Divorce discussion

[Elizabeth H]

Verne and others,

What happened to Mrs. Harrison and others like her is the reason that I have strongly opposed the teachings that led her to allow this to happen to her.

Mrs. Harrison spent many years under the teaching of T. Austin Spark's ministry at a place known as Honor Oak in England.  Through this ministry she was taught the Deeper Life teachings that are so popular in the "New Testament Church Recovery" movement.  She imbibed Keswick Convention teachings, Watchman Nee's ideas, Jesse Penn Lewis, Andrew Murray, Madam Guyon, the "Overcomer" teachings, and and practiced the type of subjective mysticism taught by these people and groups. 


Many on this BB have responded to my rejection of these teachings angrily.  It as if I were taking  something valuable from them.  I am well aware that I am denying a fundamental tenet of many folk's beliefs and practices.  Nevertheless I believe that these are false and harmful teachings, so I will continue to oppose them.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

I, for one, have been positively impacted when you refute the Deeper Life teachings. My husband grew up in the Local Church (Witness Lee) and so both of us have personally seen the devastating effects of home-grown mysticism. From everything we've both witnessed in our childhoods and early adulthood we no longer want to have anything to do with what we call "weird Christianity."

But I would also hasten to add that I believe God was still able to speak to us and love us while we were in it. We both came to know the Lord and to love His Word. As we have come out of the haze of mysticism, listened to new ministry (I have downloaded lots of MP3's from Dr. Magee's Thru The Bible website!), and just simply lived life, the Lord has opened our eyes and helped us away from that kind of bondage.

I am not angry when you refute Deeper Life teachings. But I would urge you to be respectful of an individual before God, in that God may choose to speak to that individual any way He chooses. I know without a doubt that during dark times during my life in the Assembly, God was there for me. Yes, sometimes it was through "a verse." Sometimes it was through a hymn. Sometimes it was in prayer that I experienced a truth of His Word being made clear to me. The point is, God loves me and even when I was confused and entrapped in the Assembly, He found a way to speak to me through the mess of it all. This is why I think some people respond angrily to you, because they feel like you might be tearing away from them their only shred of true experience with God. And I would also add that sometimes your tone is very know-it-all and this turns people off as well.

Tom, I appreciate the work you have done in refuting the theological twistings of Assembly-ism. I believe you have written and said some very important and illuminating things. But what I think is sad is that when someone like Jem shares what was for her an amazing act of God's grace in her life, you feel compelled to rationalize it away. I simply don't see how this is helpful. She herself was stunned and likened your reasoning to that of her atheistic father! 

The truth is important, but it must be spoken in love. Otherwise it falls on deaf ears.

E.

[outdeep]

And I would also add that sometimes your tone is very know-it-all and this turns people off as well.

Tom, I appreciate the work you have done in refuting the theological twistings of Assembly-ism. I believe you have written and said some very important and illuminating things. But what I think is sad is that when someone like Jem shares what was for her an amazing act of God's grace in her life, you feel compelled to rationalize it away. I simply don't see how this is helpful. She herself was stunned and likened your reasoning to that of her atheistic father! 

I think Al's comments on this are worth reading:
http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=1097.msg28298#msg28298

I don't hear a "know-it-all tone" from Tom and am not turned off by it.  The reason is is that I know him personally so I can imagine the gestures, facial expressions, and caring heart that corresponds to the words. 

Just because Tom reminded Jem of her athiestic father doesn't mean that Tom is that projection.

Overall, I agree with your comments and I certainly wouldn't mind hearing the story of how two people from the two "true" churches in Orange County got together.

[M2]

I think Al's comments on this are worth reading:
http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=1097.msg28298#msg28298

I don't hear a "know-it-all tone" from Tom and am not turned off by it.  The reason is is that I know him personally so I can imagine the gestures, facial expressions, and caring heart that corresponds to the words. 

Just because Tom reminded Jem of her athiestic father doesn't mean that Tom is that projection. .....

And history repeats itself 

Marcia

[outdeep]

And history repeats itself 

Marcia

What is it about Al's comments you disagree with, Marcia?  Or is "history repeating itself" referring to the fact that you will never see Tom as doing anything right no matter what?  If you resent Tom, just ignore him or try and work it out via PM.  If you despise him, just leave him alone and make your contribution with folks you are more atuned with. 

There are folks who post on this board who I don't like where they are coming from so I don't respond to them.  I don't use the BB as a public forum to correct what I don't happen to like about these people.

But your little pot shots have little benefit in the discussion.  Namely, is God's word "living" in the sence that God may use His Word out of context to speak, direct, and confirm?  Or is the only way to appoach the Bible via the historical-contextual method? 

Tom did nothing more than offer an opinion that was different than everybody else's.  You don't have to agree with Tom's opinion.  But, in offering his opinion, he did nothing wrong.

[Oscar]

Folks,

For those willing to pause in the never-ending sport of discerning, listing, enumerating, expounding upon and condemning the views, character and conduct of the notorious "sabelotodo" Thomas Maddux in order to do some actual thinking, here is a link.

  The article was written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois.  He has many interesting and profitible articles on his website.  This, IMHO, is one of them.

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=116

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

What more could anyone need?  Here was a way to continue her husband's ministry along the same lines as he had worked, to be involved in something forward looking, dynamic, and growing, and now God Himself had sent her a personal message confirming it!  She was hooked. 

What it cost her was several years of mental turmoil and depression, and finally a nervous breakdown.   She was used as long as her husband's reputation and contacts were useful to George Geftakys, and then tossed aside like a broken pot.  

But it did not start with GG.  She had been drinking at the polluted fountain of subjectivism and mysticism for many, many years.  Personally, I don't care for that brew.  I have tasted it myself.  Can't say I was impressed with the results. 

Many on this BB have responded to my rejection of these teachings angrily.  It as if I were taking  something valuable from them.  I am well aware that I am denying a fundamental tenet of many folk's beliefs and practices.  Nevertheless I believe that these are false and harmful teachings, so I will continue to oppose them.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I fully understand your position and think your motive is laudable.
Where I think we differ is on the question of the causal relationship between what you see as wrong doctrine, and what happened in the assemblies. The thing that is problematic about the way you present your arguments about "deeper life" or whatever other ideas about Scripture that you disagree with, is the implication that right doctrine necessarily  provides any immunity whatsoever from that kind of thing that took place in the assemblies happening.
You run the risk of impugning the integrity of countless saints who may subcribe to "deeper life" theology  and have lived very godly lives and done nothing remotely resembling the transgression of George Geftakys.
I am certain that Andrew Jukes is wrong in his belief about universal redemption.
He is also a far more able Bible scholar than I can ever hope to be, and was a Godly man.
Andrew Murray has a shameful legacy, from a doctrinal point of view, when it comes to race and salvation in South African churches.
I nonetheless believe that he was a godly man.
I do not agree with every thing deeper life folk assert.
I cannot agree that those beliefs in and of themselves, explain George's reign of terror, not do I believe that just because someone holds these beliefs, they will behave the way George Geftakys did.
It is entirely possible in my view, to believe that God has "given you" a verse, and to live in a Godly, exemplary, and Christ honoring way.
To ascribe the legacy of Geftakys and the assemblies, or any other apostate who leads the people of God astray by their ungdoly and unholy conduct, only to wrong doctrine, is to miss a very critical spiritual principle Tom.
I cannot take the time to develop this but I would encourage folk to consider it:

Wrong doctrine does not necessarily produce unholy conduct, so much as unholy conduct produces wrong doctrine!

In other words, frequently wrong doctrine is not so much a matter of the head, as it is a matter of the heart...

If you understand this point, then you understand the difference in our thinking about this.
Verne

[M2]

What is it about Al's comments you disagree with, Marcia?  Or is "history repeating itself" referring to the fact that you will never see Tom as doing anything right no matter what?  If you resent Tom, just ignore him or try and work it out via PM.  If you despise him, just leave him alone and make your contribution with folks you are more atuned with. 

There are folks who post on this board who I don't like where they are coming from so I don't respond to them.  I don't use the BB as a public forum to correct what I don't happen to like about these people.

But your little pot shots have little benefit in the discussion.  Namely, is God's word "living" in the sence that God may use His Word out of context to speak, direct, and confirm?  Or is the only way to appoach the Bible via the historical-contextual method? 

Tom did nothing more than offer an opinion that was different than everybody else's.  You don't have to agree with Tom's opinion.  But, in offering his opinion, he did nothing wrong.

No it was not a pot shot, it was my opinion.

Consider this:  From what has been posted on this BB, I gather that Brian(maybe), Margaret(I think), Brent, Verne, frank, Sondra, David M, Chuck Miller, Jem, E. and myself and countless others hold to the same opinion i.e. that Tom has a professor/know it all attitude.  Tom's opinion is one matter, but how he throws it around shooting everyone else, except for those that agree with him, down is a problem.

Consider this also:  Most posters and readers of this BB are former/present assembly folk.  Do you really think we have not learned our lesson from our assembly experience, that Tom needs to repeatedly and ad nauseum caution us about becoming victims again??

And Consider this: the reason I said that "history repeats itself":  Who were George's staunch supporters when he began "his ministry"?  The same people who cannot see Tom's arrogance now and have not learned, after all these years, to consider the criticism of others because there might be something to it after all.

Maybe some of you are proud that you left the assembly scene before its collapse, and others are proud that you saw through George, but without real repentance and humility, there is not going to be true recovery.

Marcia

P.S.  You exagerate Dave, when you say I "will never see Tom as doing anything right no matter what".

Unforunately, Tom's misrepresentation to support his argument is one of those problems this BB suffers from.  Many have departed this BB because it becomes pointless to have a reasonable discussion with Tom.  Tom's "credentials" have earned him his little support group.

I am in no way saying that everything Tom posts is off the mark, or that I agree with everything that Chuck says either.  But it is the very same dynamic that allowed George Geftakys get away with atrocities, while silencing those who were attempting to intelligent discussion with him.

M

[outdeep]

You see Tom as an arrogant know-it-all who dominates the board and is not entreated to any other views.

On the other hand, based some of your posts I read, you see Brent (who attacked people, mocked people, broke into people's personal profiles and changed it to embarrase people and would not let people off the hook even when they were trying to make peace) as one who "sees clearly" and whose "unique perspective" is missed.

I will leave it at this:  I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Now that we had our say, let's drop the personality attacks and discuss the issues.  I won't bring it up again if you don't.

[M2]

You see Tom as an arrogant know-it-all who dominates the board and is not entreated to any other views.

On the other hand, based some of your posts I read, you see Brent (who attacked people, mocked people, broke into people's personal profiles and changed it to embarrase people and would not let people off the hook even when they were trying to make peace) as one who "sees clearly" and whose "unique perspective" is missed.

I will leave it at this:  I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Now that we had our say, let's drop the personality attacks and discuss the issues.  I won't bring it up again if you don't.

I will not be online most of the day so I will make this comment now.

If we were to stay focussed, my opinion about Brent has nothing to do with mine and many many others' opinion re. Tom's arrogance.

Marcia

[outdeep]

Folks,

For those willing to pause in the never-ending sport of discerning, listing, enumerating, expounding upon and condemning the views, character and conduct of the notorious "sabelotodo" Thomas Maddux in order to do some actual thinking, here is a link.

  The article was written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois.  He has many interesting and profitible articles on his website.  This, IMHO, is one of them.

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=116

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks, Tom.  Loretta and I are involved in a prayer time during one of the services.  This type of meeting is a magnet for those who lean in the direction this article addresses.  Often the prayers of one are such that God wants to break forth in our church but is somewhat hindered by the elders who don't see the things she is seeing.  She cited last Sunday about eight instances where she claimed a verse and they later corresponded to circumstances.  The pastor sees them as coincidences.

For example: 
After she stood up in church and gave a "word" (the elders graciously dealt with folks getting up in the service without checking with them first) she got the verse "I will go before you and fight for you"  (i.e., God will tear down the strongholds of predjudice and pride that is keeping the spirit from leading).

When she was praying about whether or not she should give the pastor a commentary, she claimed a verse (I forgot which).  As she left, she saw the pastor in his car the same intersection as she.  This has never happened before even though they live in the same neighborhood.

When she was frustrated that the elders were not believing the preponderance of evidence (the fact that she had eight or nine verses that she felt specifically came to pass) she was thinking "they should look at all what was said by the Lord and believe it."  Just after that, she opened her Bible and came across a verse in the prophets that had almost the exact wording.

Anyway, I'm not trying to portray this woman as a nut.  She is a genuine woman who is trying to follow the Lord the best way she knows how.  She really believes in her spiritual experience and it is a burden upon her heart that some on the elder board do not share her view.  She prays very earnestly.

All that to say, it was good for me the very next day to come across this article you posted.  Maybe it was the leading of God.  Who knows?

[Jem]

Yep Dave, the woman you are talking about comes off as a nut case. And what is forever frustrating is in arguing against direct guidance, those on the opposite side take extreme cases to make there point. Hence, the original plea not to bring this discussion down to the what-kind-of-tooth-paste-should-I-buy level.

The Gary Gilley article is a good one, but not necessarily persuasive. He goes extreme. It belittles as simple minded those who believe this way. Much of what he says of scripture is speculative and inferred. If I was to make the same kind of argument Tom would hang me out to dry. Gilley says direct guidance in scripture is not normative though we see examples of it. Then it can be presumed that God Almighty will excuse those who did not get His point. Gilley said that only the major players recieved this kind of direction. Anna and Simeon are major players? Almost makes one want to venerate saints then doesn't it. The major players are not "men of like passions," then, but patriarchs with a capital P. I'm being extreme like Gilley was.

To me the most problematic thing Gilley says is that most Christians believe in direct guidance. Pardon me, but I have become rather suspect of those who have a higher knowledge of the way God wants it than the majority. Especially since there are no phrophets today. Maybe the scripture is insufficient since so few get it. Like my atheistic father used to say, "He'd better be a merciful God because he is rather stingy with his truth."

Look at the topic we rabbit-trailed here. What is the revealed will of God regarding divorce and remarriage? How can we take it on a case by case basis if the Holy spirit doesn't speak? I'm not trying to be snarky here, just interested in the conversation.

[outdeep]

Yep Dave, the woman you are talking about comes off as a nut case. And what is forever frustrating is in arguing against direct guidance, those on the opposite side take extreme cases to make there point. Hence, the original plea not to bring this discussion down to the what-kind-of-tooth-paste-should-I-buy level.

The Gary Gilley article is a good one, but not necessarily persuasive. He goes extreme. It belittles as simple minded those who believe this way. Much of what he says of scripture is speculative and inferred. If I was to make the same kind of argument Tom would hang me out to dry. Gilley says direct guidance in scripture is not normative though we see examples of it. Then it can be presumed that God Almighty will excuse those who did not get His point. Gilley said that only the major players recieved this kind of direction. Anna and Simeon are major players? Almost makes one want to venerate saints then doesn't it. The major players are not "men of like passions," then, but patriarchs with a capital P. I'm being extreme like Gilley was.

To me the most problematic thing Gilley says is that most Christians believe in direct guidance. Pardon me, but I have become rather suspect of those who have a higher knowledge of the way God wants it than the majority. Especially since there are no phrophets today. Maybe the scripture is insufficient since so few get it. Like my atheistic father used to say, "He'd better be a merciful God because he is rather stingy with his truth."

Look at the topic we rabbit-trailed here. What is the revealed will of God regarding divorce and remarriage? How can we take it on a case by case basis if the Holy spirit doesn't speak? I'm not trying to be snarky here, just interested in the conversation.

I don't think this woman is a nut case and I don't think I am bringing it down to the what-kind-of-tooth-paste-should-I-buy level.   The injustice I am doing to this woman's testimony is that I am not able to communicate it as clearly and persuasively as she did.  When we were in the prayer meeting and the woman lined up the promises she claimed  (albiet completely out of context and doing violence to the intended meaning) with the circumstances, it sounded persuasive and no one could find it within them to say otherwise.  It is only after we leave and try to explain it to someone else that it begins to sound lame.  Is it because in the meeting we were not discerning or is it because out of the meeting we fell to the evil of rationalism?

At another prayer meeting someone shared how he was watching a golf game with his dad and was bored. During the match, the spirit of the Lord said to him, "It's a sin to be bored because you have Me."  At the time, no one withstood him because it seemed like something God would say (plus, we tend not to be confrontive when sharing prayer requests).  After all, God is sufficient so it makes sense that it might be a sin to be bored.  But, is this really a Biblical truth or was just a spiritual-sounding thought from this brother's head?  Personally, I can think of lots of reasons why watching golf would be boring.

I share this because it isn't the isolated case that can be brushed aside as "some nut" or just a "what-kind-of-toothpaste example, but I want to talk about the real thing".  It is the very paradegm on how many Christians live their daily lives.  It is the way they approach their quiet time.  It is the way they drive in the car.  It is the way they analize the effectiveness of their church.  It is the way they lead their small groups.  It is why they read their Bible, not for a doctrine, but for a promise.  They seek for an emotional nudging to resolve their particular problems, not a propositional truth upon which to base their lives.

In short, I think the article speaks to a major movement (and I would add unacknowledged division) within churches today. 

I personally found that it is a very rare occurance that I go into a day and God says to me, "go to such and such a place and do this" or "quit your job and move here" or "approach your wife and conceive another child in her menopausal years."  Rather, I find, as David Jeremiah says, the will of God is like the Hebrew Bible - it is best understood reading it backwards. In other words, I look over my day or my life and I realize, "you know what?  It was God leading me in this or that circumstance." or "Because I did this, God put this need on someone's heart and I ended up working here."  Very rarely did I hear the voice of God ahead of time.  But I am often able to look back and acknowledge what is likely His handiwork in how I was unwittingly led in the past.  This, I believe, is how God "speaks" in the majority of cases - by working behind the scenes but not necessarily stopping to fill us in on the details or telling us in advance what He is doing.

[Jem]

I agree with you that it is the rare moment when God gives direct guidance. But I'm one of those small minds that believes He does, obviously, yet I certainly don't drive my car that way Most of the time it is as you have said.

As for this woman, I think you ought to say something Dave; you are a reasonable man. It depends on the prayer meeting or small group, I suppose, but if that lady had said those things in ours--because we all know each other well--someone would have challenged the veracity of what she was saying, cautioned her.

[outdeep]

I agree with you that it is the rare moment when God gives direct guidance. But I'm one of those small minds that believes He does, obviously, yet I certainly don't drive my car that way Most of the time it is as you have said.

As for this woman, I think you ought to say something Dave; you are a reasonable man. It depends on the prayer meeting or small group, I suppose, but if that lady had said those things in ours--because we all know each other well--someone would have challenged the veracity of what she was saying, cautioned her.

Thanks, Jem.  I think you are right. 

[al Hartman]

I personally found that it is a very rare occurance that I go into a day and God says to me, "go to such and such a place and do this" or "quit your job and move here" or "approach your wife and conceive another child in her menopausal years."  Rather, I find, as David Jeremiah says, the will of God is like the Hebrew Bible - it is best understood reading it backwards. In other words, I look over my day or my life and I realize, "you know what?  It was God leading me in this or that circumstance." or "Because I did this, God put this need on someone's heart and I ended up working here."  Very rarely did I hear the voice of God ahead of time.  But I am often able to look back and acknowledge what is likely His handiwork in how I was unwittingly led in the past.  This, I believe, is how God "speaks" in the majority of cases - by working behind the scenes but not necessarily stopping to fill us in on the details or telling us in advance what He is doing.

I quote the above because it bears repeating.  As Christian maturity increases, we will more and more realize that these principles (trust in Him, and He will direct your paths, etc.) are true and, knowing this, we will more frequently and more fervently pray the Lord's guidance, knowing that He will grant it, guiding us faithfully on the pathway of His choosing, although we recognize it not until in retrospect.

al