Monday, April 27, 2009

The Teaching of "Secondary Separation"; Introduction

I've taken note on a legalistic characteristic comprising a substantial portion of the free grace community both on and offline. Paul called the infusion of legalism in the Galatian region at that critical time in their history, being "thrown into confusion". Confusion does seem to abound for FG, does it not? At least it appears the case in their interrelationships.

This infusion may have drawn many to mere confusion. However, for those holding staunchly, where you discern the practices and affects of legalism, you will also find the doctrines fueling it (just as you would with any other schism), if you dig around a bit. With Pickering's text, I am persuaded to have found one centralized source of FG legalism (though there may be two). It was the landmark nature and widespread adoption of his text which makes it a central point of examination.

In particular I wish to draw attention to possibly the most controversial portion of Pickering's teachings on biblical separation: The Teaching of Secondary Separation. As I said in the last comment in the previous post, I have always learned and participated better when the controversial aspects were discussed at the front. I realize that it goes in backward order; starting with the man-made assertions and working back to scripture, and I apologize for the sense of alarm that it might generate. Regardless if the teaching is biblical, it is popular and widespread and for this reason alone I think it is important to investigate.

With all kinds of biblical commands that attend godliness, they can be taken too far. They may morph as far as their Spiritual essence is concerned, creating bondage in the stead of health.

Take the command for water baptism, as an example of how any command may be used for good (Spiritual) or harm (legalism).

I've seen obedience to the command to be baptized in water, be Spiritual in effect to those who obey it. My own church is one such place - praise God. But I've also been a part of other churches, and witnessed for myself how the command to be baptized is used as a subtle tool of slavery and judgment within, and damnation to those without. People are slowly harmed by legalistic theology. Soon falls a trend of members escaping, or burning-out of living for God. With the trend the need is born to express to one another the legalism present in the command - more - its legalistic emphasis within or behind the command. Books need to be written. It takes skill to explain how a command from scripture crosses the line from being healthy, to being harmful (legalistic). It takes discernment and a gift of teaching to expose for newcomers, the nuances where the command had become obsession in self merit as opposed to gratitude for the accomplishments of Christ. Those sorts of books have been written - in the case of refuting the baptism-based legalistic doctrines.

This dichotomic usage of the command to be baptized expresses a principle concerning all commands, including the teaching of biblical separation. Separation is taught in the scriptures and is meant for our benefit. The question to ask, however in my thinking, is this: How do you discern when it has crossed the line, promoting legalism? Would an investigator take heed and note when the feel-good, sounds-right, stops becoming "good" and stops becoming "right"? It will require the whole counsel of God, and an understanding of the essentials of legalism - what legalism is as a generality.

53 comments:

Sanctification said...

Readers, I've noticed through the months that some FG people are effectually preaching morality, which is legalism. I know I have been building anticipation with my many comments, but I believe you will discover in Pickering's text, the origin of this message of morality as well; the same flaw belonging to the circumcision group in Paul's time.

Legalism, especially regarding morality but even of a theological sort (a sort more prolific than just the issue of the gospel), is so inappropriate for Free Grace.

Theology concerning the COSF is important. I'm glad to see minds engaged on it but we know we have in our hands a true, relevant, and biblical mission, when the gospel of grace comes under attack by the way in which our brothers are acting - "carrying" our community "away with their hypocrisy" (Gal. 2:13).

Michele

Kris said...

Good thoughts, Michele.

Warning! The statement below is an attempt at sarcastic humor with a hint of truth:

I would rather 'separate' from a dunked in the water, crew cut hair wearing, suit wearing, harping on strawmen crossless issues, legalist who never has a smudge on his shoes brother than a long haired, sprinkled, tatooed brother who smokes and drinks a beer every now then and loves the whole church.

Lou Martuneac said...

At the REDINED FG blog, Lu Mo Nyet wrote, “I have a daily Bible study with a mature believer, and most of my posts come from this class.

Another plagiarist in the GES camp! Antonio, Jim Johnson and now this fellow. Perfect!



LM

Rachel said...

Michele,

As you know I do not know much about Pickering, so I will watch this series (it will be a series?) to see what you have to say about it. It sounds like Rose appreciates these writings by Pickering? Not sure, just wondering.

Lou,

I think it's a bit hasty to categorize Lu Mo Nyet as a "plagiarist". I took his comment to mean simply that he makes posts that come from the discussions he has with his friend. Not so much that he is copying down what someone else says and posting that. I suppose it may be that such is the case, and if so it will likely come out in time. But until then, I think it best to abstain from calling him a "plagiarist" without any real proof.

Sanctification said...

Hi again Kris,

It's nice for me to hear from you! I have been thinking about whether I would see you again. God does not look at the outward nature of things, he looks to the inward man. Great thought! A perfect point to illustrate circumcision!

I am ready to upload two more new posts. But before I do, I'd like to share something I wrote last night.

I'm recalling my exposure to legalistic baptism. The parallels were so amazing, for me, when reading on the OT version of the same issue of baptism, which is circumcision. It was because of baptism that I began studying how I could know I was truly saved.

I hear in my mind the jerusalem council in Acts 15 as I recount this testimony with you....

The essential struggle going on inside of me was to know and defend the gospel of God's grace for my self. I WOULD RATHER NOT BE BAPTIZED IN WATER, I decided. Note now, what I meant in that context. I was not excusing myself from obeying. Rather I was saying that by me allowing them to baptize me according to their pressure and skillful use of scripture, to "throw me into confusion," to possibly convince me I needed it - for my own righteousness, was to put God's own righteousness, in me, my awareness of it, my assurance of it, my faith, at risk.

What single command is worth it? What single command is worth obeying if it causes me to cramp my reliance in the sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross on my behalf? He declared it was finished. Do I need to add my own works to fill up the remaining gap, or, was it finished? Do I need to add my own tryings to gain an extra dose of approval on the part of God, upon that which Christ had done? No - He declared, "It is finished."

The righteousness we have in union with Christ by faith, is under assault, when we give ear to the commands preached by the legalists. I would rather not obey any single popularly made point of subtle disdain from amongst the brethren, than surrender my assurance that Christ has made me meet by faith alone.

This is what Paul was arguing for when he said, be careful not to take any yoke upon you, for Christ set you free to remain so. I do not set aside the righteousness of God, for if righteousness could be had by human tryings, Christ died in vain! Grace is no longer grace if by works.

These are the extreme all-or-nothing characteristics Paul left for us to read about from his time learning the gospel from Christ Himself, in the grace we have all received in our salvation.

Let the offense of the cross, its total sufficiency which is so repugnant to the willful flesh of man, stand with all integrity - and don't obey even scriptural commands from those legalists who pressure you with everything that sounds, right now, so very necessary to obey to be alright.

Obey the command later! Later; when it is born out of your own faith in God and love for Him. Separate it, in your mind, and be truly convinced of his grace, first. "Compelled" is what happens inside us when we appease the rules which men extoll and abandon the cross of Christ!

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Galatians 2:3-4

This is my cult-fighter number one scripture:

"A man is not a jew if he is only one outwardly; nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No; a man is a jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28-29

No codes. No schisms. Thank-you very much. We're not looking for the praises of men!

God bless you for sharing and encouraging!
Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Rachel,

No matter the issues I am always glad when I see you. I hope you'll forgive me for being distracted....

I finished Secondary Separationism, Part 1. And you asked, "It sounds like Rose appreciates these writings by Pickering?"

I'm wondering the same thing. She said she was reading along.

As for this suspicion of plagiarism, it is a most timely case-in-point example; one of many demonstrations of practical (moral) legalism which has most ironically swept through the FG community. Through his doctrine on secondary separation, I believe Pickering has created legitimacy for the practice of legalism, though I am sure it was done most unwittingly.

This door for the effective preaching of moral legalism will be examined in the next post on the horizon, "Secondary Separationism, Part 2".

Thanks for commenting Rachel. I look forward very much to hearing your thoughts on Part 1.

:D Michele

Rose~ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rose~ said...

Hi Michele!
I had to chuckle when I happened over here this morning and read the title of your post: "Secondary Separation." I think this was one of my first head-scratchers with John. As you know, John was discipled by Pickering. I met John when I was 25 and then I began to hear Pickering's views via John. I read several of his books later. But initially when John explained "secondary separation" to me, I was not impressed. It's sort of a weird concept. I mean... why not go further and do "tertiary separation"? And where does it end? If I can't cooperate with a person who cooperates with an errant brother, then why is it OK for me to cooperate with a person who cooperates with a person who cooperates with an errant brother? If error is like an infectious disease, then I will get it through my coming into contact, however many handshakes removed.

Needless to say, I think it is overdone.

OTOH, I think Pickering makes some great points about separation. His thoughts were born out of the terrible situation in a time when we had churches changing so drasticlaly that you started out in a church that believed in the Bible and the church morphed into a social organization that believed -and was furthering- the cause of evolutionary teaching and all sorts of unbiblical ideas. The Bible was not even considered the Word of God in the APOSTATE churches. I think it was important for people to see that it would be more helpful and in line with who they were - if they were believers - to find a different church that still believed in the Word of God.

I think the trouble is when it is attempted to be made into a lock-stock-and-barrel "system" and the leading of your conscience and God's Spirit is not part of how you think through various situations and issues. This is where the legalistic feel of it comes in.

I love this quote in your comments:
The righteousness we have in union with Christ by faith, is under assault, when we give ear to the commands preached by the legalists. I would rather not obey any single popularly made point of subtle disdain from amongst the brethren, than surrender my assurance that Christ has made me meet by faith alone.I totaly get what you are saying about being convinced of something before being compelled to do it. Great thought!!! Like with giving: Paul teaches that we are not supposed to be compelled to do it, but with God's leading what we "purpose in our own heart" to give, we will give cheerfully. When God is allowed to move men's consciences -and if they are mistaken, we can allow ourselves to be used in gentleness- and they come to "purposing in their heart" - then that is a beautiful thing. Beating people over the head to do this or that, manipulating them and compelling them is not of God, but is of another area of the universe.

Thanks for letting me comment!

I hope that helps Rachel a little to understand what I appreciate and maybe what I do not. No matter what I think about some of Pickering's writings or teachings, I LOVED the man - he was a GREAT MAN OF GOD. I can say that about someone without agreeing with all their ecclesiology or anything else for that matter. He was a very loving and gentle man. :~)

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sanctification said...

Hi Rose,

I was excited to hear your thoughts. You said, " No matter what I think about some of Pickering's writings or teachings, I LOVED the man - he was a GREAT MAN OF GOD. I can say that about someone without agreeing with all their ecclesiology or anything else for that matter. He was a very loving and gentle man."

I am pleased to hear you confirm this again. His book expresses over and again how much he wishes to "separate himself" from a perception that fundamentalists are unloving, harsh and persecuting.

Do you want to know how I walk away from reading this introductory post (Secondary Separationism, Part 1)?

Honestly, I find myself nodding along. I'm okay with thinking of myself as a fundamentalist. I mean, I love the truth. I'm willing to go to the bat over it. I know where I am at in my relationship with Christ; I'm willing to give all for the sake of the truth, even friendships and associations.

And to think that there is a tool, by which biblically speaking, we are commanded to use upon other believers to make them converted in their theology, well, cool.

I really have to admit how easy it is for me to find his teaching quite agreeable. I mean, it's so us. We Baptists, we love the truth, amen? I mean, we are not okay with other denominations, and for important reasons.

That being said, it comes to mind to ask one question about the teaching. What one essential thing was missing from this post?


Hmm...



One thing, missing above in the post....



Aha! It didn't have any scripture....



;)



The next post "Part 2" will discuss the scriptures supporting this teaching. In this teaching, I believe others may find as I have, TWO MAJOR flaws stemming from Pickering's interpretations.

Those flaws are: A permittance for moral legalism, and, an unsupportable assumption of equal authority to teach doctrine as the apostle Paul had.

Part 3 will also be important, especially as a follow-up for Part 1. We will be looking into other philosophies and implications of the one who seeks to acquire secondary separation.

Thanks for your important input,
Michele

Sanctification said...

Kris,

I was thinking of your analogy, today. I'm still appreciating your point. Dr. Stephen Lewis once told a joke in class. I can't remember what it was for the life of me. But it had something to do with one man saying to another man "I can't get my hair trimmed at that barber," so the other asks, "Why not?" to which he says, "He and I don't agree theologically."

Totally not funny. I guess I get too captivated sometimes in the point of things that I can't recount them rightly later.

Tim Nichols recently wrote a great post about this situation, in a post titled "Preparing for Ministry." In it he references Emo Phillip's famous joke... told correctly (unlike my poor try!)

Thanks for commenting.

Michele

Sanctification said...

Rose,

I was thinking more about what your reaction was to this teaching. I think when you mentioned "error being like an infectious disease" you show you have already seen the implications, and thought through them, with John's conversations I imagine. Some of them are sort of far-fetched which I haven't really reflected yet, in this post, and you touched on that.

At some point I think it is good if we consider the practices of FG leaders in light of this teaching. When FGA men are happy to have their photograph taken at conferences with GES men, and then tell them afterward, "Don't publish my photo with you on your website," we can see this teaching has a strict adherency within our community, for some of our brothers and sisters.

But one thing at a time.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rachel said...

Michele,

I'll check out your Part 1. You are already familiar with my views on church discipline, which is similar to separation, but not exactly the same I guess. I haven't really done any study on separation, so I'll read your series with interest.

Hi Rose,

I think I'm following you. It seems you are saying that you agree with the general idea of separation, but that it should be up to each individual and their conviction from the Holy Spirit whether or not they separate from a person or group of persons... am I close?

Rose, have you read Grace Awakening? (I have not.) Just wondering, because I think you, or maybe Michele, said that Pickering was responding to that book specifically, right? So, I was wondering, if you've read Swindoll's book, what you think of it. Has John read it? If so, what did he think?

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sanctification said...

Hi Rachel,

Actually that's in reverse. If you read this thread, The Debate Underneath That Which is "Crossless", you can review Swindoll's "graduation," if you may call it that, from R.B. Thieme theology. This is one from more of a legalism state, to a grace state.

We haven't talked much about this teacher (Thieme) and his theology. So far I might say that both Pickering and R. B. Thieme give flesh to practical sub-theologies within the general Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches.

IFB churches are those who are separatist. They are convinced that God has called them to preserve the truth in our times which only can be done through separation from the mainstream witnesses of the truth.

Yes, I remember your views on church discipline.... And they do tie in here, that is true. They come up in Pickering's text as well. I will be watching to include them so you might compare/contrast yourself if you're interested.

Pickering wrote his book in... 1979. R. B. Thieme I believe was defining his movement in the 50s and 60s....

At some point in the far-off future, there are a number of individuals, along with myself, who are interested in examining this theological movement and its offshoots. One of those offshoots is the Duluthian movement -- one which has become highly influential upon free grace theology.

There is some material available but it will take some work to research it respectfully before presenting it.

And all this matters... as I hope some of the readers here are beginning to notice... because as in the latest example of Dr. Lybrand's open letter to the general FG public, there are little or no explanations being offered at this time as to why separation is applicable or indispensable, or what sort or degree of error has been committed by the promise-only gospel represented by members of the GES.

Phrases, such as "their gospel opens a door to universalism" and "if they are free grace, then I am not" are tips that separatist doctrines are at least subconsciously responsible for some of these decisions.

The answers for what is happening in the FG movement will come from an intentional exploration into the teachings of separation, and secondary separation. I believe that if each FG leader was intentional to decide what the scriptures say regarding separationism, it may change their approach to how teachers of error are recovered back to the truth.

Essentially, the truths of the promise-only vs. 1 Cor 15. - gospel - scriptures are the same sort of discussion as we've often had online. The study of separationism is distinguished, as a study on how one goes about handling disagreement.Michele

Peggie said...

Michele,
You remind me of my favorite disciple, Barnabas (Son of Encouragement).
"For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith." ( Acts 11:24a)

Sanctification said...

Peggie,

You are very generous in your encouragement. I am humbled. So glad to have that sort of positive comment now and then, thank you!

:D
Michele

Rachel said...

Michele,

You said,

"Phrases, such as 'their gospel opens a door to universalism' and 'if they are free grace, then I am not' are tips that separatist doctrines are at least subconsciously responsible for some of these decisions."I am not sure that I see those phrases as referencing separationist doctrine necessarily. Surely someone could think that way about someone else's views, without formally "separating" from them.

In any case, I get the impression that you see the FGA side of this debate as being separationist, or at least having more separationists in their camp, while the GES side does not. If my impression is incorrect, please tell me. But in case my impression is correct, please be careful how you approach your study. Because it is rather apparent to me that the GES side has many "separationists" in their camp as well. As I've already shown, Antonio has separated himself from us, whether or not he has used that actual word, his actions are separationist. Alvin has made it clear at FGT that he feels the need to separate from us and the Calvinists, and Diane has also made the same thing clear - her most recent post at FGT indicated as much.

And all that is fine, if they want to separate from us. I just think it's important to realize that both sides have a number of separationists - the doctrine of separation apparently does not belong solely to the FGA side. And perhaps you already realize that. But I just wanted to make sure.

Sanctification said...

Well Rachel,

You're right. Frankly, I don't know much on separationists on the other side. I know there's a history of not only theological entrenchment but other difficulties. Antonio who has said, and I don't know if he has arrived only recently, that he wants fellowship and he does not consider the differences in your gospel fatal. Are neither of these being returned back? This is because you think the error is quite "fatal."

There are a number of potential make-do solutions that can be imagined. Grace and brotherhood, and time speaking to the heritage and agreements that remain still have merit... if you aren't a "secondary separationist."

I guess we don't have to figure out who started it, so long as some people somewhere are ready to look into this and finish... well. There has been a lot of kindness and a lot of grace. But affirming theological similarities is kind of the test-test on where people fall on the grace-truth scale, it seems to me.

I'm glad talking with you.
Michele

Rachel said...

Michele,

"Antonio who has said, and I don't know if he has arrived only recently, that he wants fellowship"Yet he is the one who removed us as FB friends. He is the one who has said he could only be "polite" with us. That's the "fellowship" he wants?

In any case, there are certainly others on the GES side who do not believe they can fellowship with us due to our differences on this issue. And as Stephen said somewhere recently, he and I have not actively separated from anyone. So my point is mainly to make sure that, as you do this research, that you realize that IF separationist doctrines are indeed affecting this debate, those doctrines (or at least their practical effects) are coming from BOTH sides, not just the FGA side.

"Are neither of these being returned back?"Can't speak for anyone but Stephen and I, but for us, yes they are. See the aforementioned FB incident - we were FB friends until Antonio cut it off. We even pursued him, Stephen requesting that he add us again after things had settled some. Which is when Antonio continue to refuse, saying he could be polite but that was it. Plus, there was an email thread which you were included on, in which I made several "fellowship"-oriented remarks toward Antonio.

"This is because you think the error is quite 'fatal.'"Perhaps by "you" you meant "general you", but if not, this would be quite incorrect, at least as regards fellowship or friendship. Again, please see the email thread I mentioned above.

"I guess we don't have to figure out who started it, so long as some people somewhere are ready to look into this and finish... well."You're right, and I'm not looking for a blame-game, or to say "he started it!" I've just gotten the impression (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe this debate has been polarized by FGA separationists, when clearly there are separationist attitudes on BOTH sides.

"But affirming theological similarities is kind of the test-test on where people fall on the grace-truth scale, it seems to me."Interesting. Can you expand on this? Are you saying this is how you think it should be, or just how it is right now? I'm interested to know what exactly you mean by this.

Sanctification said...

Rachel,

Thanks for replying. You asked, "that you realize that IF separationist doctrines are indeed affecting this debate, those doctrines (or at least their practical effects) are coming from BOTH sides, not just the FGA side."

Most likely everyone has some separationist doctrine.

That we can find errors, is cool. Important. I am just curious where and when people have intentionally expressed their grid on how they manage error in Body-life. If these examinations into Pickering help jog dialogue on that, I think it could really help. I don't care if I'm wrong, chances are I am on most things, but I want to at least field the question. Because of love for the brethren. If that makes sense?

As for Antonio I do not know his mind.

I do appreciate yours and Stephen's not distancing yourself and still talking about the truth. I notice it and appreciate it, honestly.

Your friend,
Michele

Orange said...

Hi Michele,

On the heels of what Rachel said above about the FB incident, I'd just like to point out that I think that scenario ties in very well with your series on secondary separation. Indeed, Antonio essentially separated from us on FB as an act of secondary separation because of his problems with "you know who". He separated from us because he didn't like what "you know who" was doing and essentially determined that we are guilty by association -- even though we had no direct role whatsoever in the situation he was so upset about at the time. If you have a problem with secondary separation then consistency in your reasoning demands that you see Antonio as guilty of exactly what you're writing about and calling into question -- if you think "separation" is the problem, then Antonio is clearly part of the problem. If, on the other hand, you feel Antonio was justified then you are giving credence TO the idea of secondary separation. I'm not sure I particularly care which side you come down on, but please do come down on one side or the other instead of hanging out in limbo. If I may paraphrase from Rev 3:15,16 -- Be hot or be cold, lukewarm is bad.

It's late and I only have time for a short post so please don't perceive my directness or brevity as rude or impatient. It's just been a long (but wonderful) day -- our 9th anniversary :-) -- and I simply don't have the energy to wax eloquent tonight... do I ever??? ;-)

Anyway, thanks for considering our thoughts. I hope the kids are continuing to recover from the poison oak... ick.

Rose~ said...

Hi Michele,
If I may, I would like to say something about Stephen's and Rachel's point. I hope I am not accused of a double stadard, ;~) but I think I can see the perspective of Antonio because I sort of share that perspective in relation to the un-named offender. lol

I think the comparison is not of equitable factors. Separation because of ideas/theological viewpoints is in one category. Can I have a friend who disagrees with my husband on theology? Yes. On the other hand, can I have a frined who drops eggs on my husband's head every time he shows up for work? I think if I befriended such a person, treated them as if this was an AOK way to act, my husband would be asking me to sleep on the couch, lol.

When you feel abused by someone, it is hard to understand why others can't see it. You feel as if they are condoning it and *that* is hard to take.

I know this from personal experience on these blogs, relating to another situation, not Rachel and Stephen at all. Rachel and Stephen and I hadn't gotten friendly enough for any of it to 'hurt' too much.

Does this help?

Orange said...

Mornin' Rose. It's been awhile.

Oh, If only it were as clear cut as you portray. The actual scenario is more like the two of them breaking eggs over EACH OTHER's heads and then Antonio demanding that I take his side of an egg-fight he started. The bottom line is that Antonio enacted (morale?) secondary separation from from "us" because of his disagreement with you-know-whou. It's important to note I think that Michele herself has not limited the discussion only theological separation, but morale as well which is perhaps the aspect that applies best here. Regardless, however you slice it, Antonio has enacted secondary separation despite my honest efforts to reach out to him as a person rather than an online opponent.

As stated earlier, I don't particularly care which side of the separation/secondary separation issue Michele or others come down on, I am however very interested in seeing people apply their conclusions consistently.

Thanks for considering,

Rose~ said...

OTOH,
I have seen a bit of the "marking" type of comments (as it relates soley to doctrine) from an RFG associate lately too.

By marking, I mean: attempts to marginalize, discredit, isolate, shut down, cause others not to give any creedence to what the individual is saying, cast suspicion based on stateemnts, etc.

It all seems so familiar.

Rose~ said...

Thanks, Stephen.
I agree - there were eggs flying out from both sides, but for the last umpteen months, they have only been coming from one source. I see others wanting to "move on" including (ahhhh!) myself... speaking of which... I have not thrown eggs, yet I am covered with them, as is Michele. I suppose that helps me to appreciate AgD's perspective better. OTOH, I am well aware that things don't always look to others as they do to me, especially to one such as yourself who has not been on the receiving end of this particular "opponent."

Just watch the backlash I will get for simply making these few vague comments.

Rose~ said...

Just to clarify: my comment about "marking" was meant to say that I see some truth in what Rachel is saying about this happening on both sides. :)

Rose~ said...

not that anyone cares what I think, being a woman of no consequence, lol. :~)

Sanctification said...

Hi Stephen,

I am trying to turn a new leaf. That new leaf is to stop some avenues of what can be considered armchair psychology. Rachel and Kev have pointed this out, so has another person privately, and that's enough for me.

They're right. I am gifted for discernment. But how many times have I seen another servant of Christ who also has this gift, lean too heavily on that and turn judgmental. I feel that I have done that, here, in my recent discussion over Separationists, and even over Dr. Lybrand and his letter.

It doesn't mean that what the LORD has given to me, in investigating this all from the angle of separationist doctrine was not any less worthwhile. I'm still figuring this out.

I think the boundary line is this: I want people to be free to speak for themselves regarding why they do what they do. I want to provide a welcoming and open area for people to be real. So that means I have to free them from my own judgments on why they do and say what they do. At the same time we can tell something has gone wrong in FG, and in a general sense at minimum, I think that this angle is very helpful.

If I am going to preach, as I have for some time, that the separationists have gone too far in their judgment of their opponents, I better not contradict, like a hypocrite, the very reform I'm trying to initiate for Christ and His Word in this way.

I apologize.

Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Stephen,

You said, " Indeed, Antonio essentially separated from us on FB as an act of secondary separation because of his problems with "you know who". "

I never thought of it that way. Yes, you're right, the teaching of separation does involve both theological error and also a sort of (usually unfair, inappropriately-applied) moral assessment.

You do have a secondary separationist brother, who is so intent on destroying the reputation of AdR so much that I've personally made the choice to talk about him as little as possible, ever, again. Because even things well intended (though I do make huge blundersome judgments all by myself too) and shared for the sake of good are turned out to be used to bring him further harm.

I do want you to understand what is going on, however.

Maybe I could say it this simply: who willingly draws near to judgment? Who does that? Most don't. I think you're definitely on your way Stephen and I encourage you in the conscious effort you are making to not separate.

Michele

Sanctification said...

Rose,

I was wondering how accurate my feel is, for those times before I came along, so when you wrote "I agree - there were eggs flying out from both sides, but for the last umpteen months, they have only been coming from one source. I see others wanting to "move on" including (ahhhh!) myself... speaking of which... I have not thrown eggs, yet I am covered with them, as is Michele," then I felt like I was roughly still on the right track.

Stephen has stopped throwing eggs, as Rose puts it. I'll elaborate on that thing which is hopefully coming to be a thing of the past? To stop with this assumption that there is something morally or honestly deficient in our theological opponent.

Sure, we've all had fleshly reactions and deeds and thoughts including me, in the past but now we're only keeping notations on who is repentant, about that. Is this correct?

So if we're really in the camp of repentance, then that means we'll stop being around whoever it may be who still wants to keep throwing eggs.

I think this is the test of whether we're committed to this side of things, the side of not separating and not judging one another. Gotta get the egg throwers, out of here, so we can stop losing ground. I think Antonio is in that group, I am, Rose is, Stephen is. Who else is done throwing eggs and keeping score of "evidence" of "bad theology"?

Orange said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachel said...

Rose,

Thank you for seeing and understanding my point, and "somewhat" agreeing with it. :-)

Michelle,

"who willingly draws near to judgment?"Are you saying that you think Antonio has separated from us because he thinks we will judge him, or that we associate with someone who judges him? You said something along those lines on the phone too.

If so, I certainly understand that position. Yet, I think Stephen & I have made it pretty clear that we ourselves are not out judging anyone. Theologically/logically, yes, we have and will continue to point out errors, as he has and will with us. I think it is obvious though that we are different in many ways. I understand Antonio's hesitation, but I believe we deserve a chance, but he simply won't give it to us.

"we'll stop being around whoever it may be who still wants to keep throwing eggs."I'm not convinced that that's the most effective course of action yet.

Orange said...

Hey 'chele. Not to burst your bubble or anything but I would definitely not include Antonio in our little egg-free "rebellion" just yet. You can disagree with me, but please understand that (for the time-being anyway) I see AdR similarly to how you see Mr. Martyouknowhouneac. Fair 'nough? I've forgiven him before, and I can and will readily forgive him again without any conditions if he but asks.

Not trying to start a food fight, thanks.

Diane said...

Hi Michele,

Just wanted to encourage you in the Lord. I would love to talk theology with you, but you're on a different subject right now, so I'll hold off on that.

Just wanted to stop by and say "hi."
I think meeting you in person was a good thing for me.

Enjoy the Lord each day because He loves to delight in you.

In His love,
Diane
:-)

Sanctification said...

Rachel and Stephen,

I read both your comments. I'm just grateful that you allow me and other people like Rose to share and I certainly am glad that you are sharing your burdens, too. It's important to me if you estimate any one person is not "egg-free" or that separating from egg-throwers may be questionably necessary. This is what I heard you say above and I accept it. I would want you to have a confidence a little higher such as mine, before moving forward, and I am willing to wait until that naturally takes place. ("Naturally" means that our Savior is at work and I sense you believe He is in our midst just as I do.)

I don't know how you would go about noticing the change that brother AdR is already exhibiting, he hasn't listed it explicitly yet to you or for you and I wonder if he would. I am even more confident that what is seen is not mere words or coincidence because of everything I have observed from him as he works in a community of believers.

And I would rather not talk publicly any more about this brother, please. The risk that I would be responsible for further harm to him is just high. You may talk about me all you want.

Gratitude, Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Diane,

I'm so glad you stopped by and I would very much like to pick up our discussion where we left off, or talk about other theological matters too. I look forward to it. Now and then I get involved, and when I am not I don't always read and understand everything but I am paying attention to it all.

I actually am talking on theology at the Stark's forum, this week, maybe you already noticed? I know it is one sided in some ways, but that's okay. I have to hear both sides and learn a ton before I could be convinced one or another was in error.... That'll be a long, long time from right now.

I certainly am glad for my Savior today. He is everything to me. God bless you for being a blessing in the LORD.

:D Michele

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rose~ said...

Michele,
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor, would you be mine? Could you be mine?
:~)

Levi is watching Mr. Rogers and I couldn't help but share that sweet song with you and your commenters. Despite the speculation over Mr. Rogers and his 'orientation', I find his voice and little song so soothing. :~)
And what a simple sentiment: can we be friends? ... just welcoming and kind. For all the criticism he received, I think he is actually a good example.

I think of you a lot like that - welcoming and kind. God bless you for your sweet spirit.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diane said...

Hi Michele,

What forum are you talking on? Did you mean this one.... yours?
Just wondering?

Have a great Mothers Day. What a privileged place all Christian mothers have!!!

Love ya much,
Diane
:-)

Sanctification said...

Hi Rose,

Just want to tell you what I was thinking lately, which was how I am too all business and intensity compared to you, I look to you for understanding and connection and you are always, always able to give it. It is easy to befriend someone like you because of how harmless you are. Love you too! Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Diane!!

I was talking over at the "TheoTalk Forum" with Stephen and Kev, but I think I'm done for now again.

Go ahead and check it out and if you want to cut and paste any from that and talk over here even in this thread, I don't mind at all. I just look back with fondness over our visit at lunch and really those four days! Love you too!! Michele

Orange said...

Hey Michele, just wanted you to know I've been AFK almost all day and it's late now so I'll try to respond to some of what you said/asked tomorrow. Thanks.

Sanctification said...

Okay, Stephen,

Look forward to it, though not quite sure on "AFK"'s meaning?

:D Michele

Rachel said...

Hey Michele,

Don't worry, I didn't know what AFK was either. :-)

(apparently it means "away from keyboard")

Sanctification said...

Be free, friend Stephen; there's a whole other world out there AFK. Thanks for the geek-tip #456 Rachel. I'll tuck that away.

:D

Rachel said...

Michele, LOL!

Orange said...

Hi, this is Stephen and I'm AFK, please leave a message at the beep.

**beep**

Yeah, I'm a geek... and proud of it too. :p

blog archive

Phrase Search / Concordance
Words/Phrase To Search For
(e.g. Jesus faith love, or God of my salvation, or believ* ever*)