy spirit? This is how people is on this earth I've found........they need some spirit in their life........and some them go seeking demons and/or "familiar spirits" via mirrors and fake demon holy spirits.
Me seriously thank god I have the real holy spirit, I staying far away from smith's friends fake demon holy spirit. And I ain't going to be messing with no mirrors neither! NO thank you. Mainstream christian church singing some praise being filled with the real holy spirit and a cup of coffee and I'm good : )
I hate to defend the smith's friends (you will know a people by their fruits - not replying to my e-mails refusing to be my facebook friend as many the smith's friends have done - isn't good fruit!) Hebrews 10:20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" For those of you that don't believe jesus had sin in his flesh - how you think jesus consecrated a way for us to follow him if he didn't have sin in his flesh???????????? Cause I take that to mean he put to death the sin in his flesh ---------- Romans 7:5 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Why would we have to leave walking in the flesh if this isn't the way that jesus consecrated through the veil that is his flesh?????????????
My jesus was put to death in the flesh 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" How? Cause he had sin in his flesh. To me to say jesus came in the flesh, is fully to say he came here with sin in his flesh...........for those you that are saying he didn't have sin in his flesh your really saying you don't believe he came in the flesh!
But the bad fruit of the smith's friends is there, it's there in plain sight from their own mouths on this blog for everyone to see. Mark 12:31 "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Jesus big on loving people even people that aren't like you. Good fruit is so important, it's important to have love for people in that way bear good fruit. James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." "easy to be intreated" when I e-mail you you reply! That's what that means. "full of mercy and good fruits" full of love! And forgiveness that's the fruit I look for on this earth and I'm finding it in mainstream christianity. Though you all appear to not believe jesus came in the flesh - mysterious to me.
I hate to defend the smith's friends (you will know a people by their fruits) Hebrews 10:20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" For those of you that don't believe jesus had sin in his flesh - how you think jesus consecrated a way for us to follow him if he didn't have sin in his flesh???????????? Cause I take that to mean he put to death the sin in his flesh Romans 7:5 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Why would we have to leave walking in the flesh if this isn't the way that jesus consecrated through the veil that is his flesh?
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" How? Cause he had sin in his flesh. To me to say jesus came in the flesh, is fully to say he came here with sin in his flesh. For those you that are saying he didn't have sin in his flesh your really saying you don't believe he came in the flesh!
But the bad fruit of the smith's friends is there, it's there in plain sight from their own mouths on this blog for everyone to see. Mark 12:31 "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Jesus big on loving people even people that aren't like you. Good fruit is so important, it's important to have love for people in that way bear good fruit. James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." "easy to be intreated" when I e-mail you you reply! That's what that means. "full of mercy and good fruits" full of love! And forgiveness that's the fruit I look for on this earth and I'm finding it in mainstream christianity. Though you all appear to not believe jesus came in the flesh - mysterious to me.
Hebrews 10:20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" For those of you that don't believe jesus had sin in his flesh - how you think jesus consecrated a way for us to follow him if he didn't have sin in his flesh? Cause I take that to mean he put to death the sin in his flesh Romans 7:5 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Why would we have to leave walking in the flesh if this isn't the way that jesus consecrated through the veil that is his flesh?
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" How? Cause he had sin in his flesh. To me to say jesus came in the flesh, is fully to say he came here with sin in his flesh. For those you that are saying he didn't have sin in his flesh your really saying you don't believe he came in the flesh!
But the bad fruit of the smith's friends is there, it's there in plain sight from their own mouths on this blog for everyone to see. Mark 12:31 "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Good fruit is so important, it's important to have love for people in that way bear good fruit. James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." "easy to be intreated" when I e-mail you you reply! That's what that means smith's friends cult members that refuse to reply to most my e-mails. "full of mercy and good fruits" full of love! I look for on this earth for this "good fruit" stuffs and I'm finding it in mainstream christianity. Though you all appear to not believe jesus came in the flesh.
Millard: I agree with much of what you write and I will take my lumps. You have a right to your opinions.
I do think my view of the church is a little more optimistic than yours. Maybe that is just my life experiences in that most people (not just Christians) I have run into in my life are basically good people. I have run into very few people, around the world, that I feel are just fundamentally bad. Some may be misinformed or whatever but most people try to do the right thing, at least as far as they understand it.
You seem to come from the opposite angle where everyone is fundamentally bad with a few people who are trying to be good. Maybe this is affected by your life experiences but just my opinion.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your view of “The Christian Church”. There are a lot of wrongs committed by Christians in the name of Christ throughout history, no doubt about that. I’m not too keen on the Catholic Church either and the proliferation of protestant denominations hurts the message of Jesus more that it helps. I agree. I am willing to face those facts.
What I want to make a point about (and I think you would agree) is that; in the SF world it is not acceptable to acknowledge the wrongs committed by SF in the name of Christ.
Ref. # 5 of Dr. Lifton’s eight criteria: “The Sacred Science”. The cult’s ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too ‘sacred’ to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult’s ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions.
In a religious cult it works like this: The leader or leaders cannot, by definition, be wrong because they get their revelations directly from God. How could you dare to question God! If you perceive something to be wrong then it is YOUR faith that is called into question. And your faith is demonstrated by your obedience to the leadership’s interpretation of God revelation.
I agree with your discussion on grace and works. I recognize that those “get out of jail free” types are out there, I just don’t think it’s fair to label all Christians outside of SF in that way. There are many on both sides of that debate, I agree, but there are also a WHOLE lot of Christians like me, who would agree with you.
On another subject, your comments about excusing John’s “odious statement” as “just talking”. Earlier in this blog there was a heated discussion among the SF and ex-SF about a comment made by Kare Smith where he said “I want to kill all Arabs”. Did he really mean it or not?
There is also a video on the Brunstad web site today where Mr. Smith is speaking to an audience that appears to be mostly women and makes this statement:
“And even these small children in your flesh – they also scream and cry – and you have to kill them.”
http://www.brunstad.org/en/Video/Messages/Offensive-warfare-against-enemies-in-the-flesh.htm
In light of what ‘Giving it to God’ wrote recently about killing babies, it gives one pause to think. Is Mr. Smith just talking? Seems rather odious to me. Should we hold him to the same standard?
I am sorry you have such distaste for doctrinal discussions although I can certainly understand. You certainly seem to have thought about these issues a lot. I feel like it is important for people to wrestle with these issues because otherwise it is too easy to be deceived by charismatic leaders. It is healthy for each of us to examine the scriptures and try to understand basic Christian doctrine in order to hold accountable those in leadership positions. On the other hand, doctrine alone does not define destructive cult groups. That is where I believe these discussions become unproductive and frustrating.
You made the following statement about the incident that started this blog: “The incident was not exceptional, it was characteristic of things that are generally true of SF.” That is central to Keith’s original question. This has been a long discussion because, in my opinion, the SF employs “deflecting and dodging” tactics like ‘let’s talk about all the good things SF has done’ or ‘you’re evil for attacking SF’ or ‘let’s just confuse everyone with doctrinal discussions and ignore the pink elephant in the middle of the room.’
That ‘pink elephant’ in this blog is the behavior of this specific SF leader. I believe there is no credible excuse for this SF leader to surreptitiously move this young freshman college student, his former student, into his home knowing full well that the parents would disapprove.
They can make the argument that she WANTED to move in with them but that doesn’t hold water because I’m not talking about HER actions, I’m talking about HIS actions. He has control over who lives in his home. She changed her driver’s license to his address. She changed her home address at the university to his address. He got all the mail from the university that was address to “The parents of…” You can’t convince me that he had no knowledge of these facts.
They can try to make the argument that her parents were creeps, but that doesn’t work either. What about her extended family like her grandparents, her brothers, aunts, uncles, etc. that all live in close proximity. And what about all of her friends? Why would she turn her back on all of them too?
What about your statement: “People who have it right in their hearts live like Christ and "have fellowship with each other”?
If these SF are following their own SF-ism’s wouldn’t they try to bring the girl and her family together? If that were the case, when her parents invited them to counseling before the wedding to talk things out, why would they refuse? Even if they held different theological beliefs, wouldn’t it be wise to talk about these issues so that they could foster some kind of understanding, for the sake of her family?
I believe that this specific incident categorically comprises all the basic behaviors of destructive cult groups. This, for me, regardless of doctrine, is the central issue that defines Smith’s Friends. You yourself say that this incident is “characteristic” of SF.
Do I need to attend a SF church or visit Brunstad to form a general opinion about this group as a cult or not? Anyone can put on a happy facade for visitors. The people in Guyana had Congressman Ryan and his whole party fooled for two days until someone passed a note to one of the visitors saying they wanted to leave. Then everything went crazy. I believe this blog has been a good alternative in that it gives a chance to SF, ex-SF members, and others to voice their experiences in a relatively safe environment.
That was one of my goals upon stumbling into Keith’s original blog posting, to explore this incident in an open forum and see if this was an isolated incident or more characteristic of the whole group.
one more thing concerning babies stood out to me in the smith's friends cult. One christmas at the christmas fancy dinner they had at the silverton gardens, I hadn't seen marianne the whole time, or heard that she even had a baby geez I didn't even know she was pregnant.....I walk in the nursery my kids wanted to play in there (or the room they had designated as the nursery) and there was marianne holding a baby that must've been just 1-2 lbs - I don't even know that the hospitals ever let a person take home a baby that small? But as I recall that was her story that they allowed her to take the baby home to be with it for it's last few days on earth - which I guess could happen. I remember how sad marianne was, I got all chocked up, the whole night she was in that nursery just bottle feeding bottle feeding bottle feeding this baby. Then a few days later the baby was announced dead. I had never seen a person on the earth holding a 1-2 lb baby like that before, on retrospect I doubt hospitals let people take home 1-2 lb babies if they did we'd all see 1-2 lb babies in womens arms from time to time I'd imagine? I had never ever seen a sight like that before!
Harold:
Regarding ‘special powers’—
This conversation started because you said, “I do not believe in modern day apostles. The scriptures are clear that Jesus granted special powers to only to the twelve apostles and maybe Paul. There is no indication in scripture that these powers were given to any others, or that they were passed on by the apostles. I believe these powers were for the specific purpose of validating the gospel from those twelve apostles, at that time in history, as being the word of God.”
Further to your point that 1 Cor 12 is misleading… I believe it is not misleading but rather the scriptural reason I believe in modern day apostles and in ‘special powers’ granted by the holy spirit to anyone that is a member of the body that Paul writes about. The fact that ‘love is a more excellent way’ doesn’t change that these ‘special powers’ (miracles, healings, tongues etc.) were available to ‘common’ people long after Jesus ascended into heaven (and that they were exhorted to earnestly desire them).
--When this SF family moves this girl from the dorm, into their home and show utter disrespect for her family, is this showing love to them? Are they following Jesus Christ when they do this?—This question has really has become the anti-SF ‘trump card’ (in this situation)… If I believed every one of the reports coming from Owasso I’d have to say I didn’t think ‘they’ were following Jesus when this happened—But I think that those reports are one sided, slanted to show the teacher and his family in a poor light. I’ve heard conflicting reports that seemed to be slanted to show the girl’s family in a poor light (some of them have been shared). I’d like to take the middle ground and say that BOTH sides PROBABLY could have done things differently, probably could have been kinder, more thoughtful, more longsuffering, more Christ-like in what was said or done. (As I make this statement I realize just how foolish it sounds miles away from Owasso, because I don’t think I really have a foundation on which to stand or any authority to say it).
Sophie (June 25):
Thank you for your clear explanations on ‘what’ a Christian does. I agree with the first part, but when it comes to,
“No, IF our devotion and commitment to Christ is real, our hearts, minds, and attitudes will become more like Christ’s. But, because we’re only human, we will occasionally mess up.”
I feel like you’ve left out the majority of being a Christian. I know you were putting what you believed down in short form, so I’m not going to pretend that what you wrote is the full gospel for you. I don’t want to rehash what I think I’ve explained, so I’ll say this… the message SF preaches an expanded (Biblically based) way/process/method that details how we become more like Christ. SF also preaches a distinction among the ‘occasionally mess up’ category. There isn’t really anything to debate on this topic… I’ll move on.
Sophie (cont):
“a hypothetical for you: If this new convert to Christianity dies just minutes after he ‘converted’, suddenly and without warning signs, do you believe he/she will go to heaven or not?”—My best answer would be in Luke 23:39-43. The thief/criminal (in my understanding) repents and accepts Jesus on death’s doorstep and is welcomed into heaven. My beef with mainstream Christianity is that most times, in my experience, they preach this kind of acceptance of Jesus and stop there, resting on a few verses that say they’ll have everlasting life—without preaching the part about obedience and drawing near to God. This is the life, the part where our hearts and minds become more like Christ’s. It also isn’t an improvement doctrine that touches up the creation God made, but a gospel that starts from the ground up modeled after Christ.
--Many (not ALL) pastors/preachers/ministers probably know their congregational makeup and understand where most of them are in their walk with Christ. Perhaps they know they are teaching ‘babes in Christ’ who are not ready for the ‘solid food’. Or maybe the majority of that particular congregation is struggling with certain issues so the message may address that issue more. People are individuals and different styles and approaches appeal to different people in different ways. So perhaps different people present the message in differing ways which may seem weak, shallow, empty, immature, or watered down to you but perhaps not to other people.—Maybe this is where my unhappiness with mainstream Christianity comes from. I believe the gospel must be preached to its fullest at all times. That way hearers get a vision of what is to come (the goal of being like Jesus), and stretch out for it, instead of sipping milk (trying to be a little less angry, a little less stingy, a little kinder). I hope you understand that I’m not putting you down (in any way) because you believe different than me, but rather trying to promote a zealous, grab the bull by the horns, give as much to me as I can handle dear Lord, approach to Christianity…
--The phrase ‘sin in the flesh’ continues to be repeated in your dialogue. Can you explain to us what you are referring to as ‘sin in the flesh’? “In short, it is striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, and deed. Jesus came in the same body, flesh, as you and I (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7), and condemned sin in the flesh. He did this by ‘being obedient to the point of death (here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary) (For this to make sense Jesus must be ‘peccable’, which is what SF preaches).”—
I apologize for using an unknown term. The verses I quoted there use that term in the New King James Version, NASB, amplified, AmerStandVers, Darby, Holman, and Today’s NIV (nearly identical). ‘sin in the flesh’ is described (I believe) fully in Romans 6 through 8. Of course there are also many interpretations/understandings of what it really means and you probably understand that term differently than me (even if you did use one of those translations that use it). I don’t exactly know how to describe ‘sin in the flesh’ so that you can grasp what I mean quickly. ‘It’ belongs to the ‘old man’ described here:
Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
Ephesians 4:22
that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
Colossians 3:9
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
To Sophie (cont):
The person, my will, is the one that wants to continue sinning. The flesh (the body, mind, will) is the thing that carries out sin. In the old covenant, before Jesus came, the law could only condemn sin once it came outside of the body, but couldn’t touch the thoughts or intentions of a person. Jesus, the first person that never sinned, showed us the way to stop sinning, and broke Satan’s authority/hold over all of mankind by condemning/stopping sin inside the body/mind/flesh before it came out (before it came to fruition)… It is hard to explain something I’ve grown up understanding. I hope it is clearer what I meant.
--(“Phil 2:6) “Who being in very nature God” – Very: properly entitled to the name or designation, true, actual, real exact, precise, selfsame identical, in actual fact. Nature: the peculiar quality or character or basic constitution of a person or thing.
Why be selective in placing emphatic attention to Phil.2:7 (being made in human likeness) rather than vs 6 (Who, being in very nature God)?—
I think that the verses you quoted in Phil 2:3-11 show a time lapse. I’ve explained how SF preaches this before, that when Jesus was in heaven at the beginning, with God, He was like God, but still God’s Son. The whole of the introduction of the Gospel of John help this point here, that He was with God. Then, to save mankind, He did something… Which was to put off His God nature and become like us, in order to be tempted, in order that He could condemn sin, in order that He might reconcile us back to God. I don’t think Jesus just changed His appearance (like the translation you quoted) to look like humans.
--my issue is that I believe we cannot BE Jesus or even equal with Jesus.—Then this is all just a simple misunderstanding… no one ever said SF members were trying to BE Jesus. We are trying to Like Jesus in every aspect…
--(referring to how we can be like Jesus) This does NOT mean that I believe these are ALL of the ways Christians can and should be like Jesus; just SOME—Your first post on this said, “We can do SOME of the same things He did.” This means that there are some things that we cannot do. That means we can’t be like Jesus if we can only do SOME. The things you listed as things we couldn’t do were all outward, physical things, when in reality the footsteps we follow are inward things…
--In my last post (May 28), I asked, “How is moving this girl from her dormitory into this teacher’s house, separating her from her own family and having her live in his home and spend all her time with his family even on holidays instead of being with her own family being Christ-like? How is that demonstrating love, honor, respect, kindness (which is what Jesus says to do) to her family and friends?” – I answered this to Harold above.
--“It seems to me that all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some.”
To which indicators are you referring?—Was this a rhetorical question? I feel like the entire discussion we’ve been having has been to flesh out this point… The myriad of Bible verses we’ve quoted, the list of virtues you posted June 25, the term Christian (which means characteristic of, or resembling, Christ).
Sophie:
Russian said: "It is hard to explain something I’ve grown up understanding."
You will encounter this at all levels in those who have been brainwashed in SF. There is only one understanding of Christ which is the one brought to them by JO Smith, Bratlie and others. They have heard only this from childhood. And others who come into the group are within a few months/years conditioned into this "doctrine" and "dogma".
You must understand that Smith (who received 'revelation') is in the category of "godmen" who claim "special revelation". Such MEN have always claimed to be one up on others and have always built their cults based on their 'revelations' This has been so with many - Moses David of the Children of God, Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Jim Jones, Rev Moon of the Moonies and so on and on.
In a country like India, this phenomenon is accepted as anyone can claim to be God or have a "process" (as Russian put it) to become "God" or "sinless". The SF has reduced Jesus Lord and God to a "technique" called "putting sin in the flesh to death" just as a godman like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in India uses the "sudarshan kriya" technique to give his followers a high and to bind them together with a spell in India.
Not to mention the various human potential movements that also emerged from psychology to give processes and techniques to humans to "achieve" godhood on earth.
It is not possible to make Russian see "light", the term SF uses for those who have subscribed to their dogma and process. Because for him, there is only one "true" light - the interpretation of Jesus given by a Norwegian sailor and his acolytes who thought he/they had found much more in terms of doctrine/process than any of the Lord's people elsewhere in the world now and across past times too. It is the supreme arrogance of the sectarian or cultist that leads to this superiority complex on the one hand and paranoia on the other when the doctrine/process is questioned.
Sophie:
Russian said: "It is hard to explain something I’ve grown up understanding."
You will encounter this at all levels in those who have been brainwashed in SF. There is only one understanding of Christ which is the one brought to them by JO Smith, Bratlie and others. They have heard only this from childhood. And others who come into the group are within a few months/years conditioned into this "doctrine" and "dogma".
You must understand that Smith (who received 'revelation') is in the category of "godmen" who claim "special revelation". Such MEN have always claimed to be one up on others and have always built their cults based on their 'revelations' This has been so with many - Moses David of the Children of God, Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Jim Jones, Rev Moon of the Moonies and so on and on.
In a country like India, this phenomenon is accepted as anyone can claim to be God or have a "process" (as Russian put it) to become "God" or "sinless". The SF has reduced Jesus Lord and God to a "technique" called "putting sin in the flesh to death" just as a godman like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in India uses the "sudarshan kriya" technique to give his followers a high and to bind them together with a spell in India.
Not to mention the various human potential movements that also emerged from psychology to give processes and techniques to humans to "achieve" godhood on earth.
It is not possible to make Russian see "light", the term SF uses for those who have subscribed to their dogma and process. Because for him, there is only one "true" light - the interpretation of Jesus given by a Norwegian sailor and his acolytes who thought he/they had found much more in terms of doctrine/process than any of the Lord's people elsewhere in the world now and across past times too. It is the supreme arrogance of the sectarian or cultist that leads to this superiority complex on the one hand and paranoia on the other when the doctrine/process is questioned.
Millard: Sorry it’s been so long before I responded. I didn’t say you were ‘over’generalizing. The terminology I used was ‘sweeping generalization’. Those are not the same in my book. I have read the blog in its entirety and recently have taken some time to skim back over it. There have been many ‘specifics’ regarding SF written by members, ex-members, (who’ve been to meetings and also to Brunstad) and non-members (who’ve had dealings of some type with SF members). People have given testimonies about their personal involvement with this group and others have given testimonies of observed behaviors and treatment of themselves or others by members of this group. There have been links to websites and even some portions of their self-publicized writings printed on here. I know there is much more information that could be added, yet for a variety of reasons, there are those who have refrained from posting the information or engaging in this conversation thus far. So, with all that said, it doesn’t appear that “WHAT MOST PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG HAVE DONE TO SF (generalize) BECAUSE OF A SINGLE INCIDENT.” I disagree that “This blog contains generalizations galore based on limited knowledge.” There is a great deal of factual information posted here.
We know that SF emphatically teaches Luke 14:26 and appears to twist and/or ignore other Biblical passages and we have testimonies and various eye-witness accounts such as what has happened with this girl and her family along with other similar incidents (worldwide). It appears that some of the behaviors witnessed can be traced directly back to the teachings from their self-publicized materials, video clips, and testimonies from members and ex-members and non-members. The exhibited behaviors that have been witnessed and discussed on this blog don’t line up with scripture or following in Jesus’ footsteps. There probably are those sincere people who are members of SF that believe they are following Jesus and Christian teachings. But, the behaviors that have been discussed on here are not indicative of scriptural teachings of Christianity.
I asked “If there is a particular incident(s) with specifics that you (Millard) would like to discuss involving someone who claims to be a Christian”, but it appears you have chosen not to do that. You are entitled to your ‘opinion’ about Christianity and are not obligated to specify any specific incident(s) if that is what you so choose. I totally agree that there are SOME who give Christianity a bad name and fall short of God’s glory. I personally know of people who I would consider fit into that category due to their PATTERN of living and behaviors exhibited.
And, I know there are times when I, too, fit into that category. When the Holy Spirit convicts me of a sin in my life, it should grieve me to the point that I repent and ask God to forgive me and to give me the obedience, strength, courage, determination, wisdom in the future not to repeat the same sin when satan attacks me the next time. And, if my sin has offended another person(s), I need to make it right with that person(s) as well (apologizing for my behavior). If we are Christians, we SHOULD NOT give way to temptation but rather be obedient ALL THE TIME. However, we are still in the flesh so we may sometimes give in and have sin in the flesh. But, then you recognize what satan just threw your way and the next time, maybe you won’t succumb to the seduction. It’s an ongoing process till we’re in heaven. Just because we give in to temptation, doesn’t make us any less God’s child, than if your child disobeys you. He/She is still your child, just a child that may have made a wrong choice and disobeyed.
Sometimes due to living in a sin-filled world, sometimes things may happen to a person that causes insecurity/emotional damage/disarray as he/she is growing up. Maybe he/she grew up in a single parent home with no father figure, maybe one parent was an alcoholic, maybe the child or a parent was sickly, maybe finances were tight so the child may not have gotten as much attention as needed during formative years, maybe the child grew up with a narcissistic abusive liar; the list of scenarios could go on and on, but you get the point. There may be deep-seated scars and/or spiritual strongholds in one’s life and it may take some time for a person to accept God’s love and allow it to penetrate through the hard shell that may have built up and for that person to learn God’s Word correctly and then live walking as what would appear to what most would consider to be a ‘mature’ Christian. But, they are no less God’s child if they’ve accepted Him as his/her Savior. They just haven’t reached what we would consider spiritual maturity quite yet. Spiritual growth is a process just as physical growth is. It doesn’t happen overnight and sometimes for whatever reason, our growth can be stunted.
NO one’s heart is always right, except for Jesus. By that, I mean that we can put on a façade for others but inside our hearts there may be impatience, jealousy, pride, hate, anger, rage, bitterness, which can lead to ungodly behaviors. We may say something unintentionally that would hurt someone’s feelings or do something that one would not expect a Christian to do or what would bring glory to God (which is what we as Christians are to do). But, as a Christian, we should make a whole hearted attempt to do what is right in God’s eye’s one hundred percent of the time. The way we know what is right in God’s eyes is whether or not it lines up with the scriptures.
When I have to make a deliberate choice between being hateful or impatient with someone or loving and patient, there are times when I have to make a conscientious effort (die to my own desires) to choose God’s way because that may not be what I ‘feel’ like doing. When I have to make a choice between telling the truth or lying, there are times when I have to make a conscientious effort (die to my own desires) to tell the truth, because at the time, a lie might seem to help me protect myself/save face or protect someone else from a wrong they’ve committed. When I have to make a choice between doing what is best for me or sacrificing my time or resources in order to do what is best for someone else (no matter who they are, what church they belong to, whether they are even Christian or not, where they live) sometimes it comes naturally and sometimes I have to make a conscientious effort (die to my own desires) to do the right thing. As a Christian, we have the Holy Spirit helping us along the way, reminding us what’s right and convicting us when we don’t do the right thing. Jesus told us in John 14:15-17, “If you love Me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-the Spirit of Truth. The world (I understand this to mean the sinful, lost world-those who haven’t accepted Jesus for Who He says He is) cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you.” Although we may have the Holy Spirit dwelling within, God still gave us a free will so we have to ‘choose’ to trust and obey.
There are some very Godly Christ-honoring Christians who live out their faith on a regular daily basis and who seem to glorify God with his/her words, actions, deeds even when horrible, hurtful things happen to them and/or their loved ones. Only God knows their heart, but Jesus says that what’s in our heart comes out of our mouth. Mt. 12:34,15:18, Lk 6:45. I personally don’t believe one can lump ‘all Christians’ (or anyone else for that matter) together and make generalized statements about them. There are groups around who claim Christianity but preach hate, divisiveness, superiority, pride. That is not what Jesus taught nor what He was about. The Bible is so full of passages of Him teaching love, honoring others, kindness, patience, acceptance, faithfulness, goodness, holiness, pure speech, truth. He showed us the ultimate of unselfishness-He gave Himself as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Millard: “If what you say is true, it should be easy for you to name Christian groups, denominations, etc., which my statements do not apply to. I'd love to hear some.”
I do not believe that we can ‘name Christian groups, denominations’ as a whole, about which your statements apply but individual people is what I was referring to. God does not judge us according to groups or denominations, but rather on an individual basis. I believe there is a ‘physical body of Christ’ (those who attend or are ‘members of a church’) and a ‘spiritual body of Christ’. I don’t believe they are entirely one and the same. I don’t believe that just because you attend/belong to a church, you’ll be part of ‘the bride of Christ’. Some of those who attend church/are active in a church here on earth are only there for the appearance or social part of it. They obviously are there for the wrong reason and there is no inside heart-change, no submission to God, not a person filled with the Holy Spirit. (However, as long as they are there and hearing the message preached, maybe in time, the Holy Spirit will begin to work on that individual as well. The seed can be planted.) As I stated before, only God truly knows each of our hearts. This ‘spiritual body of Christ’ will be made up of believers from different generations, denominations, groups, nationalities, tribes, languages. But, the Bible is clear in that those in ‘the Bride of Christ’ will confess Jesus, the Name above all Names, God’s One and Only Perfect Son, the Sacrificial Lamb of God, The Alpha and the Omega, as his/her redeemer and Lord and Savior and that God will recognize them as His Own.
You asked me to “Give some reason, some evidence to show that those beliefs should not be applied to Christians in general.”
“For some reason, Christians think that beliefs are the Alpha and the Omega, the most important issue that there is.” (June 5)
The Christians (individuals) I am personally acquainted with do not think beliefs are the Alpha and the Omega; they believe that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega as referred to in the book of Revelation.
“but Christians don't have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth.”
I’m sure that these statements may apply to SOME who claim to be Christian. But again, I don’t believe that you can make a ‘sweeping’ generalization and say that ‘Christians don’t have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth.’ If your statements read ‘SOME Christians don’t have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth,’ then I would agree with you. Many (not all) people that I know who claim to be Christians LIVE by faith; they do NOT kill it. There are many people who love the Lord with everything they have and although they have faced a variety of hardships, they remain faithful to loving and worshipping God. I have many friends who have lost spouses, children, jobs, homes, and they still remain faithful to the Lord. I wouldn’t say that they ‘kill faith’. They live it and exhibit it every day. Nor do they petrify truth; they LIVE truth, tell the truth, and know the Truth. Jesus says, “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through ME.” These Christians that I am referring to (common people-it wouldn’t do any good to name them because they’re not famous in our sense of the word. Most likely no one here will recognize their names) have a personal relationship with Jesus (Who says He is the Truth). They do not petrify truth; they love truth.
A few people in ‘mainstream ministry’ who I believe don’t kill faith and petrify truth - Kay Arthur, Josh MacDowell, Sheila Walsh, Charles Swindoll, Luci Swindoll, Charles Colson, Patsy Clairmont, John Willis Zumwalt, Dr. James B. Richards, Beth Moore, Mark Lowery, Steve Green, Steven Curtis Chapman.
“That’s not to mention the small fact that Christians damn people to hell (or burn them at the stake, which is worse?) as a result of those discussions.”
I thought only God can do that. There may be those who are Christians who ‘damn people to hell’ so to speak. But, again, I just believe that one cannot make this statement as if all Christians do this. In my opinion, you need to quality your statement with the word ‘some’.
“Christians bend over the furthest (not sure that it's backwards though) if the perpetrator has a position of authority in their church.”
People in ‘positions of authority’ are only mere humans with weaknesses too. They are prone to being attacked by satan just like the rest of us. I agree there may be SOME Christians may ‘bend over’ to avoid facing the truth if a perpetrator is someone in a ‘position of authority’ and he/she violates God’s Word. It’s easy to bury our head in the sand because we don’t want to believe or admit that someone we respect would actually do something that is sinful. That’s why I believe we should keep our focus of praise and worship on God and Jesus Christ rather than a human. All of mankind is fallible. I have, a few times, heard of/known of someone in ‘position of authority’ (in mainstream) committ an outwardly visible sin, others may forgive him/her, but depending on the circumstances, they would no longer be in a ‘position of authority’ in that congregation. That congregation may not kick that person out and tell him/her that they can no longer come to church there…because we all need to continue to hear the Word of God. If we kick people out of the church, how will they hear the truth that comes from the Word and how will he/she experience compassion and forgiveness from other believers? If we receive compassion and forgiveness from others, then we may learn how to extend it to others in the future. If we kick people out of church when they commit a sin, we’d all be kicked out, because we’ve all sinned at one time or another. This is part of the growth that we as Christians go through.
Like I said, it depends on the circumstances though. I know of a case in which a person in ‘position of authority’ had to make a difficult call to the local law officials because a fellow ‘person of authority’ had allegations brought against him. The people in that congregation didn’t stick their head in the sand and pretend the perpetrator did nothing wrong because he was in ‘position of authority’. They dealt with it in a Biblical manner.
“Christians use belief in a way that disconnects doctrine from life. This is what James calls dead faith.”
I would agree that SOME Christians do this. But, unless you know every single Christian from around the globe and have attended all the different churches to know what they believe and teach, I just don’t think you can say this as if ALL ‘Christians use belief in a way that disconnects doctrine from life.’ If people really believe what the whole Bible teaches, it will be apparent by the way they live their life. In most (not all) of the people that I know who claim to be Christian, this is the case. They live out their faith. I agree that there are those who have so much ‘head knowledge’ about the Bible but don’t live it out in their daily life. I’m sure we’ve probably all heard it said that there are those who are so ‘heavenly focused’, they do no one including God any ‘earthly good’.
“Christians today adorn the monuments of the prophet-killers that were built with the sweat and blood of the masses who they conscripted to fight their wars and enslaved to build their cathedrals and fund their empires.”
Again, I believe something more in line with ‘SOME Christians today adorn the monuments….’ It is just my personal opinion that one shouldn’t make a broad sweeping generalized statement sounding as if ALL Christians do this. They don’t.
“If you have no examples, neither do you have any reasonable basis for your "belief" about my claims. In that case, what is your real objection?”
I do have reasonable basis for my beliefs. I’ve given you a few examples and could give you many more but they may not be names of people or events you’d recognize. They are just common Christian people. It is only ‘my opinion’ but my objection is that you make the statements as if they were fact when indeed they are only your opinion. Some things are fact; some are opinions. I have stated my ‘opinions’ based on facts that surround me in my life.
“Do you simply not like the idea that what I claimed might be true? Do you simply object to any criticism of Christianity? Do you just not want to think about it, so you looked for a way to dismiss it? If you don't have information or evidence on which to base your "belief" that my generalizations were inappropriate, what is the real nature of your objection?”
No, I don’t simply object to any criticism of Christianity (as the way God intended). I do have some criticism of SOME things that people do claiming the name of Christ as they do it. I think it is not only Biblical but also a very wise to make sure that our ‘Christianity’ actually lines up with Scripture and to critically think things through rather than blindly accept what someone says. All men are fallible and the Bible tells us, as Harold has also made mention, to ‘test the spirits’. And I agree that SOME of what you and others have said is true. I just believe you should qualify your statements rather than sound as if all Christians fit into your definitions of what Christians believe or do.
There have been about 40 different people who have posted on this blog that are or have been members of SF, gone to SF meeting(s), have had dealings with members of SF, read SF self-published pamphlets, books, and magazines, and/or visited their websites. It appears there has been more than enough information to form opinions based on some specific facts.
Russian, “I don’t want to rehash what I think I’ve explained, so I’ll say this… the message SF preaches an expanded (Biblically based) way/process/method that details how we become more like Christ. SF also preaches a distinction among the ‘occasionally mess up’ category.”
Can you please explain in more detail the expanded (Biblically based) way/process/method that details HOW SF teaches that we become more like Christ? And, can you explain what you mean by ‘preach a distinction among the ‘occasionally mess up’ category’?
“My beef with mainstream Christianity is that most times, in my experience, they preach this kind of acceptance of Jesus and stop there, resting on a few verses that say they’ll have everlasting life—without preaching the part about obedience and drawing near to God.”
I appreciate you qualifying your opinion with ‘most times, in my experience’ rather than as if all of ‘mainstream Christianity’ preaches ‘this kind of acceptance of Jesus and stop there, resting on a few verses that say they’ll have everlasting life without preaching the part about obedience and drawing near to God.”
Since you grew up in SF, would it be fair to say you don’t have much ‘actual experience’ with mainstream Christianity (in order to help form an accurate type of evaluation of all ‘mainstream Christianity’)? When referring to ‘mainstream Christianity’, who are you referring to? Would that include Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Assembly of God, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, Amish, Mennonites, independent churches? Are you getting your information off televised programs or referring to certain televised preachers/speakers (like Joel Osteen for instance)? If so, I would tend to agree with some of your opinions. But I do not adhere to or endorse many of their teachings (televised preachers), either. We may agree on a few of the same points just as you and I may agree on a few of the same points. I cannot be held responsible for what those people teach because none of them are my leaders nor does the mainstream church I attend embrace their teachings.
Contrary to that is the fact that SF has and uses its own writings, publications, music, and messages by its own SF leaders and others within SF. Some of SF teachings by its own leaders such as Elias Aslaksen, JO Smith, Sigurd Bratlie, Kares Smith are exhibited in behavior by its members. So we know what SF believes and teaches by listening, reading, and observing. The exhibited behaviors are contrary to what Jesus would do and what mainstream Christianity teaches which include love, respect for other’s relationships, understanding, meekness, kindness, unity, transparency, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, grace, self-control, gentleness, caring for one’s own family (even if they aren’t part of SF).
“Maybe this is where my unhappiness with mainstream Christianity comes from. I believe the gospel must be preached to its fullest at all times. That way hearers get a vision of what is to come (the goal of being like Jesus), and stretch out for it, instead of sipping milk (trying to be a little less angry, a little less stingy, a little kinder). I hope you understand that I’m not putting you down (in any way) because you believe different than me, but rather trying to promote a zealous, grab the bull by the horns, give as much to me as I can handle dear Lord, approach to Christianity…”
So, would you give a newborn baby a steak and corn on the cob to eat? As with most other things in life, (with many people) genuine learning of what the Bible says and what the Christian faith is all about takes a while and is learned over a period of time. After all, there is a great deal to learn and understand. It may take some a while longer than others. Just as a baby drinks milk and has to digest that easy form of nutrition first and then grows, he/she then moves onto some soft solid food and grows more, then onto food with a little more substance and a little more difficult to chew and digest and then grows some more, so too a new convert to Christianity may not be able to digest everything fed to them all at once. Most things in life (including the message of the Good News) are this way. We all grow at different rates. God made us individuals. It takes some of us longer to understand that we are sinners and in need of a Savior.
Perhaps God knows that is as much as some can handle and that is why Paul uses the illustration of baby food in 1 Corinthians Chapter 3 which starts out, “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?” That same chapter ends with vs.21-23, “So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come, all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.”
Are you sure that part of your unhappiness with mainstream Christianity doesn’t stem from those within SF who claim to be ‘The Bride of Christ’ and comparing themselves to those outside SF whom they refer to as the ‘harlot’? Or criticizing what mainstream Christians teach as being ‘watered down’ or lacking zeal or that we don’t teach obedience to Christ? Think about it, when we compare ourselves to others and put the others down with claims that what they teach is watered down, lacking zeal, harlot, the criticism will begin to erode relationships and cause divisiveness. It begins an ‘us against them mentality’ rather than unity in Christ. 1 Thes. 5:11 says, “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” We witness this type of paranoia, divisiveness, and hatred with groups such as the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, The Nation of Islam.
“It also isn’t an improvement doctrine that touches up the creation God made, but a gospel that starts from the ground up modeled after Christ.”
Could you explain what you mean by this? Have you ever read books by mainstream Christian authors and/or taken any mainstream Christian Bible studies? There are some excellent reads and studies out there. I listed some to Millard earlier.
I asked what you referred to as ‘sin in the flesh’. You said, “In short, it is striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, and deed. Jesus came in the same body, flesh, as you and I (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7), and condemned sin in the flesh. He did this by ‘being obedient to the point of death (here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary) (For this to make sense Jesus must be ‘peccable’, which is what SF preaches).”
I agree that Jesus came in the flesh just as you and I did. And, I too, agree that He condemned ‘sin’. However, you didn’t answer the question. I asked what you referred to as ‘sin in the flesh’ and you told me it was ‘striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, deed’. Your answer doesn’t make sense. ‘Striving to be like Jesus in word, thought, and deed’ isn’t ‘sin in the flesh’ in my Bible.
You said, “I apologize for using an unknown term.” (sin in the flesh)
No apology necessary. I just wanted to know what ‘you’ are referring to as ‘sin in the flesh’; not that I was unfamiliar with the term.
You made reference to Rom. 8:3 and Phil. 2:7 and said “here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary”.
Romans 8:3: “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man.”
Phil. 2:7: “but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
How did you get the ‘Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary’ from those scriptures?
1 Cor. 4:6 says, “Do not go beyond what is written,” and Rev. 22:18 says, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
Those verses make it clear that we aren’t supposed to ‘go beyond what is actually written’ nor ‘add anything to the words’ in the Bible.
You said ‘We are trying to be like Jesus in every aspect’, and all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some.’ But, then you also said, ‘when in reality the footsteps we follow are inward things…’
So, would you agree then, that you can’t be like Jesus in EVERY aspect, ALL points, ALL facets, if you can’t do the outward, physical things that Jesus can do/did?
Have you ever met anyone who has become like Jesus in every aspect?
Do you think lying, threatening, cursing, deceiving, bullying, manipulating, intentionally dividing loved ones, making false accusations against loved ones, undermining familial relationships, turning your back on people would be things that Jesus would do? Would these be outward sins or inward sins?
I agree that we should strive to be like Jesus in our words, thoughts, deeds. The only way this can happen is if the inside of each of us is changed. This is part of the relationship between each person and God. God works on our heart. If the heart is not changed, our “outward, physical things”, our words, thoughts, and deeds will not be truly changed, but only a façade.
Phil 2:12-18 says, “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose. Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life –in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from you faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.”
Why do you think Christians are to ‘shine like the stars’? Stars are bright and give light in darkness. I believe it is a word picture to show Christians that we are to shine like the stars in order to bring light in a dark, ‘crooked, depraved’, evil world and lead others to Jesus Christ, just as the star physically led the magi/wise men to Him when He was young. These may be “outward” things but these outward things come forth from the heart.
In Luke 6:45, Jesus said “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”
Personally speaking, I don’t think lying, threatening, cursing, bullying, deceiving, physically and emotionally separating loved ones, undermining familial relationships are acts that would lead anyone other than evil minded people anywhere. That isn’t who Jesus was.
This is the type of thing many of the mainstream churches I am familiar with teach. Is that weak teaching? I don’t think so-it’s in the Bible. I may not roll in the isles at church, or scream at God as if he could hear me better that way. I may not stand on the street corner and pray like the Pharisees, but that does not make me any less zealous of a Christian.
In conclusion, one thing I glean from the scriptures is that God desires our praise, worship, love, obedience and being glorified. Much of the teachings and music mainstream churches use puts the focus on Jesus Christ and what He has done for us (pay the ultimate price for our sins and reconcile us to God). But, that doesn’t mean that our teachings stop at that. A natural result of true heartfelt worship is faith, obedience, imitating and following Christ, rather than so much focusing on what WE do. Because if it becomes focused more on what WE do, then it becomes a works based religion, rather than a faith based relationship with Christ. This is one reason that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees.
sophie
Sf vanacular is hard to get a grip
on. Let me see if I can help.
Sin in the flesh:
What is ment by this is a persons
natural bent toward sin. Not just
outward sin, like stealing, for in-
stance. The law could punish some
one for steeling. But it had no
ability to curb someone's appetite
for coveting things that were not
theirs. ( An inward sin)
Without the power of the spirit to
over come coveting we are helpless,
agaoins it. We may never steal but, we are still tormented by the
want(lust) With the help and power
of the spirit we are able to resist
and the flesh(lust)ect dies. ie
taking up your cross or putting
to death sin in the flesh. so at
some point the coveting is no longer living in our members to tor
ment us or seperte us from God and
now we have taken another step to
being more Christ like.
When SF says Jesus had a flesh, this is what they mean, he had the
opportunity to covet, since he did
not and he was faithful to put this
to death he bacame the author and
finisher of our faith. I think it
is fair to say he had the capicity
to sin and never did. That is what
makes able to "follow the foot steps of Jesus" "All the way thru
the flesh"
James talks about what causes
temptation, not God or the Devil.
It is the lust(sin) in our flesh.
Ya cant tempt a dead man. If you
have ever had a rotten tooth it hurts for a very long time, until
the nerve dies. Then it no longer
hurts.
I hope that helps. I dont know
why SF has difficulty explaining
thier positions and thinking more
clearly than they do. Many,like
Russian have been raised in it,
so i think it is hard for them to
give a simple response. If you
ask a leading bro questions, many
time the response is meandering
and many scriptures are quoted, They sometimes lack the ability to
explain how they believe the verse
is pertinant to the question
sophie
Sf vanacular is hard to get a grip
on. Let me see if I can help.
Sin in the flesh:
What is ment by this is a persons
natural bent toward sin. Not just
outward sin, like stealing, for in-
stance. The law could punish some
one for steeling. But it had no
ability to curb someone's appetite
for coveting things that were not
theirs. ( An inward sin)
Without the power of the spirit to
over come coveting we are helpless,
agaoins it. We may never steal but, we are still tormented by the
want(lust) With the help and power
of the spirit we are able to resist
and the flesh(lust)ect dies. ie
taking up your cross or putting
to death sin in the flesh. so at
some point the coveting is no longer living in our members to tor
ment us or seperte us from God and
now we have taken another step to
being more Christ like.
When SF says Jesus had a flesh, this is what they mean, he had the
opportunity to covet, since he did
not and he was faithful to put this
to death he bacame the author and
finisher of our faith. I think it
is fair to say he had the capicity
to sin and never did. That is what
makes able to "follow the foot steps of Jesus" "All the way thru
the flesh"
James talks about what causes
temptation, not God or the Devil.
It is the lust(sin) in our flesh.
Ya cant tempt a dead man. If you
have ever had a rotten tooth it hurts for a very long time, until
the nerve dies. Then it no longer
hurts.
I hope that helps. I dont know
why SF has difficulty explaining
thier positions and thinking more
clearly than they do. Many,like
Russian have been raised in it,
so i think it is hard for them to
give a simple response. If you
ask a leading bro questions, many
time the response is meandering
and many scriptures are quoted, They sometimes lack the ability to
explain how they believe the verse
is pertinant to the question
Hello everyone , its been a longtime that I wrote here.
Well its been almost a year now that I left those SF. I cannot believe all the last 10 years I went throught , its kinda funny the way they work.
First when you meet them they are all nice , they will try everything to make you be in their church , putting all the other church down and stuff like that, make it like they have the true and no one else have it.
They keep saying trust in GOD and not in your feelings , yeah yeah yeah I heard that so many time , but what about if GOD was talking to me in my feeling, but I guess for some of them GOD would never talk to me in my feelings.
Everytime that I would felt it was wrong about certain things , they try to make me believe that they want me to believe , they will try to find other people in other church , like myself they always said that I should be closer to the friends like they call it cause in other church their is no fellowship , I will died if I dont find the right fellowship, well 3 years ago I did move to their fellowship quite my really good job 10 hours away from their fellowship , at first they are all happy and invite you for supper everywhere but after a while it dont take long that you are all by yourself, could not find a good job , have 4 kids to suports plus a wife that I never wanted to be maried with but stay 9 years with her cause the SF made me believe that I should be mentaly abuse my her until death do us part.
But its easy for most of them to go out and preach whatever they believe when they been born in that church and all their childhood friend are in the church , its just a normal life for them.
After you been in their church or meeting like they call it , it dont take time to because confuse and all, now 10 years later I lost my house , my credit , my kids , cause their is no job in the city of their fellowship for me , but I was not alow to talk about it cause if I do , I dont trust GOD and anyway they never listen to people with probleme anyway cause they have enuff of their familly and dont have much time for those outside the familly, I can still say their is good people too, I cant put them all in the same boat cause in any church their is good and bad so I guess i will finish with that , just felt to say this . thanks all
Hi Sophie:
(Your comments are between the dashes –, mine come after)
--Can you please explain in more detail the expanded (Biblically based) way/process/method that details HOW SF teaches that we become more like Christ?— To state it as simply as possible: A person accepts Jesus as their savior. They devote their life to be a disciple of Jesus. They desire to do the good (and do it) whenever they can. When they understand that they are being tempted to sin (i.e. live for themselves, which is the normal course of human nature) they ‘deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him’. This includes (among other things) ‘resist him [Satan], steadfast in the faith…’(1 Pet 5:9) and praying/asking Jesus/God to give them strength to do His will alone—and then doing it. If this is followed (that they never consciously agree to sin) then God shows them more and more of their own depravity. Thus transformation and sanctification occur as ‘sin in the flesh’ is removed little by little (by God) through obedience. As condensed and simple as I can say it—quite a bit more goes on as God works in the person throughout their life.
--And, can you explain what you mean by ‘preach a distinction among the ‘occasionally mess up’ category’?— I took what you said, “occasionally mess up,” very negatively. I may have understood you wrong. When I read that, I thought that you believed that ‘occasionally messing up’ was BOUND to happen, that it MUST happen because we ‘are only human’. SF preaches, and I believe, that I no longer have to sin anymore, and prophesy (in faith) that I will never again fall in sin (consciously agree with sin and do it/think it). This is entirely different than the attitude that says, “I will try to do my best, but WHEN I ‘mess up’ (read sin consciously) it is okay because ‘Jesus’ blood cleanses us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7) or ‘God sees us through Jesus as if we’d never sinned’. This attitude doubts the power of God to change humans completely and leaves the ‘door’ open for Satan to lead some astray.
--Since you grew up in SF, would it be fair to say you don’t have much ‘actual experience’ with mainstream Christianity (in order to help form an accurate type of evaluation of all ‘mainstream Christianity’)?— I’ve shared a few times what (and how much) ‘actual experience’ I have with mainstream Christianity. Again for the record… I was involved with an interdenominational Bible study and Young Life in high school, FCA (fellowship of Christian athletes) in university, met and talked with many mainstream Christians, and attended a handful (3-4) of mainstream churches (total number of visits around 10). I know what those institutions/groups/organizations preach/teach and how their members understand mainstream Christianity. I saw firsthand what kind of results came from those members over long periods of time (years). I think I have sufficient ‘actual experience’ to present a valid view of mainstream Christianity (though some of it is 5 to 10 years old).
--When referring to ‘mainstream Christianity’, who are you referring to? Would that include Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Assembly of God, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, Amish, Mennonites, independent churches?— The churches I went to did not advertise in their name their ‘denomination’. They weren’t JW or LDS or Amish or Mennonites or 7th Day or Catholics (although I’ve been to a number of their extremely dead and dry ‘masses’).
-- Are you getting your information off televised programs or referring to certain televised preachers/speakers (like Joel Osteen for instance)?—No. For the most part (the ones I have seen, a small number of messages) TV evangelists are more about show, humor, and entertainment than content. I’ve heard them tell people the easy thing (what people would like to hear) instead of the pure Word of God.
(cont)
--So, would you give a newborn baby a steak and corn on the cob to eat?—Most Christians grow up in a Christian family. I don’t have statistics to back me up, but I’d wager that the influx of spiritually ‘new’ Christians to Christianity is FAR exceeded by the number of children brought up Christian. Therefore these ‘babes’ have had their entire childhood in Sunday school and youth groups to get the basics of Christianity. Just like the verse you quoted in 1 Cor. 3 about milk…
” And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?” the reason people aren’t able to eat the ‘steak and corn cob’ are because they are fleshly (jealous and striving amongst themselves).
--As with most other things in life, (with many people) genuine learning of what the Bible says and what the Christian faith is all about takes a while and is learned over a period of time. After all, there is a great deal to learn and understand.—I agree that the Christian ‘walk’ is a lifelong process... But the only comparison with ‘babes’ should be in our desire for God’s Word, “…as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the Word that you may grow thereby” (1 Pet 2:2), not in our spiritual walk. The only way we remain ‘babes’ is that we remain fleshly…
--Are you sure that part of your unhappiness with mainstream Christianity doesn’t stem from those within SF who claim to be ‘The Bride of Christ’ and comparing themselves to those outside SF whom they refer to as the ‘harlot’?— That could influence me to a small degree (open my eyes to look deeper into things)., but I don’t see myself as an impressionable young person that is swayed by everything I hear. It doesn’t help me be happy with mainstream Christianity when I can see the difference between God’s Word and the results I see in the mainstream Christians I’ve been around (vs. the results of the majority of SF people I’ve been with). By the same token I am not happy with those in SF that say with their lips that they are ‘along’ (are living the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ) when in fact they are living for themselves (two-faced, if you will).
--Or criticizing what mainstream Christians teach as being ‘watered down’ or lacking zeal or that we don’t teach obedience to Christ?—This is my observation… as well as what I’ve heard from SF members who no longer go to mainstream churches.
I’d like to point out here that you identify yourself with ‘mainstream Christianity’ yet you don’t agree with the standpoints of other people who qualify themselves as ‘mainstream’. So under the massive umbrella of ‘mainstream’ there are these separate, distinct spheres of belief. I don’t know which qualities you think a ‘group’ must have to be considered ‘mainstream’. If I were asked I’d say that the ‘group’ must believe that Jesus was God on earth, unable to fall in temptation even if He wanted to.
--Think about it, when we compare ourselves to others and put the others down with claims that what they teach is watered down, lacking zeal, harlot, the criticism will begin to erode relationships and cause divisiveness. It begins an ‘us against them mentality’ rather than unity in Christ.—I agree with you that we should not be comparing ourselves to others, that is scriptural. I am not standing on a street corner campaigning against mainstream Christians; I am having a conversation with you that stemmed from the question of whether or not SF is a ‘cult’. I provided you my email address earlier if you’d rather have this discussion away from public spaces. I think it is make a distinction between different beliefs… Would you appreciate it if SF began calling itself ‘mainstream’ even though its teachings on Jesus’ divinity/humanity (among other things) are different than your view of ‘mainstream’? SF knows that it isn’t ‘mainstream’.
-- “It also isn’t an improvement doctrine that touches up the creation God made, but a gospel that starts from the ground up modeled after Christ.” Could you explain what you mean by this? Have you ever read books by mainstream Christian authors and/or taken any mainstream Christian Bible studies? There are some excellent reads and studies out there. I listed some to Millard earlier.— I have experienced what I mentioned from ‘mainstream’ Christians. They want to preach the gospel as a ‘self-help’ type of seminar. You may not belong to one of these types of ‘mainstream’ churches. Apostle Paul, for one, writes of a ‘new creation’, where the ‘old passes away’. I was not putting down all of ‘mainstream’ but meant to make the point that SF makes it central to their teaching that there is nothing good to save of the human ‘flesh’ (which is Biblical—eg Rom. 3)
I have not read very much ‘mainstream’ material, maybe part of a Max Lucado book.
--I asked what you referred to as ‘sin in the flesh’… …I agree that Jesus came in the flesh just as you and I did. And, I too, agree that He condemned ‘sin’. However, you didn’t answer the question. I asked what you referred to as ‘sin in the flesh’ and you told me it was ‘striving to live like Jesus in word, thought, deed’. Your answer doesn’t make sense. ‘Striving to be like Jesus in word, thought, and deed’ isn’t ‘sin in the flesh’ in my Bible.— You didn’t read my response, you just cut and pasted that which I cut and pasted (which I did for context). I’ll repost the relevant parts with some additions…
“… The verses I quoted there use that term [sin in the flesh] in the New King James Version, NASB, amplified, AmerStandVers, Darby, Holman, and Today’s NIV (nearly identical). ‘sin in the flesh’ is described (I believe) fully in Romans 6 through 8. Of course there are also many interpretations/understandings of what it really means and you probably understand that term differently than me (even if you did use one of those translations that use it). ‘Sin in the flesh’ belongs to the ‘old man’ described here:
Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
Ephesians 4:22
that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
Colossians 3:9
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
(to be cont.)
(cont.)
The person, my will, the old man, is the one that wants to continue sinning. The flesh (the body, mind, will) is the thing that carries out sin. In the old covenant, before Jesus came, the law could only condemn sin once it came outside of the body, but couldn’t touch the thoughts or intentions of a person, thus everyone had ‘sin in the flesh’. Jesus, the first person that never sinned, showed us the way to stop sinning, and broke Satan’s authority/hold over all of mankind by condemning/stopping sin inside the body/mind/flesh before it came out (before it came to fruition). Jesus never experienced ‘sin in the flesh’.”
--You made reference to Rom. 8:3 and Phil. 2:7 and said “here Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary”... How did you get the ‘Apostle Paul makes the distinction that a ‘death’ occurred before He died on the cross of Calvary’ from those scriptures?— I read the next scripture, Phil 2:8, “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” There are other translations that read differently— e.g. saying He was obedient until He died on the cross. I think the NKJ makes the distinction that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died (was put to death) over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own (and THEN He died on the cross as an unblemished/perfectly pure sacrifice).
--You said ‘We are trying to be like Jesus in every aspect’, and all indicators point towards trying to be like Jesus in all points, all facets, not just some.’ But, then you also said, ‘when in reality the footsteps we follow are inward things…’ So, would you agree then, that you can’t be like Jesus in EVERY aspect, ALL points, ALL facets, if you can’t do the outward, physical things that Jesus can do/did?— Are you splitting hairs here? Do you want to get down to minute details? I don’t want to wear what 1st century Jews wore, I don’t want to live in Israel, I don’t have the gifts He had (which I believe God gave to Him for being faithful) so I can’t heal people and turn water into wine. But I can follow the ‘footsteps’ He laid as He ‘opened/consecrated’ the way through the veil [which is the ‘flesh’]. I take very literally this verse, “It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master.” (Matt 10:25)… And this one, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:40). Those are two of the indicators that I think point towards what I’m talking about.
--Have you ever met anyone who has become like Jesus in every aspect?— Someone who is like Jesus in every aspect has ‘divine nature’ (possesses all of Jesus virtues in perfection). I know of some, and have heard of others, who say they’ve attained this perfection in certain areas. An example would be patience, where the person wouldn’t even be tempted to impatience. I personally can’t guarantee that these people did in fact attain what they say they did, but I’m very inclined to believe them based on everything else I know/heard about them.
(cont.)
--Do you think lying, threatening, cursing, deceiving, bullying, manipulating, intentionally dividing loved ones, making false accusations against loved ones, undermining familial relationships, turning your back on people would be things that Jesus would do? Would these be outward sins or inward sins?— It is clear that Jesus didn’t sin. I would have to hold the ‘undermining familial relationships’ part in check due to Jesus’ own words, “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53). I am not using this verse to say ‘this is what happened in Owasso’ but rather to bring up a verse that shows Jesus desiring something that seems contrary to what you might think. We might debate what it means, but there it is…
--Much of the teachings and music mainstream churches use puts the focus on Jesus Christ and what He has done for us (pay the ultimate price for our sins and reconcile us to God).—Here is what’s happening… You say “X” about SF based on what you read on this blog (and your personal experience if you life in Owasso). I respond and say “X” isn’t true of SF because of what I’ve seen and experienced my entire life in SF. Lately the scenario has flipped around… I say “Y” about ‘mainstream Christianity’ based on what I read on this blog and my experiences and you say “Y” isn’t what you believe or see based on your churches and life experiences. There is absolutely no difference between the two situations.
Sophie, I get the impression that you are a devout believer in what you’ve been taught and what you’ve learned. I am a devout believer in what I’ve been taught and learned. I don’t see either of us ‘convincing’ each other that one is wrong or the other right. I do admire your conviction and believe that you will be drawn closer to God if you do what you say you believe. Good job. Carry on. I’d like to encourage you to be (continue being) a ‘doer of the Word and not just a hearer’. I have enjoyed conversing with you, honest.
Sophie:
First, thank you for relieving me of being the longest poster on the blog! just teasing... ;) I appreciate the effort you put into your posts. I really learned something valuable from going through this last one from you.
A couple of small things:
You said: “I didn’t say you were ‘over’generalizing. The terminology I used was ‘sweeping generalization’.”
In my book, that's hair-splitting. What's wrong with a “sweeping generalization” if the problem isn't that it is an over-generalization? Your insistence later on that I should have said “some” where I said or implied “all” just reinforces this.
You said: “I disagree that 'This blog contains generalizations galore based on limited knowledge.' There is a great deal of factual information posted here.“
Pointing out that specific information exists on the blog, something which I never denied, is irrelevant to a claim that there are lots of generalizations which are very evident and very inappropriate on the blog. The presence of one thing doesn't rule out or deny or negate the presence of the other. Logic 101.
What I learned is something along the lines of not messing with a cub when the she-bear can see you! Actually, I realized that our disagreement is less about my statements and more about a conflict between what we want to focus on. I want to focus on the issues I raised. You seem to want to focus on examples of people to whom those issues are apparently not applicable. Your response was to object that the issues I raised don't apply to the extent that I stated. Fine. You didn't argue that they don't apply to anyone, although it seemed to me that you might be setting up a slippery slope that would end up with that argument. The only way for us to have a constructive discussion about the issues that I raised would be for you to agree to consider people to whom the issues I raised do apply rather than focusing on people to whom they don't apply. Can you do that? If you can't, there is nowhere that the discussion can go, because you are effectively refusing to engage in it by insisting on having what amounts to a very different discussion.
My statements were about definitive beliefs, things that fundamentally differentiate Christians from non-Christians, things like belief in the Bible as God's word (in some form or another) and the doctrine of the Trinity. I was focused on those beliefs, which of course are held by Christians. You seem to have focused on the Christians in your world, bumped my statements up against them, people who you believe have faith and exemplify the life of Christ. Then, seeing that my statements don't fit those people, you objected to my statements as being too “sweeping.” Technically, this is exactly what I cautioned you about: a few examples of cases where my statements don't apply only point out the exceptions which prove the rule. I could leave it at that but that wouldn't be very constructive.
Anyway, I respect and appreciate your focus on real people, which is what everything has to come down to for any of our talk to really matter, right? Of course, the discussion I am trying to have is about the people which exemplify the statements I made. Choosing to focus on people to whom my statements don't apply does not address the issues I raised, something I keep asking someone to do. It only points out that there are people who whom the statements don't apply, not that the statements don't apply to anyone.
tbc...
Like I said, the major points I made about Christians involve definitive beliefs. In other words, things which make a person a Christian and that, if they weren't held by a person, would render that person a non-Christian according to Christians. I'm not talking about immorality, I'm talking about beliefs and the importance Christians put on those beliefs as well as the importance that they put on believing per se. I'm talking about beliefs that Christians hold to in order to say that they believe in Jesus while they avoid believing in Jesus in real life. Again, Logic 101, pointing to faith that a person has does not address the unbelief that same person might be guilty of. The same person can believe that Jesus rose from the grave, and yet when faced with the death of something dear to them, even if only a figurative death of reputation or self-esteem or the affection of someone else, things far short of literal death, they can freak out as if they had never heard of Jesus. A person can believe in miracles of physical healing and have experienced miracles of physical healing and yet, when their bank account balance falls below a certain level or when their credit score is threatened, be overcome with anxiety as if Jesus didn't exist. Your responses really did miss the point of my statements.
There have been thousands of years— thousands of years—during which millions of people— millions of people—have supported a variety of organizations which all identify themselves as the Christian Church to some degree or other and which have in varying degrees made the world a worse place by their teachings and their repression of their members and the societies of their times. If the Christian Church had not developed the way that it did, which is strikingly similar to the way that any secular, politically-oriented organization develops, the world would arguably now be a better place. If Christians were disorganized, meeting in catacombs and living rooms, focused on living the life of Christ in their own little spheres, we would have blissfully been spared such wonders as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the abominable European cathedrals with the exploitation involved in building them and the repression that they symbolized for centuries, just to name a few examples. The Church has been a force for repression and denial of truth of which the church as been an icon for thousands of years. Why exactly was Mass performed in Latin well into the 20th Century? Because the Catholic clergy was trying to communicate the gospel or suppress the gospel? What a joke. Just one example of repression. Just because the small circle of Christianity that we are directly aware of or because the churches we are aware of don't fit that bill, again, does not disprove the rule.
You clearly don't understand what I meant by “Christians don't have it right. They kill faith. They petrify truth.” What you wrote in response reads like you were reacting to the phrases “kill faith” and “petrify truth” simply because you didn't like the sound of them. I have no problem agreeing with you that the people you mentioned don't “kill faith” or “petrify truth” when it comes to what you mean by those expressions. However, that doesn't address what I meant by those expressions, and after all, they were my expressions. So you still have not shown that Christians do not kill faith or petrify truth in the way that I meant. And in fact, what you wrote actually provided examples of precisely what I did mean.
tbc...
You said: "The Christians (individuals) I am personally acquainted with do not think beliefs are the Alpha and the Omega; they believe that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega as referred to in the book of Revelation."
Sophie, I know that's the party line. I'm not talking about what Christians say they believe. I'm talking about how Christians behave and what that behavior indicates about their faith. I'm not talking about how morally they can behave under duress or stress. I'm talking about what they resort to when they need to solve problems and conflicts. They don't resort to Jesus. They resort to doctrine. They don't resort to the power of a godly life. They resort to argument. All Christians in in every situation? Of course not. In my experience, most Christians. But please, let's try to get past the “sweeping generalization” problem, shall we, otherwise we'll never get to the issues I'm raising. I'll put it a different way. some Christians are examples of this most of the time and all Christians are examples of this some of the time. I'm not interested in accurately quantifying how many or how much of the time. I'm interested in understanding it when it does apply and would hope that you are too.
The doctrinal debates on this blog are great examples. You can argue for the right to debate doctrine and you are welcome to do it. I'm not saying that there is no value in doctrinal discussion, as I have already stated before, but that expecting SF people to see sense or “see the light” as a result of doctrinal discussion is wishful thinking. On the contrary, doctrinal discussion simply reinforces their own position in their own minds. That's not a speculative statement. That's based on over 30 years of experience with the group, 15 in and more than 15 out. You are just playing into their program. Do so as much as you like. I'm just sorry if you do so under the delusion that it will do the SF people much good. It will doubtless do you good if you learn from the experience, and that's worth something. :)
But let's not focus on the negative, let's look at the lack of positives. Jesus said that rivers of living water would flow from the innermost beings of everyone who believes in Jesus. Where are those rivers of living water Sophie? Rivers of money I've seen. Rivers of bodies streaming onto plazas to adulate men in funny costumes I've seen. Rivers of sentiment supporting the actions of ungodly men who act in the name of Christ and of God I've seen. Rivers of argument against ungodly men by those who disagree with them I've seen, while the arguers support other men who often turn out to be every bit as ungodly. There is a seemingly endless river of church splits. Ever witnessed one? I've seen these things and many like them, over and over. You've will see these things, too, Sophie, if you keep your eyes open. The same people you mentioned in your response are represented a hundred-, thousand-, million-fold over in the church splits that have occurred throughout the history of Christianity and continue today: people who exhibit faith and Christ-likeness in some or many ways. Or do you dare to make a sweeping generalization that everyone ever involved in a church split was not a godly person? I hope not. Over 30,000 Protestant denominations! How can we ignore that? How can we minimize it? I've seen the most godly people choose sides against their brothers and sisters, and when they did it, they didn't do it because of godliness.
tbc...
Do you wishfully hope that you and your circle of Christians are somehow different? If you and those you know were different, there would be rivers of living water flowing from your innermost beings. Are there? If so I seriously want to get to know you better. I need help. I haven't gotten there yet, not even close. The best I've seen or experienced are trickles, not rivers, and that's not nothing. It's amazing. But I can't say that there are rivers of living water flowing from my life or the lives of anyone I've ever met. And yet I have met Christians all my life who redefined their goals to better match their pathetically weak experiences of what Jesus promised us. Our experiences of the gospel are PATHETICALLY weak. I want something much better.
Christian doctrines overwhelmingly (“some”? Give me a break!) excuse Christians for the pathetic lives that they lead. “These signs will accompany those who have believed...” Where? I'm not talking about TV faith healer BS, I'm talking about “God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Heb 2:4 And I'm NOT talking about the signs and wonders!!!! I'm talking about having the kind of life and power that God can testify to. How many Christians have the kind of lives and power that God testifies to? Evangelicals, anyway, seem to do all their own testifying without any apparent assistance from The Almighty!
“Pathetic” compared to what? Compared to “sinners?” No. Compared to criminals? No. Compared to upstanding people regardless of faith? Sometimes. Compared to rivers of living water flowing from deep within us, from the deepest seats of desire and thought, (you know, down there where we want and think things that we don't even let our loved ones know about,) lovely, healing, life-giving rivers that nourish and invigorate those around us, rivers that nothing can stop, that evil people can't stop, compared to that? Compared to that: PATHETIC. What doctrine or doctrinal expertise is going to make up for that lack, Sophie? What are we going to do about it? Discuss doctrines?
When I got involved with SF, I got involved because I thought that I had found the closest thing I'd ever witnessed to people who had the power of God. Frankly, SF godliness and lifestyle were head and shoulders above any Christian sect I'd ever encountered, and I had encountered plenty by that time. I'm not talking about their talk. I'm talking about their lives, their behavior, their families, what they did, their fruit, the results of their behavior on them and the people around them. I'm talking about the way that they lived, the way they loved, the way they sacrificed, the way they gave, what they valued and what they spurned, and the lengths that they would go to live these things. There were people in SF whose devotion to God put me to shame and put most Christians I ever knew to shame. The regular, everyday life of a run-of-the-mill SF member was beyond what many Christians I'd met even aspired to, much less realized. I'll say that a different way. There were SF people who every day demonstrated the life of Christ in ways that most Christians I had ever met didn't even hope to achieve in their lifetimes. Many of them had doctrines that excused them, that allowed them to continue in good conscience never expecting anything better for their lives. Today in SF, with the appalling emphasis on money, money, money, I don't know how it is. Maybe those people I once knew are still there in SF suffering under the ungodliness of its present direction. Maybe they think it's God's will.
tbc...
The problem with SF was that the godliness there was not god-dependent. It was group-dependent. Actually, it was worse. It was leader-dependent. As soon as a person comes at serious odds with SF leadership, they cross a line into a status where there are two possible outcomes: 1) humble yourself and repent or, 2) you're out. “Serious odds” simply boils down to reluctance to defer to the leaders, regardless of the issue and regardless of the facts and regardless of the truth. Leaders determine this case by case. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
In my case, long before I had any intention of opposing anything in SF, I was tried and found guilty in absentia. I was never told what I had done or said that was objectionable, who made the decision that I was guilty of insubordination (not an SF term, by the way, but precisely what it's about,) when or where that decision was made, or how it was informed. My “sins” were always referred to in general terms like “what you wrote” or “what you have been saying.” When I finally started challenging this and asking for specifics, they told me that I already knew what they were referring to. Gee, and I was under the impression that I was asking because I didn't know. Big mistake on my part, I guess. ;) They refused to talk about it. When I asked what I was suppose to “humble myself and repent” from, they told me that I already knew what it was. Even SF people I deeply respected went along with this hypocrisy, not just in my case but in many others as well, and turned their backs on every one of us that the SF leaders branded as “opposers.”
Sophie, I have no doubt that you know some incredible people. They are everywhere. My mother was one, too. I wrote about her in my June 5 post, the very place you objected to my saying that Christians “damn people to hell” with their doctrines by saying, “I thought only God can do that.” That sounded pretty flip. I think better of you than that. My mother did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. She laughed at the idea of the Trinity. She did not believe in the virgin birth. The idea made her bristle. She believed in God. She read and practiced what she read in the Bible, but she didn't believe that it is the inerrant Word of God. She didn't believe in miracles. She never said the “sinner's prayer” or “asked Jesus into her heart.” She did not claim to be “born again.” What do you think? Is she in heaven now? Most of the Christians I know and most of the Christians I know about would say that she isn't, and their reasons would come down to doctrinal reasons, having no personal knowledge of her whatsoever. She wouldn't be in the Evangelical heaven or the Catholic heaven or the Orthodox heaven or most other heavens. The people who base their knowledge of her eternal state on doctrines would know (or claim to know) that she isn't in their heavens without ever having met her. That is what I meant when I said that Christians “damn people to hell” with their doctrines. And they would be wrong, dead wrong. I did know her and I knew her life and I knew her love, much better than I'll bet you know any of the people you mentioned in your last post. I hope I'll be able to introduce them—and you!—to her some day. I'm sure that there are some Christian denominations that have “watered down” (as we used to call it) the words of the Bible to the point that pretty much anyone and everyone will make it into heaven. Maybe I should give those another look?
tbc...
You said: “People in ‘positions of authority’ are only mere humans with weaknesses too.” Then why are they in positions of authority? Because “someone has to do it?” With that statement you confirm my point that Christians go to great lengths, “bend over the furthest,” for their leaders. Jesus was made High Priest “not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.” Heb 7:16. Rivers of living water, the power of an indestructible life, should be the requirement for Christian leaders. They should exemplify the life of Christ because it is their life which flows like rivers from their innermost beings, not because they can manage most of the time to act that way. What other requirement is more relevant to assuming leadership responsibilities? Oh wait! I forgot! Our seminaries teach them everything that they need to know: doctrine, church history, church administration, and missions! In other words, talk, talk, business, and a little charitable activity in order to get the right to talk some more (evangelize.)
We need to start talking and doing something about life. We need to start living in ways we have barely dreamt of yet. There is power available to live a godly life, and I don't think any of us have tapped into it yet. Not even close. Doctrine and argument aren't going to give us that power. We have to live ourselves into it.
Millard
As I explained to Sophie, I think
it is hard to understand SF and
some of their thinking without hav
ing spent significant amounts of
time with them. I understand what
you are saying in your most recent
posts.
Sadly many of us come short of the
mark of having rivers of living
water coming from us. It is sad
what we as christians generally
think of as important. I believe
that is what petrifies faith. Isnt
that what happened to Lots wife? We think of her as as a pillar of
salt. But that is petrification.
Salts replacing organic compounds.I
have been wanting to post for a
while regaurding holiness. Esp now
Millard you said Sf holiness was
not God dependent. I had wanted
to address this very topic. Often
times holiness becomes about us
and waht we are doing. I know this will stir the ire of our evan
gelical friendes, but I like the
way Eugene peterson puts it in the
Message in Romans Chapter 4 He
trusted God to set him right instead of trying to be right on
his own. My issue is that both
mainstreamers and holiness folk loose sight of this. And make
it about them and not about God.
jarsmom,
I liked Rom 4 ala The Message. Thanks. It points out the "excluded middle" between "grace" and "holiness" traditions. Jesus didn't "do it for us" in some way that means we don't experience "working out our salvation." At the same time it isn't something that we "can do for God" any better than we can see the backs of our own heads (i.e., can be aware of what we are oblivious to, and we are oblivious to a LOT!)
It has to be a partnership between us and God in which God takes the lead, has already taken the lead and is waiting for us to respond in faith. He has already "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." What are we waiting for? I get an image of a crippled person with a battalion behind him, who is so full of awareness of his own weakness that he won't take a step, while the battalion is waiting for him to do just that in order to jump in and help him.
David couldn't slay Goliath until he put himself in harms way on the battlefield. He put himself in a position in which he would fail unless God enabled him to succeed, without any record of God specifically telling him to do it. Standing on the sidelines waiting for "assurance" that we are supposed to go out there is covert unbelief. And the big difference between what he did and what a lot of miracle-seekers do is that he was all about the welfare of his brothers and sisters (Israel.) Miracle-seekers are all about reputation, about being the ones that God did a miracle for.
I wonder if we see so few miracles simply because we studiously avoid letting ourselves get in situations in which miracles would be needed.
Russian: I appreciate your posts. I can agree with a lot of what you say. For instance, I do believe there are a lot of lukewarm Christians and Christian churches that could use some more “solid food” when it comes to scripture. I agree that the watered down messages do not do justice to the message of Jesus Christ. I just don’t believe you can label ALL mainstream Christians in this light and Smith’s Friends is NOT the only church on the planet where we are called to purge sin from ourselves because God hates sin. The issue of sin, or peccability, or doctrine is not what separates SF from the rest of Christianity.
On the subject of the girl, you have obviously talked to people in this local SF fellowship and heard their side about some incidents. Since you haven’t talked with the girl’s family you obviously cannot see things from their perspective. It’s fair to say that WE cannot resolve the truth among ourselves. The only people who can do that are the girl and her family. In order for that to happen they need to sit down and share information openly and freely.
In my opinion, if SF is a destructive cult then they will do whatever they can to keep this from happening, which is the current situation. That’s what cults do. They keep their members separated, if not physically then mentally, from the outside world, especially their families, so that they control the information their members get. If they are not a destructive cult, then they would encourage the free and open exchange of information between this girl and her family.
I hope that Sophie will forgive me for commenting on something that you wrote to her but I couldn’t let it pass. You said: “By the same token I am not happy with those in SF that say with their lips that they are ‘along’ (are living the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ) when in fact they are living for themselves (two-faced, if you will)”.
If there are those inside of SF who are two-faced, aren’t these people much like your description of “mainstream” Christians? Why are these people tolerated inside SF yet this girl had to separate from her own family and friends simply because they attended a different church? I will admit there are those in my church that are “two-faced”. Our desire is to help them grow in Christ too. To live the kind of life that exemplifies Jesus Christ.
You also brought up verses 49-53 in Luke where Jesus talks about bringing division to families. You said this is what Jesus DESIRES. Jesus did not say this was His desire. You are adding to the scriptures something that is not there. If this is what Jesus meant then He would contradict a whole lot of other scriptures. There are too many other verses that talk about bringing people together, loving each other. Taking this one verse and claiming that Jesus “desires” to separate families is the ultimate in proof texting to justify harming other families.
If this is Jesus’s desire then why are SF families intact? Shouldn’t they all separate and hate each other? Talk about two-faced!
Jarsmom, I don’t have a problem with your definition of “sin in the flesh”, or Russian’s either for that matter. I think that most of us in this discussion would agree on this topic.
Relating to this subject of “sin in the flesh”, I want to explore your statement “James talks about what causes temptation, not God or the Devil. It is the lust (sin) in our flesh.” Where is that line between the desires that God gave us and lust, or sin? When does the desire to eat, to sustain ourselves, become sinful? God created us with the desire to procreate, to eat when we are hungry, to protect ourselves from the elements, from danger, etc. There is nothing unnatural or wrong with these feelings or desires. They came from God.
We usually think of lust in terms of an intense or unbridled sexual desire, but Webster also defines lust as “an intense longing: Craving 'a lust to succeed'”. Lust can take different forms such as a lust for power, a lust for food, a lust for material things. We all have natural desires for food or sex and I don’t believe these to be evil since they were created in us by God. I believe that God intended for us to trust Him to provide the things that we need, to satisfy our natural desires that He gave us.
Where you cross the line from desire into lust is when you become so selfish that you are willing to satisfy your own desires at the expense of others. Stealing, adultery, murder, sex trafficking, slavery, etc. are all, at their root, examples of lustful selfishness.
Isn’t this where satan, the devil, comes into play? Wasn’t it him in the garden with Eve who put those doubts in her head like: “Did God really say that?”, “You will not surely die”, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil”. Isn’t that the source of sin, that selfish desire to be like God? To take for myself that which I don’t own? Didn’t that originate with satan in the garden?
Think of this in terms of this SF leader and the girl. He met this girl in his classroom at school. He saw an opportunity to gain something for himself. He convinced the girl that her parents would harm her, moved her into his home in order to separate her from her family and all her close friends. He took advantage of a situation and harmed several families for his own gain. Wouldn’t this fall into the same category of “sin in the flesh”?
In the same way, SF disrupted Millard’s family to further their own interests at his expense. Add Fredrick Griess, Giving it to God, Just Me and who knows how many others. Coercing people to mortgage their homes to build a profit seeking business called the Brunstad Conference Center. These are all examples of a church abusing others, lusting for money and power.
I believe the epitome of hypocrisy and “sin in the flesh” is Smith’s Friends as they fill their coffers with David’s columns to build Brunstad, Macleay Christian Retreat, Northeast Conference Center, and fund Kare Smith’s business enterprises.
For SF to call the rest of the Christian world “harlots” is like Luke 6:41: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
Just Me: You said “They keep saying trust in GOD and not your feelings…” Can you expand on this a little bit. If you don’t trust your own interpretations of what God wants for you then exactly what do they mean when they say “trust in GOD”. In your SF fellowship, who determined what God’s will was for you?
Millard: I appreciate what you wrote. You seem to uphold the argument that I have been trying to make for several years, that SF is defined (and all Christians for that matter) by their behavior and not by their doctrine. You are right that we can sit here all day long and split hairs on different doctrinal issues and not really accomplish anything. Russian, having grown up in SF and having all their theology and exegesis, will probably defend SF until the day he dies, unless he can see that their actions don’t line up with the scriptures that they preach.
I like what you and Jarsmom are talking about. You, Jarsmom, did not raise my ire with your statements. You would get a hearty AMEN in my church with those statements. And Millard, speaking for all the Christian people that I know and study with, I know for certain that none of them would condemn your mother to hell. It is not our place to judge her salvation. That is only for God to decide. I am quite sure that there are people in heaven that I would be surprised to see, and there are probably some that would be surprised to see me as well.
I want to comment on Millard’s statement “They refused to talk about it. When I asked what I was suppose to “humble myself and repent” from, they told me that I already knew what it was.”
If someone is trying to help you grow as a Christian then why wouldn’t they explain what you said and what is wrong with it? How are you going to learn if you don’t ask the questions?
This girl said the same thing to her parents. They asked what they have done wrong and the answer is “you know what you did”. That is not an answer. That is a way to stop a conversation, to avoid any critical thinking.
The real truth is that they did nothing wrong, nothing worth the kind of treatment that they received from this group and their daughter.
I find it very interesting that these same words came out of this girl’s mouth that you experienced in a completely different group, in a completely different time. This is obviously a taught behavior by the global SF organization.
That is one way that cult groups control the information that their people receive. They don’t have to physically control it. Once they convince their members that all outside information is harmful to the group they control it themselves. The group members learn to avoid meaningful questions or discussions with anyone outside (or inside the group in the case may be) so that the group doctrine is never questioned.
I also want to comment on Millard’s experience when he first met his SF group, about how wonderful they seemed. “There were people in SF whose devotion to God put me to shame and put most Christians I ever knew to shame. The regular, everyday life of a run-of-the-mill SF member was beyond what many Christians I'd met even aspired to, much less realized”.
I have read similar comments from others who were part of the People’s Temple and the Branch Davidians. It is so easy to SEEM more godly on the surface. When nobody asks questions, they put on their happy face and do what they have been trained to do. But in those groups it was just a façade, a deception. “…for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” 2 Cor 11:14.
It makes me think that God could control us like robots. He could have created a wonderful, orderly, perfect world where all of us do just as He wants. But He didn’t choose to do this. He chose to give us a free will and as a consequence we humans that He created have made a mess of things. That is the human condition. We are messed up and in need of a Savior that we can trust and there is no human that can fill that role.
Harold: Between the lines, SF cultists like Russian will certainly confirm that it operates as a cult. And he will remain in the cult. The so-called "meetings" and "work parties" are spaces where the cult reinforces a certain mindset which begins with the idea that one must separate families and destroy families and "two-faced" people in SF. Sooner or later, they identify and mark those who are "two-faced" - first they slander, then they isolate, then they give them the treatment Millard got. This is standard procedure in the SF operating manual and is taught by the leadership across the world. I say again,the only way to overcome this "spirit" masquerading in the name of Jesus is prayer. If people prayed in unity, especially those who have been harmed by this spirit, it would be bound and the towers would fall. The prayer has to be specific - name the leaders and pray that they be bound and it will be so. May God raise up such prayer warriors in Owasa at least. Amen.
Harold, What I mean was that, in most my situation , and mostly about my mariage, since I knew from the beginning that it was not going to work out, I always felt it was not GOD will for me to maried this girl but for diferent wrong reason I still end up being maried to her.
But everytime I would tell some of the people that I just cant be with her and I dont think I can deal to be in this mariage for the rest of my life, some of them was saying its just my feeling and I cant just go by my feelling , GOD dont really speak throught our feelings.
But everytime I would get back to this it was always the same thing and I would tell them like we can really live that way cause we will end up having some kids one day and it will be worst then if we seperated now.
But anyway, now I have been looking at everything that happend over the last 10 years and I was right about the way I felt so does it mean it was just my feeling or GOD was talking to me, I was telling them that I will end up losing my house , my jobs , my kids and everything else, but they always seen it like I was probably not trusting GOD and being depress.
I even end up like 6 years ago trying medication for depression cause I just could not take it anymore , some people was telling me maybe that medication would help me , then after about 3 months of that, I notice everytime my wife would started a argument , she would end up counting the pills if I did take it that day, then about 20 min after we done arguing she would ask me if I did take my medication lol , how can I guy not get crazy over stupid things like that.
we got seperated for about 8 months 3 years ago,in court, she had 6 page of things againts me, she even had that againts me that I was admiting having mentaly and depression problem, but I know I dont have any problem , I just try it cause some people was telling that I may need some witch I did try but nothing more, I felt like juge was seeying me as the bad guy in all that, but anyway all that time its my wife that have big probleme but since she will do anything that some SF will tell her to do , they dont see her as the problem.
Sorry about my writting , cause I am not english so its not that easy to explain things in here.
Millard: Thank you for your recent post explaining what you meant in a different way, one in which I think I understand a little better. I can agree with much of what you’ve written. I was looking at individual people when assessing Christianity and you were speaking more in the broad sense and over long periods of time. With that said, I agree that there are and have been some horrible, evil things done in ‘the name of Christianity’. But, just because someone ‘says’ they’re a Christian, doesn’t make it so. Or, just because one IS a Christian doesn’t mean he/she will get things right all the time and is perfect. That’s what gives Christianity a ‘bad name’ in some peoples’ eyes and such a great tool for satan to use against Christianity. Some have the misconception that Christians are perfect and NEVER make mistakes. Christians are not perfect; they are forgiven. Anytime people are involved in things, the things will not be perfect because we are immature, incomplete, imperfect, souls who are sinners. ALL of us.
Rom.3, “For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” None can escape that. There are people who are loving, kind, gentle, patient, compassionate, humble, treat others as they want to be treated, beautiful spirit-filled Christians out there. But, we are all imperfect this side of heaven and hopefully realize and understand our need for a Savior and we’re in a ‘growth or maturation mode’.
“the very place you objected to my saying that Christians “damn people to hell” with their doctrines by saying, “I thought only God can do that.” That sounded pretty flip.”
I’m sorry, I wasn’t intending to sound ‘flip’, but merely making the statement that only God has the ability to determine who gets into heaven and who is ‘damned to hell’. I, nor anyone else, is God. Christians cannot ‘damn people to hell’; only God can do that. Only He knows our heart. After all, He is the ultimate Judge.
“The same person can believe that Jesus rose from the grave, and yet when faced with the death of something dear to them, even if only a figurative death of reputation or self-esteem or the affection of someone else, things far short of literal death, they can freak out as if they had never heard of Jesus. A person can believe in miracles of physical healing and have experienced miracles of physical healing and yet, when their bank account balance falls below a certain level or when their credit score is threatened, be overcome with anxiety as if Jesus didn't exist.”
I agree with your observations concerning people who are Christians, yet when experiencing trials in their lives seem to ‘freak out’ momentarily from shock or grief. I have also experienced such things myself. Due to the fact that we are made in God’s image, we are living, breathing, thinking, feeling, individuals who have emotions. Although Christians may display anxiety, grief, sorrow, or ‘freak out’ in the midst of a trying, hurtful experience, in the long term they grow in their faith by seeing God work. Even if the long-term outcome isn’t what they would have wanted, they stay grounded and stand firm (persevere) in their faith and devotion to God. Anxiety, love, sorrow, anger, compassion are God-given emotions, just to name a few.
Jesus, too, had emotions. Emotions are what make us real. If we didn’t have emotions, we may be alive but be puppet-zombie-like individuals. Where is the life in that? It is emotions which compel us to action. Love, empathy, compassion drive us to give time or financially to help underprivileged states, countries, or individual people. Love drives us to visit people in the hospital, take meals, help or give to those in need. Love and compassion drive people to give financially to help hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, drought victims. By going through our own tragedies, we are able to empathize and help when others are struck with the loss of someone or something dear to them.
Let’s use the analogy of a physical injury. When one is physically injured, he/she may yell, cry, scream, yell, or ‘freak out’ because of the excruciating pain. It doesn’t mean he/she has never heard of Jesus nor has any faith in Christ; it simply is indicative that the pain hurts. I believe this can also apply to emotional pain. Just because one has been hurt and shows emotion doesn’t mean he/she has never heard of Jesus or lacks faith. It means he/she is a living, breathing, feeling person showing emotion.
It is these same God-given emotions that allow us to see how other people feel, to be empathetic, to put ourselves in their position and be compelled to act; to be the body of Christ. Isn’t that the living water? Loving others? Helping others? Giving of ourselves in times of hurt, devastation, sorrow, loneliness? Isn’t that part of becoming more like Jesus? That’s what He did; He loved others, helped others, gave to others, healed others, spent time with others, listened to others, showed compassion to others; His emotions compelled Him to action. He wasn’t just all talk.
James 3:12, “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”
You said, “The problem with SF was that the godliness there was not god-dependent. It was group-dependent. Actually, it was worse. It was leader-dependent. As soon as a person comes at serious odds with SF leadership, they cross a line into a status where there are two possible outcomes: 1) humble yourself and repent or, 2) you're out. “Serious odds” simply boils down to reluctance to defer to the leaders, regardless of the issue and regardless of the facts and regardless of the truth. Leaders determine this case by case. It has nothing to do with doctrine.”
Then Jarsmom said, “I have been wanting to post for awhile regaurding holiness. Esp now Millard you said Sf holiness was not God dependent. I had wanted to address this very topic. Oftentimes holiness becomes about us and waht we are doing. I know this will stir the ire of our evangelical friendes, but I like the way Eugene peterson puts it in the Message in Romans Chapter 4 He trusted God to set him right instead of trying to be right on his own. My issue is that both mainstreamers and holiness folk loose sight of this. And make it about them and not about God.”
Rather than stirring the ire in me, I totally agree with what you and Millard have said concerning holiness/godliness. I said on July 18, “The only way this can happen is if the inside of each of us is changed. This is part of the relationship between each person and God. God works on our heart. If the heart is not changed, our “outward, physical things”, our words, thoughts, and deeds will not be truly changed, but only a façade. It is God who works on our heart.”We can try in our own power to become holy, but it is God who lives and works in each of us. We aren’t a puppet on a string; we have a free will. But, when Jesus left to return to heaven, He gave us the Holy Spirit to instruct, guide, minister, and lead us. He cleanses our hearts and convicts us of our unrighteousness. When we are convicted (by God, not leaders), we will repent (to God, not leaders), and God will be working on us from the inside out.
Matt. 23:25-28, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full or robbery and self-indulgence. “You blind Pharisees, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.”
Knowledge of doctrine, memorization of scriptures, nor how often we attend ‘church’ or ‘church functions’ make us holy. We can say all the right things, but it’s our heart that God and only God can fill with His love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, compassion, kindness, patience, peace, holiness. And as He does our actions/behavior will be demonstrative of what’s in our heart. Actions/behaviors are an overflow of the heart.
Russian: “I would have to hold the ‘undermining familial relationships’ part in check due to Jesus’own words, “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53). I am not using this verse to say ‘this is what happened in Owasso’ but rather to bring up a verse that shows Jesus desiring something that seems contrary to what you might think. We might debate what it means, but there it is…”
Harold makes some good points when he said, “Jesus did not say this was His desire. You are adding to the scriptures something that is not there. If this is what Jesus meant then He would contradict a whole lot of other scriptures. There are too many other verses that talk about bringing people together, loving each other. Taking this one verse and claiming that Jesus “desires” to separate families is the ultimate in proof texting to justify harming other families.”
You can interpret that (Luke 12:51-53) to mean whatever you choose. But, if one takes the Bible in its entirety looking at the entire message portrayed, it is very evident that God loves us and His desire is (and has been since the beginning) to have a relationship with us. Jesus came from heaven to give us a visual, physical picture (manifestation) of God, to be a propitiation for our sins, a gift, to RECONCILE us to God, to love, to heal, to build, to seek and save the lost, not to divide and cause dissension. Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy. Destroying and dividing loved ones (families and friends) is NOT what God or Jesus desires. He knew there would be divisions because of the message, but the Bible doesn’t say He desired it; that is added verbiage on your part. I think that is a distinct difference in ‘mainstream’ Christians and SF and others like them. Mainstream focuses on the positive things Jesus said and what His purpose was here on this earth. SF focuses on verses taken out of context and uses them to divide, separate, isolate, damage relationships of anyone who isn’t inside their group. God created, designed, and established, the family. Why would He desire it to be broken apart?
“When this SF family moves this girl from her dorm, into their home and show utter disrespect for her family, is this showing love to them? Are they following Jesus Christ when they do this?—This question has really has become the anti-SF ‘trump card’ (in this situation)… If I believed every one of the reports coming from Owasso I’d have to say I didn’t think ‘they’ were following Jesus when this happened—But I think that those reports are one sided, slanted to show the teacher and his family in a poor light. I’ve heard conflicting reports that seemed to be slanted to show the girl’s family in a poor light (some of them have been shared). I’d like to take the middle ground and say that BOTH sides PROBABLY could have done things differently, probably could have been kinder, more thoughtful, more longsuffering, more Christ-like in what was said or done. (As I make this statement I realize just how foolish it sounds miles away from Owasso, because I don’t think I really have a foundation on which to stand or any authority to say it).”
I appreciate you stating that you ‘don’t think you really have a foundation on which to stand’ since you do not reside in Owasso. Do you know anyone other than SF members who live in Owasso in order to glean information from the girl’s family’s and friend’s side?
The question remains: why did this girl have to live in this teacher’s house? If there are accusations to be brought against her family and friends, why not discuss it, let them know what they did wrong and then be willing to listen? Why did her new church need be involved? How is moving this girl out of her dorm and into this man’s house going to help? I believe it is a way to isolate her from her own relatives and friends. Isolation is one of satan’s tactic.
Does Jesus hate His own family? You said that those in SF want to be ‘like Jesus in all facets, all points, and every aspect’. If Jesus really DESIRES us to be divided against our own family (literally), and you want to be just like Him, shouldn’t those in SF divide against their own family? I think that is an interesting conundrum.
“Are you splitting hairs here? Do you want to get down to minute details? I don’t want to wear what 1st century Jews wore, I don’t want to live in Israel, I don’t have the gifts He had (which I believe God gave to Him for being faithful) so I can’t heal people and turn water into wine. But I can follow the ‘footsteps’ He laid as He ‘opened/consecrated’ the way through the veil [which is the ‘flesh’].”
Hebrews 10:19-20, “Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,”
No, I’m not trying to split hairs or be argumentative. But, I am trying to make a point that words such as EVERY and ALL change the meanings to your statements. Many Christians make a concerted effort to ‘be like Jesus’. The Bible teaches that we are to ‘follow in Jesus footsteps’. I know many who do this on a daily basis. I am trying to make the point that it is impossible to be like Jesus in ‘EVERY’ or ‘ALL’ ways. It is simply unrealistic. Placing unrealistic expectations or burdens on ourselves and others plays into taking our focus off of Who Jesus is and what He has done for us and putting our focus on trying to become holy or godly on our own. Jesus is to be worshipped, praised, and glorified. He did something we can’t do for ourselves or for anyone else…He died to take the sins of the world upon Himself…so that we, the body of Christ, have everlasting, eternal life with God in heaven.
Hebrews 10:10-13, “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. Waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.”
I asked you, “Have you ever met anyone who has become like Jesus in every aspect?” Your response: “Someone who is like Jesus in every aspect has ‘divine nature’ (possesses all of Jesus virtues in perfection). I know of some, and have heard of others, who say they’ve attained this perfection in certain areas. An example would be patience, where the person wouldn’t even be tempted to impatience. I personally can’t guarantee that these people did in fact attain what they say they did, but I’m very inclined to believe them based on everything else I know/heard about them.”
I, too, can say that I have attained perfection in ‘certain areas’. But, just because I say it, doesn’t make it true. And ‘attaining perfection in certain areas’ is not becoming like Jesus in EVERY ASPECT, ALL facets, ALL points. It is becoming more Christ-like in CERTAIN AREAS; not EVERY aspect. Do you know ANYONE who has become perfect in EVERY aspect, ALL facets, ALL points?
“There are other translations that read differently— e.g. saying He was obedient until He died on the cross. I think the NKJ makes the distinction that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died (was put to death) over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own (and THEN He died on the cross as an unblemished/perfectly pure sacrifice).”
I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’.
NKJ Phil.2:8 says, “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
KJV “8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
NIV: “8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!”
NAS: “8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Contemporary English version: “He obeyed God and even died on a cross.”
Scripture says that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’.
Humble-not proud or assertive, modest or meek in spirit or manner, expressing a spirit of deference or submission, low in rank or status: unpretentious.
Obey-to follow the commands or guidance of, to comply with, execute, to behave obediently
Just me: Thanks for sharing some of your story. What I think of when I read your post is that in the Old Testament, under the old covenant, God set up the tribe of Levites as the priests for the nation of Israel. They took care of the temple and offered up sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. They were the only ones allowed to enter the holy of holies. They were the intercessors for the people and their sacrifices would absolve the sins of the nation. They stood between the people and God.
When Jesus came He ushered in a new covenant.
“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance” Heb 9:15
Under this new covenant the temple was destroyed (and interestingly enough has never been rebuilt) and Jesus was established as the new high priest.
“where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Heb 6:20
“…in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” Heb 2:17
“…Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God…” Phil 2:5-6
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” John 3:16 NASB
“but in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.” Heb 1:2
So Jesus, who is by very nature God, the begotten Son, through whom God created our universe, has become our intercessor, our high priest, the one who makes atonement for our sins. We no longer need another human to intercede for us to God. We have direct access and a personal relationship with THE God who created the universe.
I recently had a conversation with a young woman who took a job with a local church as a secretary for the worship minister. There was also a young man on the church staff who took a liking to this woman. They dated some but it was nothing serious as far as she was concerned. At one point the worship minister took the woman aside and told her that God had spoken to him and told him that she was supposed to marry the young man. Her response to this was “I’m sorry but God did not tell that to me”.
My point is that this worship minister was trying to insert himself between this young woman and God. This is a form of manipulation. He was trying to make her feel guilty, as if she would be disobedient to God if she did not do what he wanted her to do.
Under the new covenant, with Jesus Christ as our intercessor, there is no human qualified to tell me what God’s will is for me. So how does God speak to us? Is it an audible voice from heaven?
I do know one thing for sure, NOBODY knows God’s will for me but God. And I believe that if God wants me to know what His will is for me, He will tell ME and not Kare Smith, or Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard.
I know I'm battling evil spirits (I mean in people around people negatively influencing them continually) on all sides and have accepted this sophie you said ""I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’""
my reply aka the verses you seek that the demons around you ain't letting you know about...........
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"
Jesus quite simply had to of put to death in the flesh his sin "but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live" why else would these verses exist? Luke 9:23 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
But I don't agree with the smith's friends nasty treatment of me, to this day they won't reply to emails, most them won't accept me as their facebook friends when I went and pulled weeds for them this year they were so giving me dirty looks I felt so uncomfortable I walked around the building instead of through it (where they all were) to get to the yardwork buckets cause they were making me that uncomfortable - and I don't agree with that bad treatment of me!!!!!
I don't agree with them shunning their family members that have chosen to not believe like them anymore either!
I agree with sophies ideas of love, christians need the good fruit and that is love for peoples! And so I am with mainstream christianity.......cause in the end your fruit is going to be the most important thing, how you had it in your heart for others. The tares that jesus separates at judgement day they had hate in their hearts for others, or a lack of love for people. The good wheat the good vines - they had love a real heart good deeds towards the homeless the widow the orphan etc. I hope my love even increases, that I continually bear more of the good fruit to gods glory until jesus returns and takes me up to heaven.
The bad example the smith's friends have set for me, was good for me in the end, so that I know how important it is to bear good fruit, have it good in my heart for others that god be praised.
I know I'm battling evil spirits (I mean in people around people negatively influencing them continually) on all sides and have accepted this sophie you said ""I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’""
my reply aka the verses you seek that the demons around you ain't letting you know about...........
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"
Jesus quite simply had to of put to death in the flesh his sin "but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live" why else would these verses exist? Luke 9:23 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
But I don't agree with the smith's friends nasty treatment of me, to this day they won't reply to emails, most them won't accept me as their facebook friends when I went and pulled weeds for them this year they were so giving me dirty looks I felt so uncomfortable I walked around the building instead of through it (where they all were) to get to the yardwork buckets cause they were making me that uncomfortable - and I don't agree with that bad treatment of me!!!!!
I don't agree with them shunning their family members that have chosen to not believe like them anymore either!
I agree with sophies ideas of love, christians need the good fruit and that is love for peoples! And so I am with mainstream christianity.......cause in the end your fruit is going to be the most important thing, how you had it in your heart for others. The tares that jesus separates at judgement day they had hate in their hearts for others, or a lack of love for people. The good wheat the good vines - they had love a real heart good deeds towards the homeless the widow the orphan etc. I hope my love even increases, that I continually bear more of the good fruit to gods glory until jesus returns and takes me up to heaven.
The bad example the smith's friends have set for me, was good for me in the end, so that I know how important it is to bear good fruit, have it good in my heart for others that god be praised.
sophie you said ""I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’""
the verses you seek...........
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"
Jesus quite simply had to of put to death in the flesh his sin "but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live" why else would these verses exist? Luke 9:23 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
But I don't agree with the smith's friends nasty treatment of me, to this day they won't reply to emails, most them won't accept me as their facebook friends when I went and pulled weeds for them this year they were so giving me dirty looks I felt so uncomfortable I walked around the building instead of through it (where they all were) to get to the yardwork buckets cause they were making me that uncomfortable - and I don't agree with that bad treatment of me!!!!!
I don't agree with them shunning their family members that have chosen to not believe like them anymore either!
I agree with sophies ideas of love, christians need the good fruit and that is love for peoples! And so I am with mainstream christianity.......cause in the end your fruit is going to be the most important thing, how you had it in your heart for others. The tares that jesus separates at judgement day they had hate in their hearts for others, or a lack of love for people. The good wheat the good vines - they had love a real heart good deeds towards the homeless the widow the orphan etc. I hope my love even increases, that I continually bear more of the good fruit to gods glory until jesus returns and takes me up to heaven.
The bad example the smith's friends have set for me, was good for me in the end, so that I know how important it is to bear good fruit, have it good in my heart for others that god be praised.
sophie you said ""I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’""
the verses you seek...........
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"
But I don't agree with the smith's friends nasty treatment of me, to this day they won't reply to emails, most them won't accept me as their facebook friends etc.
I don't agree with them shunning their family members that have chosen to not believe like them anymore either!
I agree with sophies ideas of love, christians need the good fruit and that is love for peoples! And so I am with mainstream christianity.......cause in the end your fruit is going to be the most important thing, how you had it in your heart for others. The tares that jesus separates at judgement day they had hate in their hearts for others, or a lack of love for people. The good wheat the good vines - they had love a real heart good deeds towards the homeless the widow the orphan, your enemies etc. I hope my love even increases, that I continually bear more of the good fruit to gods glory until jesus returns and takes me up to heaven.
The bad example the smith's friends have set for me, was good for me in the end, so that I know how important it is to bear good fruit, have it good in my heart for others that god be praised.
Giving it to God: I appreciate your last post and the verses you quoted, but I think you may have misunderstood my statements to Russian in which I said, “I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God.”
My response was to Russian’s quote in which he said, “the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own.’ He had made reference to Phil 2:8 (NKJ version). I looked Phil 2:8 up in several different Bible translations and couldn’t find one that read ‘the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because HE was faithful to do God’s will instead of his own’.
What the NKJ version of Phil.2:8 does say is, “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
I don’t disagree that ‘Jesus was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’ (that He humbled Himself). This can be cross-referenced this with other passage(s) such as Matt 26:39, “And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
The portion of Russian’s statement that I was calling attention to is his interpretation in which he said, ‘the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life’. Phil 2:8 says, ‘being found in appearance as a man’. It does not say ‘the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life’. Russian’s interpretation of Phil 2:8 could lead one to believe that Jesus had sinned and He had died to each of His sins a little at a time (over the course of His life). I questioned his wording because the Bible clearly states that Jesus did not sin. He took the sins of the world (every human being/every sinner) and died in our stead so that we don’t have to die spiritually and/or eternally.
I just want to understand what Russian meant. He had already stated that SF teaches that they ‘want to be like Jesus in every aspect, all facets, all points’. In striving to be just like Jesus, does SF believe that Jesus died to His own sins (the sin in the flesh in Jesus) to the point of His perfection and that if He can become perfect, we can too?
I don’t object to the fact that all Christians should strive to be like Jesus and that we should strive to ‘die to our sins’ so to speak. What I do object to is the idea that we can be ‘just like Jesus in all points, all facets, every aspect’. I object to the idea and the teaching that Jesus sinned and over the course of His life He died to all of His sins to the point of attaining perfection and that if Jesus can do that, we can too.
2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him WHO KNEW NO SIN TO BE SIN ON OUR BEHALF, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
1 Peter 2:22, “who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ died for sins ONCE FOR ALL, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"
The idea that ‘the sin in the flesh in Jesus died over the course of His life’ is actually saying that Jesus sinned. This is contrary to what the scriptures teach. I believe there have been other SF members who have posted on here that have admitted that Jesus did not sin. Either Jesus did sin or He did not. The peccability/impeccability issue has been brought up before. But, this is not the same thing. I’m not asking if SF teaches that Jesus ‘could’ or ‘could not’ sin, but rather if He ‘did’ or ‘did not’ sin.
Sophie:
You wrote: SF teaches that they ‘want to be like Jesus in every aspect, all facets, all points’. In striving to be just like Jesus, does SF believe that Jesus died to His own sins (the sin in the flesh in Jesus) to the point of His perfection and that if He can become perfect, we can too? ... The idea that ‘the sin in the flesh in Jesus died over the course of His life’ is actually saying that Jesus sinned. This is contrary to what the scriptures teach.
The above is EXACTLY what SF teaches and this has been discovered by many including Zac Poonen over time. However, this is the "secret" the SF believes in, the "revelation" from an "angel" to J O Smith, Bratlie,etc.
This is no different from teaching what the yogis and shamans teach; it is a human way of becoming "perfect:. However, this "spirit" has found a "stronghold" in SF and hides itself under a "covering" even as SF teaches. Which is why they fear the exposure of this secret and try their best to put an "evangelical covering" over this teaching.
This error has been taught down the centuries and all such movements have died. We just have to wait and watch and pray for this "movement" too to die out. The "movement" knows that if its teaching is properly exposed through the proper study of Scriptures, it will be destroyed. So the "movement" has now learnt to become "rich" and "economically powerful" so that it can withstand this "exposure" and its consequences much like the Church of Scientology fights to stay alive and keep alive its false teachings.
To Harold:
--I just don’t believe you can label ALL mainstream Christians in this light and Smith’s Friends is NOT the only church on the planet where we are called to purge sin from ourselves because God hates sin. The issue of sin, or peccability, or doctrine is not what separates SF from the rest of Christianity.—
I agree with you that there may be Christians (or Christian groups), who identify themselves as ‘mainstream’, who also share some of the same beliefs as SF. I personally haven’t found other churches that preach to ‘purge sin from ourselves’ (although my sample size is extremely limited compared to the number of ‘mainstream’ churches).
Regarding ‘two-faced’--If there are those inside of SF who are two-faced, aren’t these people much like your description of “mainstream” Christians?—
I’d like to distinguish my description of ‘mainstream’ Christian person from ‘mainstream’ Christian preaching/church/gospel. The person that lives what they believe is commendable in all things (as long as they are willfully pushing for progress in their life). Let’s keep the person separate from the doctrine/preaching... I don’t think two-faced people anywhere can be compared to people that believe and do what they believe (even if what they believe is ‘wrong’ (wrongness or rightness being debatable)). So, ‘no’ answers the first question.
-- Why are these people tolerated inside SF yet this girl had to separate from her own family and friends simply because they attended a different church? I will admit there are those in my church that are “two-faced”. Our desire is to help them grow in Christ too. To live the kind of life that exemplifies Jesus Christ.—
Why are they tolerated? Two-faced people don’t show both sides at once. They put on a ‘good’ face for their church life and away from that circle of church members or friends they lead another life. If the leader responsible for the church knows about it they probably won’t ask the two-faced person to lead any children’s groups or bear any responsibility… SF also wants to help lead each and every ‘member’ to a personal life and growth in Christ. The issue of ‘Have to separate’ has been discussed before with no resolution. I don’t think she ‘had’ to do what she did, but rather chose to do what she did, but that is pure speculation.
--You also brought up verses 49-53 in Luke where Jesus talks about bringing division to families. You said this is what Jesus DESIRES. Jesus did not say this was His desire. You are adding to the scriptures something that is not there. If this is what Jesus meant then He would contradict a whole lot of other scriptures. There are too many other verses that talk about bringing people together, loving each other. Taking this one verse and claiming that Jesus “desires” to separate families is the ultimate in proof texting to justify harming other families.
Harold (cont)
If this is Jesus’s desire then why are SF families intact? Shouldn’t they all separate and hate each other? Talk about two-faced!—
The verse in question states, “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.” If we go by your definition then Jesus is one large contradiction because He made a whip of cords and drove out the money changers from the temple even though He says many things about ‘loving people and being kind to them’. Ridiculous. The verse says, in paraphrase, ‘I came to bring division’—it was something He knew would happen because of what He chose to do... If DESIRES gets your goat, then I used the wrong word to say what I meant—I apologize for that... I also said that I wasn’t using this verse to explain/justify what happened in Owasso, but to bring a counterpoint against Sophie. Familial relationships are NOTHING compared to a relationship with the heavenly Father and His Son. Stop misreading/choosing not to read what people write. I’m not, and neither does SF, encouraging people everywhere to abandon their families in favor of Jesus. But if there is a choice to be made between family and Jesus, you best be choosing Jesus first. At times these two will clash and people will be forced to show their true colors.
Harold, you wrote quite a lot about ‘sin in the flesh’ and ‘lust’. There were a lot of ‘rational’ things written, but not much of God’s Word. We should stick to His definitions a bit more than Webster’s, yes? Our natural human desires become sinful when they contradict God’s laws. That doesn’t seem so difficult if we know what He commands and desires… I’ll share James 4:17, “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,” the picture becomes quite clear (for me anyway). ‘Good’ may be a bit subjective, but if we strive to do good, rather than to not do ‘bad’, then things will go well.
You wrote that the ‘line’ is crossed from desire to lust when you satisfy your own desires at the expense of others then mentioned a number of gross, outward acts. What about thoughts? Are they at the expense of others or just at the expense of your own self? I think that the majority of sins come from within, the thoughts. Sometimes those thoughts turn into actions that harm others, but the damage was already done when the person agreed with the thought and allowed it to grow in their mind.
I’d like to comment on your comment of Millard’s experience when he first met SF. Add in the oft-quoted verse, “You’ll know them by their fruits…” and we have a controversy. Millard found that ‘There were people in SF whose devotion to God put me to shame and put most Christians I ever knew to shame. The regular, everyday life of a run-of-the-mill SF member was beyond what many Christians I'd met even aspired to, much less realized.’ So the fruits were there… over a period of 15 years or so. Millard’s beef (so I have gathered) is with the leadership of SF, their handling of his situation, and with the “mindless minions” that support the leadership. He hasn’t, to date, expressed so much concern over the result of their daily lives (which is a product of trying not to sin) (correct me if I’m wrong Millard). Which is it Harold? Do fruits matter or are ‘fruits’ a sham and easy to fake? You can’t choose when they are faked and when they are real.
To John:
You love these drive by comments that don’t address the one that made the comments… just sit still long enough to ask a question (and wait for the answer) instead of assuming you know the answer already. You assured Harold that I would confirm that SF operates like a cult… I can’t because I don’t believe it operates as a cult. I’ll ask you again, John, how do you know what happens at ‘meetings and workparties’? I will testify that what you described does not happen. You are wrong.
I think it is foolish for you to pray that ‘insert leader’s name here’ is bound… A wise person would pray for God’s will to be done and that ‘insert name here’ would be given grace to humble themselves, change their ways, and serve Him instead of themselves/’the cult’. It looks to me like your type of christianity is the ‘tear others down’ type instead of the ‘building up’ type. On the other hand, I personally welcome your prayer for SF. I also welcome your prayer against SF. I do not want hypocrites and evil people in SF any more than a root canal, so continue praying for God’s hand to come over SF and remove the ‘wrong’ people and insert the ‘right’ people that will do right by God’s Word.
To Sophie:
--Although Christians may display anxiety, grief, sorrow, or ‘freak out’ in the midst of a trying, hurtful experience, in the long term they grow in their faith by seeing God work. Even if the long-term outcome isn’t what they would have wanted, they stay grounded and stand firm (persevere) in their faith and devotion to God. Anxiety, love, sorrow, anger, compassion are God-given emotions, just to name a few. – This explanation goes directly against God’s Word. Luke 12:29, “And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. 30 For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things.” And, “Be anxious for nothing…” So these displays of anxiousness you think are normal really just doubt the power of God. People that do the things you listed do not have a ‘hope in God that is the anchor of their soul’ Heb 6:18-19.
--Jesus, too, had emotions. Emotions are what make us real. If we didn’t have emotions, we may be alive but be puppet-zombie-like individuals. Where is the life in that? It is emotions which compel us to action. Love, empathy, compassion drive us to give time or financially to help underprivileged states, countries, or individual people.— I think you are forgetting your scripture. Emotions are waves of the sea the most people are tossed upon (emotions go up and down, which really have nothing to do with being grounded, or on a firm foundation in Christ). 2 Cor 5:14 says that the love of Christ compels us—love for Him causes us to do the things that He would do, were He here on earth. Emotion is part of the human makeup, but there is nothing godly or extra special about it.
--God created, designed, and established, the family. Why would He desire it to be broken apart?—I responded to Harold’s points about this, but this last part seems a bit more then rhetorical… I think it has less to do with breaking apart a temporary union and more to do with forging an eternal union. God, heaven, Jesus all come before family. If this step towards God results in the ‘breaking apart of a family’ then it is OK. I don’t advocate permanent separation on the grounds of ‘I’m seeking God, they aren’t’, but the rest of our lives we live in such a way that others can see our devotion to God.
Sophie (cont)
--Do you know anyone other than SF members who live in Owasso in order to glean information from the girl’s family’s and friend’s side?—No. You (whether you do or don’t live in Owasso) and Harold (whether he does or doesn’t live in Owasso) and Keith have represented the family’s position quite thoroughly.
--Does Jesus hate His own family? You said that those in SF want to be ‘like Jesus in all facets, all points, and every aspect’. If Jesus really DESIRES us to be divided against our own family (literally), and you want to be just like Him, shouldn’t those in SF divide against their own family? I think that is an interesting conundrum.—Thanks for setting this one up for me… Matthew 12: 47 “Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Obey the Father first… Those that did that were considered Jesus’ own family. Does that mean He broke His earthly family apart? Wow. Jesus must be going against God too then. How can you explain away Jesus’ own actions towards His earthly family? I’m sure He loved His family. There was a ‘distance’ between Him and those around Him so that He would seek God first and not earthly support.
Regarding Every and All (be like Jesus in all facets)— “I am trying to make the point that it is impossible to be like Jesus in ‘EVERY’ or ‘ALL’ ways. It is simply unrealistic. Placing unrealistic expectations or burdens on ourselves and others plays into taking our focus off of Who Jesus is and what He has done for us and putting our focus on trying to become holy or godly on our own.”—
Ephesians 4:13 is about this very thing… Christians are to “come… to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” We are also told we can, “be filled with the fullness of God.” (Eph 3:19). This doesn’t say sometimes we can, or since we are humans we can only do this some of the time… This is what we are to come to. 1 Cor 15, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” What part of ‘always abounding in the work of the Lord’ lets you say that it is unrealistic? Are the scriptures too strong for you? Only those that love the Lord with all their hearts, minds, soul, and strength can come to this place you call impossible. I think you doubt these words for your own life because of the preaching you hear. The preaching you hear sets the bar low enough to be attainable, but far below the full gospel that Jesus brought and Paul (among others) preached. Jesus is worshipped, praised, and glorified when we live the life, not when we say it with our lips.
Regarding perfection--“I, too, can say that I have attained perfection in ‘certain areas’. But, just because I say it, doesn’t make it true. And ‘attaining perfection in certain areas’ is not becoming like Jesus in EVERY ASPECT, ALL facets, ALL points. It is becoming more Christ-like in CERTAIN AREAS; not EVERY aspect.”—Sophie, you are the one that keeps bringing up the point of a Christian growth… You can’t be perfect in all areas before you are perfect in one, can you? Being perfect in an area doesn’t mean you’ve never sinned/fallen in that area… Just that you have ‘divine nature’ (you can’t even be tempted) in that area anymore. Is it so hard to believe? 1 John 3:3, “he who has this hope purifies himself just as He is pure.”
Sophie (cont)
--“Do you know ANYONE who has become perfect in EVERY aspect, ALL facets, ALL points?”—I already answered that. I admit it is a lofty goal (albeit written about in the Bible). I know people who I believe have gotten at least half-way there. Just because my limited knowledge doesn’t allow me to say it has happened doesn’t mean it is impossible or hasn’t happened.
--I’ve posted below a few different translations. I can’t find one that says, ‘that the ‘sin in the flesh’ in Jesus died over the course of His life because He was faithful to do God’s will instead of His own’. What it does say is that He humbled Himself and that ‘He obeyed God’.—What I said was a paraphrase of what I believe the Bible says about Jesus. There isn’t the time for me to try to reference each passage and present the foundation of my belief. What we can agree on is that for Him to ‘humble Himself and obey God’ He would have had to have His own will that was contrary to God’s will. Yes? So in order for Him to do God’s will each time, He had to ‘put to death’ His own will (because anything contrary to God’s will is SIN)… (and we’ll walk right down the garden path… to the answer).
You wrote to givingittogod—“I just want to understand what Russian meant. He had already stated that SF teaches that they ‘want to be like Jesus in every aspect, all facets, all points’. In striving to be just like Jesus, does SF believe that Jesus died to His own sins (the sin in the flesh in Jesus) to the point of His perfection and that if He can become perfect, we can too?”—I think what you described there is what SF believes. SF believes that if Jesus did it, we can do it too (as long as we live as faithful, as God-fearing, as He did).
--“He died to all of His sins to the point of attaining perfection”—He died to all the contrary elements (contrary to God’s will) that were in His ‘flesh’. Once that happened ‘Sin’ no longer had dominion over his soul, according to the Law of Moses.
--The idea that ‘the sin in the flesh in Jesus died over the course of His life’ is actually saying that Jesus sinned. This is contrary to what the scriptures teach.—Saying Jesus sinned is contrary to scripture. Saying that the human will and earthly desires contrary to God’s will (that are present in all people) never found an acting foundation in Jesus is not saying He sinned. Those human and evil (contrary to God) things were systematically choked to death in Jesus’ life because he never allowed them to ‘breathe’ (never gave them an opportunity to manifest themselves in word, thought, or deed). Grasp this Sophie and you’ll grasp SF’s purpose.
Is this a Cult , that was the question, well I had respect for that church but now I dont.
I left my jobs a week ago to be closer to my kids cause i was 40 hours drive from them for 11 months, while I was 3 hours away my ex send me email giving me problem to see the kids.
Now she been hidding with the kids since last friday, the only one who know where she is, is the leader of that church, I notice that they will believe everything she says and I feel treat like I am crazy , cause they have the way to say stuff or ask question to make me feel like I am crazy.
I know it happend to other father before, cause the minute someone leave the church, your the bad person, they seem to always take the women side , since they know that she usely have the legal custody of the kids, anyway it really sound like a cult to me now that I went throught that stuff with that church.
My life was so entirelly destroyed by this cult.........I went back to my bible study.......I like them at my mainstream christian church......but since everything the smith's friends did to me I'm a bit terrified of everyone everywhere. I just don't think I can handle being utterly devoured like the smith's friends have devoured me a nother time with another church or people's....like I'd pry for reals jump off a bridge........so the bible study is a really dangerous thing for me........they seem nice enough these mainstream christians ------ but the smith's friends also were real nice to me in the beginning!!!!!!!!!! And then they STABBED STABBED STABBED ME IN THE HEART! And then sent their gargoals to this anti the smith's friends site to stab me through the heart good a few more times to make sure I was good and dead!!!!!!!!!! I'm not enjoying all the e-mails I receive around the world of people's lives being destroyed by this cult.....it's just going on and on. They have no remorse, cause they are demon possessed to all hell and serving satan. They are making satan real proud to, satan worshipers could kidnap me sick snakes all over my body and burn me and wouldn't be able to inflict as much emotional/spiritual trama that the smith's friends inflicted upon me, it's a problem that I can't trust people no more like this. I want to be a part of my bible study, but I feel myself holding back holding back, that and I just have a eternal dread the idea that they too might utterely devour me like the smith's friends did. please dear god please hear my prayer please get rid of this cult. But the good news is if there is good news is that following jesus I'll win in the end. They ain't going to win, in their evil someday it will bite them in the but I don't know when but someday it will -------- unfortunately some us will be sitting there just depatitated by this cult with our limbs hanging all over the place in a post smith's friend hell that never ends!!!!!!!!!!!
I've gotten so close to the people of my bible study past 2 years (well almost 2 years I've been going to this mainstream bible study) some my walls have cracked fallen, uh unstucco'd...........what the hell does my future have in store??????? Am I even going to survive???????? What if the mainstream christians decide to devour me to??????? Well I'm going to my bible studies bbq : ) though dang crude I'll end up getting even closer to these people ------ see this is the problem I let the smith's friends in!!!!!! They didn't let me in - but I let them in my heart! So when they stabbed me in the heart ----- it hurt!!!!!!!! I know they paint me as crazy, but unhurt people would walk away from this cult......if there was no damage done to me I'd pry be ok today!!!! I'm not ok, I'm soooooooooooooooo sooooooooooooooooooo not ok! I've tried and tried counseling and it isn't working for me!!!!!!!! It very much appears to be the counselor's aren't able to help me. I know that this cult is still the spiritual and emotional damage they inflicted upon me is effecting me ACROSS THE BOARD.......you know I posted some jesus was just a man @#$%#@$% on my blog and then I read on this site someone mentioned bible verse that jesus was god in the flesh, and was like oh ya --------- the smith's friends cult #@%$%$ is still like in my head!!!!!!!!!! To the extent I don't have a ministry anymore.......I don't have the ability to siphon out all the cult indoctrination. And I don't want to indoctrinate people into smith's friends cult thought processes/beliefs.
But ya the good news is the mainstream christians are much more nicer to me then the smith's friends ever were, they've let me inside, I mean in! My bible study is like family to me - for reals. We have a christmas gift exchange and full out christmas dinner every year, we have potlucks every month, this bible study group has gone way past just being a bible study to me! (which could be a good thing -------- I don't have family nearby people need family it's good to have some family of some sort!!!!!!! my mainstream church bible study and church feels good to me - I'm on meds now my judgement had to of been super bad my illness super in effect when the smith's friends cult members preyed upon me -------- I'm on meds on a good path, things are ok right? The bad bad bad smith's friends demon people will go to hell someday everything is going to be ok) I wish I just wish I could fully like just be at my bible study and feel safe be like how I was before I was prepertrated upon by the smith's friends cult. Once I was a super trusting, and happy person before this cult. I want that again. I want to just be able to go to my bible study and not worry about the idea of them stabbing me in the back someday maybe! They couldn't stab me in the back like the smith's friends anyways right? ya they couldn't. This a super nice bible study I'm a part of..........pry god's doing, pry god's hand was in me finding this bible study. HE knew I needed family, a safe place.
Russian said: “Thanks for setting this one up for me… Matthew 12: 47 “Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Obey the Father first… Those that did that were considered Jesus’ own family. Does that mean He broke His earthly family apart? Wow. Jesus must be going against God too then. How can you explain away Jesus’ own actions towards His earthly family? I’m sure He loved His family. There was a ‘distance’ between Him and those around Him so that He would seek God first and not earthly support.”
I think most Christians would agree that we are to ‘obey the Father first’. But this Bible passage is in no way indicative that Jesus ‘broke His earthly family apart’ or put a ‘distance’ between Him and his family as you suggest, but rather it is yet another indication that Jesus is inclusive in who He believes His family to be, which He says is ‘whoever does the will of My Father in heaven’. Scripture does not indicate that He turned against, broke apart, or shunned His own family or that we are suppose to do that either. It also doesn’t list any denominations or group names.
By your statement, “There was a ‘distance’ between Him and those around Him so that He would seek God first and not earthly support,” it appears that you’re implying that we as Christians are not to have ‘earthly support’. If that is that really is true, then shouldn’t the members of Smith’s Friends separate from their own families and friends so they too, can rely ONLY on God and not have any ‘earthly support’? That assessment seems to be quite a contradiction of itself. When this male teacher and his family moved this girl into their home, was she really relying only on God and not having any ‘earthly support’?
I would like to share verses 18-20 of Mark 5 which say, “As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let Him, but said, “GO HOME TO YOUR FAMILY and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how He has had mercy on you.”
This passage doesn’t indicate that Jesus wants us to break apart from our family. He tells this man to GO HOME and share the news of what Jesus has done for him with his family. How can we share the good news about what Christ has done for us if we won’t fellowship with each other, especially those closest to us?
To Sophie
You said, “But this Bible passage is in no way indicative that Jesus ‘broke His earthly family apart’ or put a ‘distance’ between Him and his family as you suggest, … Scripture does not indicate that He turned against, broke apart, or shunned His own family or that we are suppose to do that either.”
Is the girl’s family ‘broken apart’? After she moved out, got married, moved on in adulthood, did her family really ‘break’? If what I’ve read about the family is true, then the parents are still a loving couple who live their lives before God and continue in all the good deeds they were doing before this happened. So, is the family really ‘broken’? That is an honest question…
Another point about the situation… does a family ‘break’ when a member of the family (a child) turns away from God? Let’s take the example of a child (recently out of high school) that moves out of his/her parents house, stops attending their childhood/family’s church, and begins to live for themselves (not for God). Does that ‘break’ the family? Is this situation made ‘worse’ by the fact that it wasn’t the ‘world and the lusts of the world’ that pulled the adult child away from the family, but rather was a different set of beliefs? Where would you rather have a child?... Out in the ‘world’ (living to fulfill their lusts, seeking their own, etc.) or professing to have Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and living for God? Where would you rather see your child?
--By your statement, “There was a ‘distance’ between Him and those around Him so that He would seek God first and not earthly support,” it appears that you’re implying that we as Christians are not to have ‘earthly support’. If that is that really is true, then shouldn’t the members of Smith’s Friends separate from their own families and friends so they too, can rely ONLY on God and not have any ‘earthly support’?—I am not implying that are to refrain from relationships on earth, neither am I implying ‘only’ having a relationship with God. I am against ‘earthly’ advice and counsel (advice that comes from ‘man’). When a person ‘comes of age’ they must live before God’s face, answer to Him, and not be tied at the hip (or take directions) from human wisdom/familial wisdom. Because the family is closely knit (and rightly so) it is very important to separate between spiritual exhortations from them as opposed to normal family advice. I admit that it is sometimes difficult to understand what is ‘earthly’ and what is from God.
--I would like to share verses 18-20 of Mark 5 which say, “As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let Him, but said, “GO HOME TO YOUR FAMILY and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how He has had mercy on you.” This passage doesn’t indicate that Jesus wants us to break apart from our family. He tells this man to GO HOME and share the news of what Jesus has done for him with his family. How can we share the good news about what Christ has done for us if we won’t fellowship with each other, especially those closest to us?--- When a person is converted to God (from living a life of sin) it is very important that they do what this verse says. It is very important to have spiritual fellowship (as opposed to idle chatter) with many people. In Mark 5 I understand it in this way… The demon-possessed man’s family members were not followers of Jesus, therefore he had to inform them about Him. I get that the young ladies parents want to see, talk to, and share in, their daughter’s life. That is normal and usually good. I don’t know what the situation is like now between them—whether or not that happens.
Do you feel like this dialogue is going anywhere? Or do you feel like this is iron on iron—just creating sparks?
To Sophie:
In reference to your post on Aug 6, if you remember back in September 2008, we covered this topic of “unconscious” sin. This is a good illustration of Smith’s Friends deceptions about their beliefs. Dawn made the statement that “Jesus never sinned consciously”. This implies that He did sin, or at least could have sinned, “unconsciously”. Anna Crlsn came along and tried to explain it away but just talked all around the issue and finally agreed that “Jesus did not sin, period”. This would imply that SF is in agreement that Jesus did not sin, but this wording of conscious vs. unconscious keeps coming up. I believe SF teaches that Jesus did sin, like all of us, then became perfect, or worked out His own salvation, but they can’t really commit to that publicly without being seen as conflicting with the Bible.
You also made a good point about Russian’s comment on ‘earthly support’. Adding to your point, Mary, the mother of Jesus was at the crucifixion and Jesus took the time during all His suffering to take care of His mother when He said to the apostle John "Here is your mother."
“Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” John 19:25-27
Another point is that James, the brother of Jesus, became a leader in the church and wrote the book of James. There is also some evidence that Jude was also a brother of Jesus. If Jesus had separated from, and shunned His earthly family it is unlikely that they would have been at the cross and participated in the church.
To Russian:
Your response “I am against ‘earthly’ advice and counsel (advice that comes from ‘man’)” is interesting considering the comments from some former SF who talk about the control that SF leaders have over their members. Also, take for example my post on Dec. 12, 2008 where I talked about a profile on the Brunstad web site by a guy named John who wanted to be a missionary until Bratlie told him to “forget it”. Isn’t this the kind of “earthly support” that you just spoke against? And what about the “earthly advice” that is being given to the wife of ‘just me’, and Millard’s wife as well?
Your words are not consistent with the actions of Smith’s Friends.
Concerning Millard you wrote: “He hasn’t, to date, expressed so much concern over the result of their daily lives (which is a product of trying not to sin) (correct me if I’m wrong Millard). Which is it Harold? Do fruits matter or are ‘fruits’ a sham and easy to fake? You can’t choose when they are faked and when they are real.”
It is easy to be nice and “fruitful” when you live in an isolated community where everyone believes the same things and nobody asks any questions. The people in Jonestown seemed to have a very “fruitful” existence, and they did when it came to living among themselves. But when outsiders came to ask questions they killed them. How did Smith’s Friends treat Millard when he asked questions – they shunned him and caused division in his family. What kind of fruit is that?
You also said “but the rest of our lives we live in such a way that others can see our devotion to God.”
When this SF family in Owasso threatened to sue the girl’s family and lied about them, when they assaulted and mocked the girl’s family at the wedding, when their children turned their backs to people on the street, I don’t think these actions show devotion to God.
Russian wrote: “I think that the majority of sins come from within, the thoughts. Sometimes those thoughts turn into actions that harm others, but the damage was already done when the person agreed with the thought and allowed it to grow in their mind.”
This is classic cult theology. If you equate thoughts with sin then the only way to guarantee that you purify your life is to remove ALL thoughts. Quit thinking for yourself and let the leadership tell you what to do, so that you do not sin.
I don’t disagree with the idea that some thoughts turn into actions that are sinful. But God gave us a mind and a free will with the capability to choose right from wrong. All of our actions begin as a thought, don’t they? If we think for ourselves then we have to have thoughts. Some of them actually produce good things. That was Millard’s problem with SF, he was trying to think for himself.
Russian wrote:
“There were a lot of ‘rational’ things written, but not much of God’s Word. We should stick to His definitions a bit more than Webster’s, yes?”
And later wrote:
“What I said was a paraphrase of what I believe the Bible says about Jesus. There isn’t the time for me to try to reference each passage and present the foundation of my belief.”
Why is it OK for you to paraphrase (which is your interpretation and opinion) but it isn’t OK for me to give my opinions and even define words from the dictionary?
Russian wrote:
“I don’t think she ‘had’ to do what she did, but rather chose to do what she did, but that is pure speculation.”
And also:
“I’m not, and neither does SF, encouraging people everywhere to abandon their families in favor of Jesus. But if there is a choice to be made between family and Jesus, you best be choosing Jesus first. At times these two will clash and people will be forced to show their true colors.”
First of all, I agree that if you must make a choice between your family and Jesus then Jesus comes first. But that is not the case here.
Second, we have been over this many times and there is lots of confirmation from SF members and former members, all the way back to elf asura, that Smith’s Friends does ‘preach and teach steadfastly the conditions of discipleship mentioned in Luke 14:25-33”. (elf_asura, March 29, 2008)
Third, I don’t believe the choices here are about family or Jesus. I believe the SF choice is about family or Smith’s Friends. There is a person here who was involved with this SF church and they were told point blank ‘you can’t have any friends but us if you want to be in our church.’
Remember the quote from another member of this SF fellowship – “(__), you were almost there. You almost got it but your parents held you back. (__) gets it. She understands that her parents are controlling and demanding.”
This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and everything to do with undue influence. Remember your story posted on Aug 15, 2009 about the parents moving her car while she was inside a store. How many other things has this group invented in order to influence what this young girl thinks about her family? This SF family manipulated her into thinking her own family had turned against her and would even harm her if she went home. And does it really show “devotion to God” when a young 18 year old girl leaves a college campus to move in with her high school teacher and shun her own family?
Russian wrote: “After she moved out, got married, moved on in adulthood, did her family really ‘break’?
Let me review some of the circumstances. The family helped their daughter move into a college dorm room and that very evening the “church” came and picked her up from campus and moved her into their home. The parents were unaware of this until they got a phone call from a friend to tell them their daughter was missing from campus. No parent wants to get a phone call like that. It’s like getting punched in the stomach. And these were supposed to be “Christians”.
She moved in with this SF family, shunned everyone, and lived there for 18 months before getting married. It’s not as if she fell in love with this guy and then decided to elope. She moved in with her high school teacher and she couldn’t do that without his knowledge and participation.
You continue to focus on what SHE did. I want to focus on what HE did. You are minimizing the damage done to the girl’s family by this SF leader, like he had nothing to do with it. You’ve already agreed that these actions are wrong. Why do you insist on protecting him? What’s in it for you?
Russian wrote:
“If what I’ve read about the family is true, then the parents are still a loving couple who live their lives before God and continue in all the good deeds they were doing before this happened. So, is the family really ‘broken’? That is an honest question… “
If you lose one of your arms in an accident, you may continue to do some of the things you used to do but you are still not the whole person you were, and there would be some things you just could not do anymore. If you had the chance I’m sure you would want the doctors re-attach your arm so you could be whole again and enjoy doing those things you couldn’t do with only one arm.
If you believe that this girl’s parents were, and still are, “a loving couple who live their lives before God” then I have to ask the question again, why did this man move the girl into his home? You keep talking about making choices between family and Jesus but then you make this statement that contradicts your other arguments. This man also didn’t cause her to separate from just her parents, what about her brothers, her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends. They were all shunned because of him and his “church”. Is this showing “devotion to God”, or to him, the SF leader?
I will take the space here to quote what Heart2Heart wrote back in May 2008,
“I have watched her go from a very loving, kind, caring, considerate, compassionate, HAPPY young lady to a very scared, closed, isolated, seemingly UNHAPPY “girl of age”. She used to greet my kids and me with open arms, a true concern for our well being, wanting to know how, where, and what’s going on in our lives. We always had conversations, back and forth. Now, it’s hard for her to look us in the eye, she looks scared like someone’s watching her. She very seldom hugs us anymore. She’s no longer the same person. They have not made her “better”.”
This is an observation from someone who knows the girl. It doesn’t sound like someone who is showing “devotion to God”, or being “fruitful”. You keep trying to paint a picture where this girl was making a choice to live for Jesus and her family was holding her back and then you make statements like “the parents are still a loving couple who live their lives before God”. You keep contradicting yourself and you can’t have it both ways.
Harold (cont)
Please don’t make parallels between followers of Jim Jones and Smith’s Friends. Jim Jones was a bisexual lunatic that, among other things, performed lewd acts with males in front of his congregations. He perpetuated a mass suicide. He was NOT in any way a Godly man at any time in his too-long life. He preached socialism, not Jesus, “If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin.”
As a person, Johan Smith was an upright navy officer who wrote edifying letters, gave His life to God completely, and through faithfulness lived and preached the life of Jesus. SF as a church has grown and flourished for over 100 years. Usually when a cult leader dies their congregation splits or scatters.
“How did Smith’s Friends treat Millard when he asked questions – they shunned him and caused division in his family. What kind of fruit is that?”----You say this like you know what happened between Millard and SF leaders. You don’t. It wasn’t just about ‘simple questions’.
“When this SF family in Owasso threatened to sue the girl’s family and lied about them, when they assaulted and mocked the girl’s family at the wedding, when their children turned their backs to people on the street, I don’t think these actions show devotion to God.”----If those are true actions I don’t think they were Godly either. I don’t think that those events stand alone but were precipitated by other events (if all the stories are true no one acted in a Godly way). Because I wasn’t there and don’t know exactly what happened I can’t say any more than that. Do you know the ‘whole’ story?
“This is classic cult theology. If you equate thoughts with sin then the only way to guarantee that you purify your life is to remove ALL thoughts. Quit thinking for yourself and let the leadership tell you what to do, so that you do not sin.”----The smart person asks, “what about the leaders? How can they think for me if thoughts are sinful?” No, that is ridiculous… Every man is viewed the same by God, ‘there is no partiality with God’.
A disciple of Christ would read Romans 6, 7, and 8 and say, “Unless I get help/freedom from my sinful flesh then I can never be a servant of God.” 2 Cor 10:4, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ…” Every thought must be brought into review. They point isn’t to remove all thoughts, but to purify the thoughts you do have.
“Why is it OK for you to paraphrase (which is your interpretation and opinion) but it isn’t OK for me to give my opinions and even define words from the dictionary?”----Paraphrasing the Bible says the same things in fewer words, reducing the number of scriptures copied and pasted. Your liberty to opine and define remain intact, but when you start extrapolating the lusts and desires James wrote about to what you think of when you read ‘lusts and desires’ it crossed a line in my mind. Especially when you equated ‘lusts’ to 5 grossly outward sins that any civilized person on earth would condemn to make your point. Maybe I over reacted to what you said, or my understanding of the lusts we are really after is different. I see lusts and desires as inward desires; honor, money, opposite sex, power… Because we are rebuked that the things you mentioned aren’t even to be named among us believers, Eph 5.
(cont)
“Third, I don’t believe the choices here are about family or Jesus. I believe the SF choice is about family or Smith’s Friends. There is a person here who was involved with this SF church and they were told point blank ‘you can’t have any friends but us if you want to be in our church.’ “----That sounds like a juvenile thing said by a juvenile person. The only things I can think of about ‘others’ are “evil company corrupts good morals” and “do not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever”. If a person spends a significant amount of time with people that don’t believe/live/practice what they do, then they may be swayed from their beliefs because they won’t receive any kind of edifying fellowship with them.
“Remember your story posted on Aug 15, 2009 about the parents moving her car while she was inside a store.”----You are twisting the story. I did not say that her parents moved her car. I said her car was moved. Don’t twist.
I said, “After she moved out, got married, moved on in adulthood, did her family really ‘break’?” You wrote a summary of how you understood the entire situation without answering the question.
“You continue to focus on what SHE did. I want to focus on what HE did. You are minimizing the damage done to the girl’s family by this SF leader, like he had nothing to do with it. You’ve already agreed that these actions are wrong. Why do you insist on protecting him? What’s in it for you?”----When did I agree that those actions were wrong? I’ve already said that there could have been better communication between everyone. I’ve said that you are presenting one side (the one you know) to show the teacher and his family as part of a ‘cult’ when you’ve said you don’t know the whole story (how could you unless you were omniscient).
The main thing I’m resisting is your extrapolation from the situation in Owasso to the rest of the 30,000+ (however many there are) SF ‘members’ around the world. I really have no defense (other than common sense and some first person testimonials) of the situation in Owasso. But I have a very strong defense against what you say outside your bubble of knowledge/experience. I’ve experienced it, I’ve lived it, and I know it. If you want to condemn the teacher and his family for their actions, that is your prerogative. But if you want to blindly say that what you believe you see is practiced worldwide/preached worldwide etc. then you have no grounds to stand on. A number of SF dissidents have weighed in with their stories, which may or may not be true, and which are definitely biased, but that doesn’t an SF make. Your first-hand experience/knowledge is needed before you can, in good faith, label SF a cult. Do you understand from where I’m coming?
(cont)
“If you believe that this girl’s parents were, and still are, “a loving couple who live their lives before God” then I have to ask the question again, why did this man move the girl into his home? You keep talking about making choices between family and Jesus but then you make this statement that contradicts your other arguments.”----I’d like to think the best of the parents because I know very little about them. I know that their Christianity (which is probably like your ‘mainstream’ version) is different than mine. I’d wager that the young lady realized the difference and since her parents are like you, who don’t agree with SF interpretation, decided she had to do something… I still don’t understand why both you and Sophie use the term “destroy” when referring to the state of the young lady’s family. I could see (a little) if a death in the family ‘destroyed’ a family, but not moving out and deciding that what your parents believe isn’t for you… the term ‘destroy’ would mean that they didn’t have their hope firmly resting in God… so if I thought the family was destroyed I’d be contradicting what I said about the parents, ‘…live their lives before God.’ If they truly lived before God their daughter ‘leaving’ them wouldn’t ‘destroy’ them or their family.
You reshared what Heart2Heart had to say about the young lady. I’ll share that I had a very nice chat with her about her career aspirations a couple of months ago. It was really nice to chat with her (being someone who she barely knew from Adam). She seemed happy with where she was in life.
I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Sophie: Are we getting anywhere? Making progress? Or just rehashing things on which we’ll never agree?
RussnSpy has been coached to write the things he is writing.
1. Sigurd Bratlie taught that Jesus had "unconscious sin" and that he had to cleanse himself from it.
2. The teaching is that Jesus was just another "son of Adam" like all of us "born in sin" and had to cleanse himself of this sin, whether they call it "unconscious sin" or "sin in the flesh".
They do not understand that he is the "second Adam".
3. In the USA too, an Indian brother was taught this "secret" by a leader but understood by God's grace that this is "error" and escaped without much damage.
4. In India, there have been SF leaders who clearly understood this teaching and tried to teach it to some young people who understood that this "error". Those who understood have escaped but some remain in this "secret" teaching.
5. These leaders were told to shush it up and act like "normal" evangelicals and isolated by SF and pushed out when they stuck to the "original" teaching.
6. These teachings are clearly seen in the earlier writing (editions) fo works by Aslaksen, Bratlie, J O Smith, etc. There has been much "rewriting" in later editions, something Zac Poonen has pointed out not being easily fooled by these manipulations of language to make the group seem to be "evangelical".
5. Zac Poonen understood this matter as he had penetrated the group deeply. When he made it public he was persecuted legally and in many other ways by SF.
6. Growth of a group is no indication that it has the "correct" doctrine - viz, Scientology,Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.
7. Rssn's argument that he does not know the root meanings in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic is no excuse for propagating error. If he does not know, he should go and humbly learn Scripture more deeply than just believe interpretations given by J O Smith, Bratlie, etc.
8. At the core of it, one can be sure that the girl has been led to believe that her family has the "spirit of the anti-christ" and she should keep far from them, which is standard SF teaching.
9. A group doesn't have to be like Jim Jones's cult to use methods similar which "imprison" weak minded people. Collective feelings of harmony and togetherness are used (as in the Moonies)to make members feel that what they have is superior to familial ties and relationships which may be more genuine and real in spite of "differences'.
10. It is standard SF practice to "convince" members to have nothing to do with family and that marriages must take place only within SF. A leading light in India for instance ensured that the way his marriage was organised caused "offence" to his family and parents so that they would not attend the "pure" SF ritual. Another brother who married outside has had to suffer much within the fellowship for his "transgression" and the fellowship rejoiced over the fact that the marriage was often rocky because it only "proved" the prophetic word of its leader who had said "this will not come to any good" before he married his wife.
I won't say more because people like Rssn have no real understanding of what it means to be human because he is certain that he is "divine" and that his "leaders" are divine and must be unquestionably "obeyed", otherwise harm will come to him. The day he dares to question SF, he will be isolated and ostracized. So he will remain "faithful". Of course he is a good SF "soldier" and not a "soldier of Christ." Maybe he is being felicitated for his "defense of the SF faith" and that is his "gain" from the "gospel".
Rssn said: “I think you doubt these words for your own life because of the preaching you hear. The preaching you hear sets the bar low enough to be attainable, but far below the full gospel that Jesus brought and Paul (among others) preached.”
Isn’t it rather presumptuous to believe you know what preaching I hear?
I said, “God created, designed, and established, the family. Why would He desire it to be broken apart?” Rssn’s response: “I responded to Harold’s points about this, but this last part seems a bit more then rhetorical… I think it has less to do with breaking apart a temporary union and more to do with forging an eternal union. God, heaven, Jesus all come before family. If this step towards God results in the ‘breaking apart of a family’ then it is OK.”
Rssn: “Obey the Father first… Those that did that were considered Jesus’ own family. Does that mean He broke His earthly family apart? Wow. Jesus must be going against God too then. How can you explain away Jesus’ own actions towards His earthly family? I’m sure He loved His family. There was a ‘distance’ between Him and those around Him so that He would seek God first and not earthly support.”
Rssn also said, “So, is the family really ‘broken’? That is an honest question…”
What I said was, “God created, designed, and established, the family. Why would He desire it to be broken apart?” Rssn changed my wording of ‘broken apart’ and asked ‘is the family really broken’? So, I will answer his question but based on MY wording, “Yes” her family is ‘broken apart’. They were ‘broken apart’ from their daughter, sister, cousin, niece, granddaughter, and their friend when this man moved her into his home. She hasn’t spent any significant amount of time with her own family including holidays and vacations, but rather with this man and his family (the church). So yes, they’ve been ‘broken apart’ from their loved one, physically, emotionally, mentally, and even spiritually. This Smith’s Friends’ church group and this man and his family have come between her and her family and all her own friends. We also know that several others have been ‘broken apart’ from their family members as well, including, but I’m pretty sure not limited to, Millard, Friedrich, and justme.
“Is this situation made ‘worse’ by the fact that it wasn’t the ‘world and the lusts of the world’ that pulled the adult child away from the family, but rather was a different set of beliefs? “Where would you rather have a child?... Out in the ‘world’ (living to fulfill their lusts, seeking their own, etc.) or professing to have Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and living for God? Where would you rather see your child?”
Only two choices are presented – living out in the ‘world’ OR professing to have Jesus as his/her personal Lord and Savior and living for God, but either way being ‘pulled away’ from his/her own family. From what we’ve read, she was living a life evident of being a Christian BEFORE she began living with this man and his family. You make it sound as if living with this man and his family and joining SF is equivalent to having ‘Jesus as personal Lord and Savior and living for God’. Why did this girl have to be ‘pulled away’ from her family at all? It sounds as if this girl was raised in a Christian home by parents who loved her and her actions were demonstrative of a relationship with the Lord and living for God BEFORE she moved in with this teacher and his family or joined SF. We see in Scripture that God created/instituted/designed the family. Not all family situations are always ideal and people certainly make mistakes – everyone does – we live in a fallen world. But a post by Heart2heart (May 7, 08) along with Harold and Keith give us an indication that this girl has a good family who loves her.
I’d rather see a child who professed Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior and loved God with all his/her heart, mind, soul, strength AND who is demonstrative of that by continuing to love others as themselves and continue having open, honest, transparent, kind, loving, secure, involved relationships with his/her own family and friends that he/she had BEFORE he/she ‘changed churches’. Apparently, her Christian parents did a good job raising their daughter and getting her to this point in her life. Why shun and abandon them now? Why not honor them by including them in the joy of being involved in her life and allowed to see the beauty of a child whom they have poured so much into for eighteen plus years? What is there to hide?
I know Russian doesn’t like definitions from Webster’s but I do believe it helps us to lay down some meanings of words that we come across in Scripture. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, but then translated into our English language thus some words may need defining.
Honor-good name, RESPECT, to confer honor on, to live up to or fulfill the terms of, to accept and pay when due, a person of superior standing, an exalted title or rank, a keen sense of ethical conduct, integrity, one’s word given as a guarantee of performance
Respect- an act of giving particular attention to, consideration, ESTEEM, honor, to consider worthy of high regard, to refrain from interfering with
Esteem-appreciation, think, believe, regard, prize, to set a high value on, esteem implies a high evaluation and adds to it warmth of feeling or close attachment; value suggests a judgment that combines analytical and subjective evaluation; appreciate implies recognition of worth or merit through wise judgment, perception, and insight
The original question was ‘Is this a cult?’ All of the characteristics that have been witnessed and described here are indicative of a cult – sudden change in behavior after moving in with one’s ‘church’ thus causing isolation and separation from one’s own family and friends, fear, being secretive, lies, deception.
Do those sound like characteristics of someone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and feels secure in His love and has an unmoving faith in God and the freedom to invest in the lives of others?
“When a person ‘comes of age’ they must live before God’s face, answer to Him, and not be tied at the hip (or take directions) from human wisdom/familial wisdom. Because the family is closely knit (and rightly so) it is very important to separate between spiritual exhortations from them as opposed to normal family advice. I admit that it is sometimes difficult to understand what is ‘earthly’ and what is from God.”
Who determines what is ‘of age’? Isn’t that a man-made thing? It doesn’t say in the Bible that we become ‘of age’ when we are a certain age. The problem with this reasoning is that this girl’s parents helped move her into a dormitory where she wouldn’t have been so ‘tied at the hip’ and taking so much direction from her parents. It sounds as if they trusted her and gave her independence to transition into adulthood. By this man moving her into his home, she no longer had independence, but was now most likely getting her directions/advice from this man and his family since those were the only people she spent time with. Wasn’t her dependence just transferred from her parents to this teacher with whom she was living rather than God?
This is an important time period in a person’s life – it is a transition from being under a parent’s guidance, help, instruction, and moving on into independence in adulthood. That is part of a parent’s job - to be there as a child moves through this transition on into adulthood.
What business is it of any church at what point a person becomes unattached at the hip and no longer takes familial wisdom or advice from family members? It is not the job of the church to interfere in personal matters such as this. Our job as Christians is to preach the Word, not move kids who attend our church into our home and come between them and their parents.
“I get that the young ladies parents want to see, talk to, and share in, their daughter’s life. That is normal and usually good.”
Why wouldn’t they? They spent 18 plus years raising, forming a relationship with her, loving, teaching, caring for, forming emotional bonds with her. Of course they want to share in their daughter’s life but this ‘church’ has come between them and their daughter by moving her into their home and emphasizing verses such as Luke 14:26. And of course it is normal to be involved in a child’s life-no matter their age….God doesn’t put age limits on love and relationships. Only destructive groups do that-satan is the destroyer. Christ is the Creator, the Redeemer, the Prince of peace, the Alpha and Omega, the Way, the Truth, the Life.
Proverbs 23:22&24-25, “Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old. The father of a righteous man has great joy; he who has a wise son delights in him. May your father and mother be glad; may she who gave you birth rejoice!”
Psalm 127:3, “Children are a gift from the lord; they are a reward from Him.”(This doesn’t say until they are ‘of age’.
Zechariah 8:16-17, “These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the Lord.
3Jn:3-4 “It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to know that my children are walking in the truth.”
Prov. 20:20, “If a man curses his father or mother, his lamp will be snuffed out in pitch darkness.”
Prov. 19:2, “It is not good to have zeal without knowledge.”
would be nice to have something on face book about that church, I am pretty sure more people would be able to tell their stories, maybe help some people not get involve like I did, its unreal how people have 2 diferent personnality, dont matter if they are in a church or not, I would have never thought of this when I have meet those people from that chuch, and they have this arrogant way to say stuff when they see you dont agree with everything they say.
you all have no idea what you are talking about. Have any of you gone and had a normal conversation with the family? And how can you sit there and judged them even if they are a cult, it makes you worse then them!
kevin13401:
I'd say first-hand knowledge of the situation qualifies many people here to have quite a bit of an "idea what [they] are talking about."
The answer to your question is: Yes; multiple times, to no avail.
The response to your comment: "If it looks like a duck...."
Rssn: Johan Smith may have been a very upright and godly man. I don’t believe I have claimed otherwise. The actions of his followers today may not, in any way, be reflective of his life but reflective of the leadership that has taken over from him. My writings reflect the actions of his followers here in this place, at this time in history. And those actions do correlate more with the followers of Jim Jones than with the New Testament followers of Jesus Christ. That is my observation and I believe I am still free to speak my mind. I am sorry that the actions of your group here in Owasso are offensive to you. It’s offensive to many people here as well.
Rssn: “You say this like you know what happened between Millard and SF leaders. You don’t. It wasn’t just about ‘simple questions’.” - You’re right, I only know what Millard has written and bits and pieces from other sources. However, I didn’t use the term ‘simple questions’. So what was the issue with Millard as you know it?
Rssn: “Because I wasn’t there and don’t know exactly what happened I can’t say any more than that. Do you know the ‘whole’ story?” – There are enough independent witnesses to these events from the girl’s family and friend’s perspective. I will admit that I don’t know what this girl has been told by this group because they refuse to discuss these events. I have suggested several times on this blog that many misunderstandings could be cleared up if honest dialog could take place. Without this it continues to leave the door open for much speculation.
If this SF group is really sincere in being “like Christ”, I would think that they would want to have an open and honest discussion as well. Jesus was criticized by the religious leaders of his time for openly associating with sinners and tax collectors. Jesus wasn’t afraid to confront them and dialog with them openly and honestly. He didn’t lie to them and keep secrets. The Old Testament laws from God in Leviticus even commanded that foreigners were to be treated fairly.
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow." Det 27:19
My understanding is that, in the Muslim culture, it is OK for a Muslim to lie to, and cheat an infidel. Infidels (all who call themselves Christian) have no rights under Sharia law. On the other hand, one Muslim cannot lie to or cheat another Muslim. That would be illegal and a criminal offense.
Could it be that SF operates under the same rules? That it is OK to lie and cheat people outside the group, but other SF members are treated differently?
Rssn: “You are twisting the story. I did not say that her parents moved her car. I said her car was moved. Don’t twist.
I was just ‘paraphrasing’ what you said :) But so that we don’t get confused, I will re-post exactly what you said verbatim:
“I've heard (I did not see it first hand) that the young lady would, at various times, have her car moved or driven back to her parents house. For example she would go to the store and come out to find her car gone. I'm guessing (logically) that her parents had a spare set of keys and 'someone' 'stole' her car to 'harass' her. If this were happening to me I'd park my car in the garage too.” (ref. Russian Aug. 15, 2009)
I will admit that you didn’t use the words “her parents moved her car” but it is clear to me that this was exactly what you wanted everyone to believe. I would like to take this opportunity to ask those out there who are following this discussion; did I misrepresent what Russian said? Please, I would like to hear from everyone. Russian claims I twisted the story. Did I? What do you think?
kevin13401: Your latest comments have been deleted...any future comments will be deleted that contain foul language (and very bad spelling). Your comments betray your identity/association with SF.
Nice use of profanity to accuse someone else of being a "sinner." Tell Mr. D we said "hello."
Rssn said: “You reshared what Heart2Heart had to say about the young lady. I’ll share that I had a very nice chat with her about her career aspirations a couple of months ago. It was really nice to chat with her (being someone who she barely knew from Adam). She seemed happy with where she was in life.”
This is one more illustration of the undue influence of this group. Why is this girl sharing her ‘career aspirations’ with you, ‘someone who she barely knew from Adam’ (according to you) just because you belong to the same ‘church’? Does she share these same career aspirations with her own family-the very parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends who invested the time, effort, finances, and love and actually laid the foundation to get her to this point in her life? Again, it sounds as if this ‘church’ has taken over aspects of her life that have nothing to do with “following Jesus”.
Kevin said: “you all have no idea what you are talking about. Have any of you gone and had a normal conversation with the family?”
It appears you have not read this blog in its entirety. Yes, there have been people who’ve made an ‘attempt’ to have a ‘normal’ conversation with this family. There have been threats, lies, mocking, deception, secrecy, ridicule.
“And how can you sit there and judged them even if they are a cult, it makes you worse then them”
Anyone who harms others, especially someone who teaches and draws a salary from the government (taxpaying citizens) deserves to be investigated. Many believe this teacher crossed the line of moral turpitude when he moved this student into his home and separated her from her own family and her own friends. You may believe it to be judgmental to ask questions, research, and discuss this topic. But, many people believe that parents have the right to make informed decisions concerning who will be allowed to teach their child.
Through this discussion it has been made apparent that there are many people who have been harmed by various members of this group-some due to the separation from loved ones (not only this girl’s family but others) and others have been hurt in other ways. Has anyone been harmed by this discussion?
Do you really believe that having this discussion is worse than being lied to and about, being cursed, deceived, threatened, and separated from loved ones by this group?
Anyone having trouble posting. Every time I try I get an error page that says "Request-URI Too Large"
I've been busy for quite a while now. Trying to post, but seem to be experiencing technical difficulties. Any help would be appreciated. This URL too large thing came up once before. Turned out to be incorrect HTML tags buried in my post. I can't find anything like that now, so I'm stumped.
Harold:
I apologize, I realized that you posted some questions for me early on that I somehow missed completely. I’ll respond to them now, quite a bit late, but oh well…
On July 6 you posted several questions and a couple of quotes from Kaare Smith. One was that he had said, “I want to kill all Arabs”. Another had to do with killing “children in your flesh.”
“On another subject, your comments about excusing John’s ‘odious statement’ as ‘just talking’. Earlier in this blog there was a heated discussion among the SF and ex-SF about a comment made by Kare Smith where he said ‘I want to kill all Arabs’. Did he really mean it or not?”
A: Yes. If he didn’t mean it, why did he say it? For effect? If so, shame on him. A leader of Christ’s body here on earth, The Bride, the apple of God’s eye, the first-fruits to God and The Lamb, ought to know better. I’m sure that Mr. Smith is aware that by his words he will be justified and by his words he will be condemned. Matthew 12:37
“And even these small children in your flesh – they also scream and cry – and you have to kill them.”<<<
“In light of what ‘Giving it to God’ wrote recently about killing babies, it gives one pause to think. Is Mr. Smith just talking? Seems rather odious to me. Should we hold him to the same standard?”
A: Yes
(tbc, thanks to this stupid URI too large problem, sheesh!)
(...cont'd)
Since John seems to be back from all of his time-consuming “spiritual work” to join us again, I’ll point out that he STILL has not made the slightest apology for or retraction of the deplorable sentiments expressed by his statements in question. Not even an “oops! My bad…”
I have a few things to say about people who preach hatred and suggest that death for entire groups of people is a solution. They are weak. They are motivated by fear, not power, regardless of how “powerful” their preaching sounds, John and Kaare Smith included. Funny that they turn out to be so similar in a number of aspects.
We seem to judge so much based on our "read" of people, a lot of it having nothing to do with the meaning and significance of what they do. We base our impressions of people on our reads of body language/behavior, by who they associate with, often by the mere tone of their voices. Charismatic people garner more credibility than do awkward people, regardless of their private (unaffected) behavior or true intentions, and in spite of where the effects of their public behavior are ultimately headed. Smiles engender trust more than frowns, even when the smiles are calculated as part of an agenda to defraud us.
What actually should matter to us are the effects of a person’s behavior and the direction in which those effects are headed. Those are a person's "fruits." How can advocating death for an entire class or group of produce anything good? How is it any different than the Nazi’s “final solution” to the “problem of the Jews?” At best, such words are rash and should be retracted. At worst, they accurately express what lies in the heart of the speaker.
For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matt. 12:34
Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? Eccles. 5:6
(…cont’d)
You also said:
“You made the following statement about the incident that started this blog: ‘The incident was not exceptional, it was characteristic of things that are generally true of SF.’ That is central to Keith’s original question. This has been a long discussion because, in my opinion, the SF employs ‘deflecting and dodging’ tactics like ‘let’s talk about all the good things SF has done’ or ‘you’re evil for attacking SF’ or ‘let’s just confuse everyone with doctrinal discussions and ignore the pink elephant in the middle of the room.’”
Exactly. SF leaders and the more articulate members are master deflectors and dodgers. RssnSpy6 gives us some great examples of how subtly it can be done.
You said, “I believe that this specific incident categorically comprises all the basic behaviors of destructive cult groups. This, for me, regardless of doctrine, is the central issue that defines Smith’s Friends. You yourself say that this incident is ‘characteristic’ of SF.’”
I agree, I just resist the use of the label “cult” with any group, not just SF. It’s too convenient. The label makes the dynamics that ensnare people into such groups seem like something foreign, as if they only happen in a “cult.” This tends to blind us to the nature of those same dynamics when we encounter them in otherwise “normal” settings, for example, in personal relationships such as couples. Abusers in personal relationships use almost exactly the same tactics as abusers in group relationships like “cults.” The same information control and interpersonal power dynamics that keep victims trapped in “cults” keep victims trapped in abusive one-on-one relationships.
(tbc...)
(...cont'd)
When you start acquainting yourself with the dynamics at work in either setting, you start seeing them at work in settings you wouldn’t have noticed before. Actually, more people have more familiarity with abusive dynamics in one-on-one relationships. Start there and think about how those work, then extrapolate out from personal to group relationships where the group is the abusing party. That’s all a “cult” actually is, and there is a whole spectrum of these groups ranging from mildly to severely abusive. Labeling some groups as “cults” adds nothing helpful.
The main difference between abusive one-on-one relationships and abusive group relationships is that in groups there are parties distinct from the group who advocate the group’s position. In an abusive one-on-one relationship the abuser and the advocate for the abuser are the same person. That makes his self-serving more easily detectable. When the abuser is a group, it’s harder to see that the group’s advocates are self-serving, especially when they do it at the expense of their personal interests in service of the group.
You followed on with the question, “Do I need to attend a SF church or visit Brunstad to form a general opinion about this group as a cult or not?” in response to a comment I made.
Of course not. My comment simply pointed out that unless a person gets first-hand knowledge about what he/she is talking about, that fact limits the depth and value of their opinion. When people make claims and hold opinions which go way beyond their basis for those claims and opinions, I like to point it out. I've see plenty of that on this board. That's not all I've seen on this board. My comments were basically that the amount of discussion/strength of conviction expressed by SOME of what has been posted here clearly exceeds what the posters have a basis for given their lack of factual knowledge.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Later, in a July 26 post, you said:
“Millard: I appreciate what you wrote. You seem to uphold the argument that I have been trying to make for several years, that SF is defined (and all Christians for that matter) by their behavior and not by their doctrine.”
We are ALL defined by our behavior, not by our doctrine. Doctrine is what we say we believe. Our behavior tells what we truly believe.
You also said, responding to what I wrote about Christians consigning people to hell:
“And Millard, speaking for all the Christian people that I know and study with, I know for certain that none of them would condemn your mother to hell. It is not our place to judge her salvation. That is only for God to decide.”
Of course, you and those you speak for would not personally pronounce judgment over my Mom or anyone else. That wasn't my point. My point is that many, many Christians hold to doctrines that dictate that she would be condemned to hell, whether or not they pronounced the condemnation themselves, admitted it, or even if they allowed the catch-all "God knows her heart".
For example, if someone holds that only those who have "accepted Jesus in their heart" will go to heaven or that there is "no other name under heaven by which men must be saved," (meaning that anyone who believes in God but does not believe in Jesus will still go to hell,) in holding those doctrines, they condemn people like my mother to hell. MOST of the Christians I’ve met in my near 40 years since I was “born again” would fit this bill. They would of course have been very kind about it, but the bottom line is that they held to a dogma that consigned my Mom to hell.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
If the people you are speaking don't defer to dogma like this, then cool: I'm not talking about you. My point isn’t to judge the people who hold to such dogmas, but to judge the impropriety of ANYONE AND EVERYONE INCLUDING ME who hold as dogmas sentiments that invalidate, disqualify, demean, disparage, condemn, or otherwise dismiss ANY CLASS OF PEOPLE HOWEVER THAT CLASS IS CONSTRUED. It’s no different than racism. We generalize certain characteristics from a group of people, turn it around to identify that group as a class, then make generalized criticisms about the class and apply those criticisms to everyone included in the class. God doesn’t recognize this. God deals with every single person as an individual.
You also said:
“If someone is trying to help you grow as a Christian then why wouldn’t they explain what you said and what is wrong with it? How are you going to learn if you don’t ask the questions? This girl said the same thing to her parents. They asked what they have done wrong and the answer is “you know what you did”. That is not an answer. That is a way to stop a conversation, to avoid any critical thinking.”
Exactly. SF’s teachings and behavior can't stand up to critical thinking, which is why they are so rabidly opposed to it.
You also said:
“That is one way that cult groups control the information that their people receive. They don’t have to physically control it. Once they convince their members that all outside information is harmful to the group they control it themselves. The group members learn to avoid meaningful questions or discussions with anyone outside (or inside the group in the case may be) so that the group doctrine is never questioned.”
You got it, exactly.
Sorry for all the deleted posts. Trying to figure out what this "URI too large" error is about. It definitely isn't about the size of the post. I successfully posted a message very close to the 4096 character max with no problem. There seem to be characters that fool this blog's software into thinking that a string is a link rather than text, then it objects when trying to handle a link of thousands of characters.
Mis-formed HTML tags were the culprits the last time I ran into the error. The problem this time is that I can't identify the offending characters. Oh well, at least I have a work-around: smaller chunks.
To RssnSpy6:
On August 17, you posted to Harold:
"I'd like to comment on your comment of Millard's experience when he first met SF. Add in the oft-quoted verse, 'You'll know them by their fruits...' and we have a controversy. Millard found that 'There were people in SF whose devotion to God put me to shame and put most Christians I ever knew to shame. The regular, everyday life of a run-of-the-mill SF member was beyond what many Christians I'd met even aspired to, much less realized.' So the fruits were there... over a period of 15 years or so. Millard's beef (so I have gathered) is with the leadership of SF, their handling of his situation, and with the 'mindless minions' that support the leadership. He hasn't, to date, expressed so much concern over the result of their daily lives (which is a product of trying not to sin) (correct me if I'm wrong Millard). Which is it Harold? Do fruits matter or are 'fruits' a sham and easy to fake? You can't choose when they are faked and when they are real."
Yes, Russian, I will correct you. Clever repurposing of my words, by they way, i.e., subtle twisting to use them for a different purpose than what I wrote them for. You should know better, especially after our off-blog communications in which I expressed MUCH concern over the behavior of SF members, both rank-and-file members and leaders. I also explained to you specifically and in detail what the problems were about. I sent you articles that I wrote. Yet you say, "Millard's beef (so I have gathered) is..." as if you had to "gather" anything. That's just dishonest. You conveniently ignored all this (which readers on the blog of course would otherwise have no knowledge of) as well as my statement in the same post you referred to: "Today in SF, with the appalling emphasis on money, money, money, I don't know how it is. Maybe those people I once knew are still there in SF suffering under the ungodliness of its present direction. Maybe they think it's God's will."
Shame on you Russian. Then again, thanks! Your posts provide great material for folks on this blog to get acquainted with SF hanky-panky.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
To clarify, (going along with your act that calls for it,) I met a group of people who, AT THAT TIME, blew me away compared to other Christians. That same group of people became my friends, my best friends and only friends, for a period of more than 15 years. That same group of people discarded me without question once the leaders decided I was an undesirable and started telling members to stay away from me unless they wanted to be "infected by his evil spirit." I can count on one hand the number of SF members, of all those who were supposedly my best friends in the world, who actually came to me to check out if there was anything to what they were being told. Such was their great love of the brotherhood, which I had been right in the middle of for 15 years. Most of them shunned my entire family, including my children and my wife, until she finally broke and "repented" in January, 1994. Unlike you, Russian, I have all kinds of specific information, because I was there and I'm not trying to manipulate people's impressions.
Since what I was doing in that post seems to be unclear to you, I'll spell it out. It was pretty simple. I met a group of people who were the bee's knees, far more Christian than any Christians I'd ever met. It turned out that their bees-knees-ness was FALSE, a FICTION. My point in that post, of course, was to implicitly raise the question, "Where does that leave all the other Christians who were head and shoulders below SF?"
In fact, the way you twisted my statement is a great example of the narcissism of SF thinking. Thanks for demonstrating it. My statement was about OTHER Christians. It wasn't about SF. I only used SF as a contrasting example. You repurposed my statement as if it was a recommendation of SF, clearly missing my point, just as narcissistic thinking is prone to do. This kind of narcissism is a very telling characteristic of SF and, I'm sure, other high-control, high-abuse groups.
My challenge/encouragement to folks on this board to actually get some first-hand experience talking to SF people was partly so that they could get some experience in dealing with spiritual narcissism. It's very potent, as all types of narcissism are. It is very easy to mistake spiritual narcissism for faith and conviction. After all, narcissists are so thoroughly, single-mindedly convinced of their own rightness. Of course, it is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation with a person when the only significant issue in the world is himself. It is just about impossible to get him to see things from any perspective other than those in which everything revolves around him. As a result, his arguments can be frustratingly convincing, even when you know that he is very, very wrong. It's no different when dealing with someone to whom the only significant issue in the world is the group he belongs to.
NO, Russian, the fruits were NOT there.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
The behavior of SF members eventually and clearly was shown to revolve around submission and loyalty to the group instead of submission and loyalty to God and Jesus. This became very clear when, in faithfulness to the truth as I understood it and to God and Jesus as I knew them, I objected to certain things that were being taught. The "beef" on the part of SF leaders was NEVER about my objections or our disagreements, because they NEVER entered into a discussion about them. It became very clear that SF leaders didn't enter into any such discussion because their beef was simply with the fact that I objected. Then, after refusing to discuss anything but expecting me to submit to their "authority" their beef became the fact that I wouldn't "humble" myself and "repent" simply because they said that I was wrong. In other words, they did not recognize my right to follow my conscience, much less the Spirit.
The dishonest behavior of the leaders led to my beef. This brings me to another telling characteristic of narcissistic thinking: consistent inability to follow a timeline. When it suits the purposes of making everything revolve around their own importance, narcissists blithely resequence events to make things turn out the way that they want them. Cause and effect? 2:31 PM comes AFTER 2:30 PM? He did that in REACTION to what she did? Ah, mere details for mere mortals, I suppose.
SF members have consistently put forward the story that the leaders had to oust me because I had a beef with them. When asked about the beef, they respond much like you made out in your response to Harold, as if they know things even though they don't disclose them.
I, on the other hand, do know things and am happy to disclose them. I had no beef with the leaders UNTIL they behaved in devious and underhanded ways. (Notice the sequence.) I actually didn't have a beef for a LONG time even while they behaved in devious and underhanded ways. At first I thought I was mistaken. Then I thought it was a localized problem. It took several years from the time that I realized that things were more deeply wrong than just with teachings before I finally realized that the problems were systemic.
THEN I had a "beef." (Notice the word "then" which means what follows it was a result of what came before it.) My beef with SF leaders was that their behavior over a period of years, and probably since long before I was aware of anything, made clear that they didn't care about objections to their teachings. They just cared about preserving their superior positions. In other words, they didn't care about the truth or the integrity of human beings as individuals before God. I wasn't alone in all this, after all. SF likes to pretend the exodus that occurred in the early 90s was insignificant. It wasn't. Bottom line, SF leaders just cared about their power. I found this extremely hypocritical.
Then, in a September 6 post, you quoted Harold and reacted to him:
"How did Smith's Friends treat Millard when he asked questions -- they shunned him and caused division in his family. What kind of fruit is that?"----You say this like you know what happened between Millard and SF leaders. You don't. It wasn't just about 'simple questions'."
Russian, again, shame on you. You know better, and I know you know better. You are obfuscating, pure and simple. Obfuscation: "to darken; to make obscure; to confuse; to be evasive, unclear, or confusing" See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscation
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I've made clear on this blog what the problems were about and I've told you what they were about off-blog. The problems had nothing to do with my "questions." By the time I had a beef, I didn't have questions. The main problem was about questions, though. It was about my or any SF member's RIGHT TO QUESTION when those questions are deemed unacceptable by the leaders. In SF, that right is not allowed. You and SF members like to say that it is, and here's how that works:
Outsider: Your group doesn't tolerate dissent.
SF Member: Of course we do! Everyone is allowed to think what they like.
Outsider: What if your thinking leads you to seriously disagree with "the brothers?"
SF Member: Well, then the brothers will help you see your mistake.
Outsider: So, you mean that if you disagree with "the brothers" you are always mistaken?
SF Member: Of course not! Brothers can make mistakes, too.
**Note: There is a BIG difference between saying "brothers" and "the brothers." It should probably be capitalized, i.e., The Brothers. That's how SF members say the term, anyway. Just try to get an SF member to admit that The Brothers have made a mistake, then sit back and enjoy watching them squirm and wriggle their way out of it. :)
Outsider: So, if you decided that there was a serious mistake in The Brothers' teaching, they would recognize your right to disagree with them and follow your conscience?
SF Member: Of course they would!
Outsider: Would they allow you to talk about your ideas in the meetings when you testify?
SF Member: Well, meetings are occasions for edification, not for discussions and arguments. Bringing those things up in a meeting wouldn't be edifying.
Outsider: How about talking about your disagreements in your fellowship with other members?
SF Member: Of course you could do that, as long as it isn't divisive. After all, Titus 3:11 says, "If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them."
Outsider: So, what would make you decide that a person was causing divisions and that you should have nothing to do with him?
SF Member: Well, if The Brothers talked to him and he refused to listen to them, then there's something wrong, especially if it keeps going on for a long time. After a while, you've got to realize that he's being stubborn and that there's some hidden pride involved or something. If he was humble, he'd get light.
Russian, I'd love to see you deny that this is a fair rendition of the kinds of conversations that happen over and over with people trying to figure SF out.
tbc...
(...cont'd)
To the rest of you on the blog:
In other words, there is no way for someone to seriously disagree with SF leaders at any level--doctrine, personal behavior, church practice--without being wrong for doing it. If such a person "listens to the brothers" and "humbles himself" he will "get light" (a favorite expression when I was in the group) and see the error of his ways. If he doesn't, he's about to get into big trouble.
The hidden "gotcha" in all this is that outsiders, i.e., normal people who have not been conditioned to high-control, abusive settings, are accustomed to people having rationales for the decisions that they make. They assume that people making decisions about serious matters are using rules or logic to make those decisions. If the decision-makers value transparency, they will be willing to discuss their rules and logic and the values they are built around, i.e., their rationale.
Outsiders give SF leaders far too much credit on this point.
SF leaders DO NOT discuss their rationales for important decisions. Their decisions are made secretly. Others get clued in about the rationale only if the leaders decide to clue them in, not otherwise. Nothing obligates the leaders to maintain any degree of transparency whatsoever. As a result, they have the leeway to use one rationale for one decision, a different rationale for the same type of decision in a different case, or even make a decision on a whim, a very serious, enlightened, wise whim that was prompted by the Holy Spirit, of course! After all, who can understand God's ways, for He works in mysterious ways and His ways are past finding out! (sic) Amazing what you can do with a couple of scripture quotes, isn't it? (btw, those are from Isaiah 45:15 and Job 34:24.)
Back to my experiences, there was NO DISCUSSION about my "questions" or my objections. That was BEFORE I had any "beef." If anyone asks any SF leader what their problems with me were specifically, he will get the same kind of obfuscation that Russian displayed with the post I referred to. The fact is that they don't know. I don't even know for sure, because no one ever said. The most specific thing that was ever mentioned was that it was about "things you have written."
tbc...
(...cont'd)
I had written several articles that were being circulated outside of the official publications. Maybe it was what I wrote. Maybe it was that the "leading brothers" couldn't make heads or tails out of what I wrote. I've reread those articles. If you think that I can be complicated in my writing now, that was almost 20 years ago. Let's just say I've improved since then, believe it or not! :) There were people who got excited about what I was writing. I've seen corporate executives react in similar ways when they see people getting excited about ideas that are way beyond their grasp being promoted by "junior" staff. (They get embarrassed. Haha. Just teasing. Actually, they get adversarial.) Or maybe it was the simple fact that I circulated material that wasn't sanctioned by The Brothers. Tight control of information in the group is very important to these guys.
Whatever their rationale or lack thereof, I was "silenced." Yes, they had a term for it. I was told by three brothers whom I had welcomed into my home, sitting in my living room, that I could not pray or testify in their meetings and that I could not talk to SF members about my ideas anywhere, even in my own home. I showed Gary Fenn, Bill Kennedy, and if I remember correctly, Andrew Courage the door when they told me that last bit. No one was going to dictate what happened in my home aside from my wife and I. Of course, my wife (at the time) was 100% with them.
I was never given a reason for my ousting from the group other than that I was not humble and submissive. No one cited me for sin. No one pointed out what was wrong about my thinking. No one engaged me in trying to correct me for my wrong thinking, because I'd already shown that I wouldn't "humble myself and repent."
tbc...
(...cont'd)
Talk about flipping timelines around, it was as if my stubborn lack of humility had suddenly appeared out of nowhere, having no connection to almost a year during which my wife, my children, and I were shunned by the vast majority of the group. The Brothers were at a loss, of course, about how to deal with someone so stubborn and arrogant. It was all so sad that a brother could lose his way like this. I was very active with young people and children. The Salem fellowship called the youth together for a special prayer meeting to implore God that The Brothers could get through to "Brother Millard" and "help him find his way" again. Most of those kids had no idea that anything at all was amiss until that prayer meeting informed them, which of course was the real reason for calling it. If at any point I'd indicated that I would submit to "the brothers" I would have gotten LOTS of help from everyone. Since I wouldn't, they concluded that it was no use to try to "help" me.
Reasons wouldn't have mattered if I'd "repented" any more than they mattered in ousting me. SF isn't about reasons or rationales, it is about obedience. It isn't about obedience to God but obedience to the brothers. SF members will swear up one side and down the other that it is ALL about obedience to God. They can do this with a clear conscience because they CANNOT CONCEIVE of a real difference between obeying the brothers and obeying God.
Maybe Kaare Smith could "give us light" about all this after so many years? When I tried to talk to him about it at the time, the fall of 1993 during one of his visits, he told me right off, "Jeg snakker til en død mann." Translation: I'm talking to a dead man. That was how our very brief conversation started. I guessed that he wasn't going to have much to say after that, and he didn't. I tried again recently to get in touch with him, the result of a challenge from my ex-wife to the effect that I didn't have the guts to talk directly to Kaare Smith. (I could almost hear the background music underscoring his eminence as she said his name...) I asked her for his phone number. She said she'd have to find it for me. I reminded her about it after a few days and no phone number. I still haven't heard back from her on that one after many months, now.
As others have already pointed out, SF's behavior is NOT the behavior of people who love you, but rather the type of behavior used by people who want to exploit you. My only sin towards SF was that I finally stopped agreeing to be exploited.
PS. RssnSpy6 or Kaare Smith or anyone else is welcome to bring out what "sins" were mine that justified my excommunication and warranted the eventual breakup of my family that some in SF advocated and enabled, most supported, and everyone in SF stood by and watched happen without lifting a finger to try to prevent. I'd love to hear what was on the leaders minds when they decided to excommunicate me. It would be a first.
Honestly do you not have a life? Mr. D? I have never spoken to him in person. I just find this blog very peculiar. SLANDER....? that's a fitting word for this blogsite.
Psalm 41:6
"Whenever one comes to see me, he speaks falsely, while his heart gathers slander; then he goes out and spreads it abroad." All of you who contribute to these false statements of this blog should take this verse into consideration.
Kevin is suggesting that this blog is ‘peculiar’ and ‘slander’ous.
Peculiar: Different from the usual or normal, odd behavior; belonging to one person or group.
Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation ; a false and defamatory oral statement about a person.
Millard makes a good point when he said, “This brings me to another telling characteristic of narcissistic thinking: consistent inability to follow a timeline. When it suits the purposes of making everything revolve around their own importance, narcissists blithely resequence events to make things turn out the way that they want them.” “He did that in REACTION to what she did? Ah, mere details for mere mortals, I suppose.”
This blog began in RESPONSE to what a teacher (who is a SF member) did FIRST, just as Millard ‘had no beef with the leaders UNTIL they behaved in devious and underhanded ways. (Notice the sequence.)’
How is it peculiar, odd, or abnormal to discuss when people do things that harm/hurt others? Which statements on this blog do you (Kevin) consider to be ‘false statements’?
We all know that “Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right,” Prov.20-11.
What would be really peculiar is if people didn’t discuss these abnormal behaviors that have been witnessed and experienced just as people discuss things such as the terrorist attacks on NYC, Jonestown, The Holocaust, Westboro Baptist Church, but rather ignored them and pretended like they didn’t happen.
Millard: I will agree that it is wise not to throw around the word ‘cult’ too freely. Most people think of cults as some weird group that is isolated from the world in some compound somewhere, or those weirdoes that used to hang around at airports selling flowers. They don’t understand the psychology which, as you pointed out, shows up all around us in normal daily life.
You wrote about the similarities of abusive groups and one-on-one relationships, and you also made the statement “When the abuser is a group, it’s harder to see that the group’s advocates are self-serving, especially when they do it at the expense of their personal interests in service of the group”.
The more I study this subject, I find very interesting the parallel psychology used in everyday life. At the office, in college fraternities and sororities, in marketing groups like Amway and Shaklee.
Did you know that the Oneida company began as a religious cult in the early 1800’s that believed that it was “possible for them to bring about Christ's millennial kingdom themselves, and be free of sin and perfect in this world, not just Heaven”. Sound familiar?
You can even see this same kind of obfuscating in political parties and certain presidents today.
In your last postings you talked a lot about how the group and SF leadership responded to your questions. I keep referring back to Dr. Lifton’s writings because the parallels are obvious to me.
Ref: Dr. Lifton’s Criteria #7 – Doctrine Over Person.
“The pattern of doctrine over person occurs when there is a conflict between what one feels oneself experiencing and what the doctrine or ideology says one should experience. If one questions the beliefs of the group or the leaders of the group, one is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to even question -- it is always ‘turned around’ on them and the questioner/criticizer is questioned rather than the questions answered directly. The underlying assumption is that doctrine/ideology is ultimately more valid, true and real than any aspect of actual human character or human experience and one must subject one's experience to that ‘truth’.”
Kevin13401: Your comments are nothing new on this blog. Elf_Asura used some form of the word ‘slander’ 12 times on the first page of this blog al0one. There was a lot written on that subject in those first few pages of this blog. I would refer you back to that discussion but first I will repeat what Sophie wrote: “It’s only slander if it’s NOT true.”
Also, if Keith had to edit your posts due to profanity then that says a lot about you and is a poor reflection on your ‘holier than thou’ group.
Just me: Your idea about Facebook has merit, but I like the fact that Keith has the ability to moderate this discussion and delete trashy comments. We all know where Keith stands in this debate but I, for one, think he has been very fair in his administration of this blog.
milliard I can super super super super super relate to you...especially when you said...".... SF's behavior is NOT the behavior of people who love you, but rather the type of behavior used by people who want to exploit you." I still time to time try and facebook friends a smith's friend : ) hahahah I pretty much always have no luck, or I'll facebook message them seeing if I'll get a reply - no luck with that none. My objections to the smith's friends are 2 fold......stop treating me like #@#@% that is a reasonable request!, and stop making extreme uses of the "free market society" stop dwn! And stop the making use of the free market society via macleay solutions and nobody can tell me that didn't go on, cause the youth pastor when telling me I wasn't welcome at their church no more confirmed the free market society was being used via macleay solutions to me! I don't want to be abused! The options the cult presented me was shut up and take the abuse, or we are done with you - well I ain't having no smith's friends cult abuse no more! And refusing to be my facebook friend ISN'T YOU SMITHS FRIENDS CULT MEMBERS LOVING ME NONE! Love to me, love is putting up with me even days when I'm obnoxious - which those days do exist I try to lilmit them. I'm glad you exist milliard I'm glad I'm not alone, someday the smith's friends are going to have to listen to us -------- way I figure it they going to have to listen to us and make some changes or they ain't going to survive as a church, if they keep treating people like they've treated me and you it's going to backfire on them eventually. If you need edification milliard I posted up a new blog post.......a little smith friend esque zeal and fire piece I still have the fire : ) on my blog : ) bible verse that says god's hand isn't to short to save - so true He is able if I draw near to Him to save nomadder the circumstances I am in........thank god for god without Him I'd be a mess right now!
Harold: On face book you can still have the ability to moderate the discusion,cause who ever is the admin can accept or delete who they want from that face book group.
I do agree that Keith as been very fair with is administration, the only reason why , I would have wanted something on face book , I am sure there is alot more poeple out there that have something to share on brunstad church.
Well I have to say that lately I have been more angry then never to have let some people from that church coming to my life,my ex is giving me hard time to go see my 4 kids.She is still in that church and I know they all wish that I probably end up in a mental institution , cause if that would happend they could use me as a exemple of what will happend to those who leave that church.
Its very fustrate all the lie I have believe from certain people in that chuch, they are the first one who will put all other church down when things bad happend somewhere else, but when it happend in their church they hide it that no one can know about it.
I really dont know how my story will end up but lately I have so much fustration cause the gouverment is on my ex side, she will do anything to ruin my life, like right now I probably will lose all that I have in my pension, cause I am not working , I wanted to be closer to my kids but I was 40 hours drive away for a whole years and it was to hard.
I quite my job and will try to find a decent job but their is not much around here, what can I do ,I cant have a free lawyer like her, cause I made to much money but they dont look at how much I have give her,and plus I cant even reclame taxe for my kids.Its crazy how the gouverment works for us fathers.
Anyway the sad story in all that is just before someone from that church come and move to my city where I was, I was going to get seperated cause I have a feeling that my ex is either crazy or something evil is in her. But lately I can just feel that I will really end up doing something bad, I am kinda scared that I end up killing her, imagine living with someone for 10 years or hell , stayed with her cause some people in the church was telling me it was GOD will. And now that I have left her , I still have to endure probably another 15 years of that until my kids are way older. Anyway I know one thing If I ever do something stupid and end up in jail, I will make sure that my story will end up around the world , hopefully when some cult like this try to controle some other familly they will know about my story and stay away.
Post a Comment