WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[sfortescue]

Mark,

You said:
1. I mistakenly called "Noethetic Counselling", "Noetic Counselling".  This is because I threw my copy of that book away so many years ago that I had forgotten the unusual word.  If I recall correctly, Charles Solomon taught the same thing.  I can't check, because I chucked his books too.

2. Verne has pointed out that the ability to believe God comes from God.  If this person is a "sister" she already has that ability.

3. How does faith work out in real life?  Look at the life of Abraham, the father of the faithful.  (Romans 4:16).  A look at his life shows what the walk of faith is about.  For example, what do you suppose Abe felt like as he took Isaac up that hill to kill him. I think that we can be reasonably certain that he felt rotten!

Scripture describes faith in terms of weak or strong, (Rom.4:19), which is a function of the will.  As well, it describes it as a function of the intellect, (Rom. 4:21), which produces acts of obedience.  Abraham is commended for obeying, "against hope", (hope in his natural abilities that is), (Rom.4:18).

  "...yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God." (Rom.4:20).   Lack of faith is a failure to exercise the ability that God has given us.

Now, I do not deny that powerful negative feelings such as fear, can interfere with this.  But if we say that we must feel just so before we acknowledge God's power and soveriegnty in our lives, we are decieved.  Sometimes we must bow the knee in spite of our feelings!

Much of the trouble that we get ourselves into regarding the life of faith comes from poor habits.  We can actually train ourselves to depend on our emotions.  God gave us our emotions as an important aspect of our being.  They add much of the "flavor" to our lives that make them enjoyable.  We pay a price for them though.  When we love, we expose ourselves to sorrow, and when the loved one suffers or dies.

But faith is our response to God's truth.  To place emotion ahead of faith in the order of our decision to believe and obey God is unwise, unhealthy, and unsound.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

I disagree with your claim that we can be reasonably certain that Abraham felt rotten while he was taking Isaac up the hill to kill him.  Such a feeling would betray a lack of faith.  In fact, if Abraham had chosen to go through with the act while feeling that way, it wouldn't have been an act of faith.  In fact he would have been just killing his son as if for no good reason!  Isaac's faith reflected the faith that he saw in his father.  That feelings can betray lack of faith is clearly seen in the story of Peter walking on the water.  When Peter began sinking, his outward action hadn't changed.

Matthew 14:28-31
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  And he said, Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Romans 4:1-5
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Romans 4:20-22
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

[Oscar]

Steve,

You said:

I disagree with your claim that we can be reasonably certain that Abraham felt rotten while he was taking Isaac up the hill to kill him.  Such a feeling would betray a lack of faith.  In fact, if Abraham had chosen to go through with the act while feeling that way, it wouldn't have been an act of faith.  In fact he would have been just killing his son as if for no good reason!  Isaac's faith reflected the faith that he saw in his father.  That feelings can betray lack of faith is clearly seen in the story of Peter walking on the water.  When Peter began sinking, his outward action hadn't changed.

Matthew 14:28-31
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  And he said, Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

The whole point of the story is the final question, "Wherefore didst thou doubt?"  The answer is that he made a choice to focus his faith on the wind and waves rather than the Lord.

The order of events is: 1. Focus on the Lord 2. Walks on water 3. Changes focus to the wind and waves 4. Fear rises up 5. Starts sinking 6.Calls for help 7. Is rescued.

You are correct in saying that Peter's outward action hadn't changed.  BUT, the object of his attention had shifted before fear rose up. His feelings didn't betray lack of faith, they betrayed what he had begun to base his faith upon.  He chose to base his faith upon his sense perceptions rather than revealed truth.

Similarly, when someone focuses on their feelings, rather than the truth, they just sink further into their emotional state.

Thomas Maddux

[Mark C.]

Thanks for your reply Tom.

  I still don't know what "Nouthetic counsel" is, though I do remember hearing the name of Jay Adams.

  I guess I have not been clear in my posts', or you would not have concluded that I suggested that we must first build emotional strength in broken souls as a prelude to having strong faith.

  Faith is a gift from God, and all true believers have it.  As you said, some are weak in it, and others are strong. 

   Love is also a gift from God, and all true believers have it ("poured out into our hearts' by the Holy Spirit that is given to us").  Some are weak in this as well.  This ability to care about others, for the sake of their souls, informs our faith in a very crucial way.

   I will share a personal example that hopefully will help make my point.  You will remember this story very well, as will those who have read this thread in the past.

    Before I left the Assembly I was trying to prepare a Bible study at a lunch counter when an old man sat down next to me and started to pour out his heart to me.

  My initial reaction was to get bugged at his persistent chatter.  My definition of faith at that time was flawed because it accepted the Assembly directive that Assembly meetings, and being faithful to them, were the most important values in God's work.  As GG said,"the definition of faith is faithfullness."

   Something awoke in me as he continued to tell his tale of deep woe.  He saw my Bible, and me reading it, and was looking for help!  A "feeling" of compassion caused me to listen to him, and thus set aside my study for the rest of that lunch hour.  I don't know if he heard a word I said, but God surely did speak to me from that, and this event was key to my leaving the group.

   This story illustrates how God given emotions can inform/direct our faith to fulfil God's objective.  This is why Paul said that love is the "greatest", and Jesus said it is the first command, and by it all others are fulfilled.

   I think this is what Paul meant in Eph. 3 when he said "inner" strength comes from being "rooted and grounded in love."  This is not in oppostion to faith, but gives direction to our faith.

  It is meaningless to talk of faith and the Christian life without asking, "faith in what?"  What are we as already saved Christians trusting God for?  What is my expectation from God?

  If love is to only provide a pleasant "flavor" then why did Jesus and Paul seem to think it as being foundational for a strong Christian life?

    Faith's direction is to trust in the integrity and deep love that God has for me as an individual.  This is what allowed Abraham to grow in faith and to sacrafice his son.  He knew that God was his friend, not just his Lord.  He certainly did not offer up his son without a passionate belief in the goodness of God! 

    This is not a mushy kind of sentimentality, rather the enjoyment of an intimate relationship that will not disappoint, like the one's you mentioned.  Without knowing this kind of personal love we will not be truly spiritual.

   Yes, preoccupation with how I feel is unwise, unhealthy, and untrue, but this is not what I'm talking about.  It is not a decision between obeying the truth and responding to my subjective leanings. 

   Preoccupation with the faith that God has a very deep personal love for me will capture my heart and "make" me a true man of faith.  As Paul said, it is a "more excellent way."

   It is this kind of faith, that reaches deep into our hearts, that needs to inform the wounded soul from groups like the Assembly.  Just telling them to "obey in the darkness,etc."( a often quoted phrase by GG) will only be another nail in their Christian life coffin.  This is so because the burden is again placed on them to try and dig out of the hole they find themselves in.

 God does not take a "tough love" approach to these little ones.  He wants them to see the Jesus they never knew and to experience a true personal relationship with him. 

   I hope we can continue this discussion.

                                        God Bless,  Mark C.     


   

[vernecarty]

Thanks for your reply Tom.

    If love is to only provide a pleasant "flavor" then why did Jesus and Paul seem to think it as being foundational for a strong Christian life?

 
                                        God Bless,  Mark C.     


   

I don't want to speak for Tom but I doubt he considered "love" one of the emotions he referred to as "flavor".
I think nonetheless, that redemption includes the purifying of even our affections. If this were not the case we would never develop an appetite for holiness.

Tom,

I disagree with your claim that we can be reasonably certain that Abraham felt rotten while he was taking Isaac up the hill to kill him.  Such a feeling would betray a lack of faith.  In fact, if Abraham had chosen to go through with the act while feeling that way, it wouldn't have been an act of faith.  In fact he would have been just killing his son as if for no good reason!

Steve makes a good point about Abraham. Hebrews tells us that at some point he made the mental leap to a firm conviction that God's keeping His promise required His ability to raise Isaac from the dead.
We are not told whether or not this realisation happened immediately. I doubt it did. I suspect  he wrestled with this dillemma mightily until an incredible transformation took place in the way he viewed Almighty God. I think God does the same with us.


That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 1:7
Verne

[M2]

I should have been more specific.
Steve Irons and Tom Maddux made their choices long before God so evidently and publicly  judged Geftakys.
Wayne Matthews, so far as I know, was not an elder.
My statement is certainly true of those serving with him at the time the "ministry" imploded.
If I am mistaken in this I am prepared to be enlightened.
Verne
p.s Obvioulsy it would be an error to claim that no one spoke up. Many did and paid the price. I should have more specifically limited my comment to elders serving with George at the time.

We do not know one way or the other for sure, and therefore cannot make absolute statements about what the elders did after GG's excommunication.  They have not spoken out on this BB, but that does not necessarily mean that they have not spoken out at all.

I agree though, that those who, upon leaving the system or re-vamping it, resort to a Brethren type ministry, will continue to  perpetrate (correct word??) the same old problems of the Geftakys assembly system but without Geroge Geftakys.

Just my opinion.
Marcia

[outdeep]

Sorry, Mark.  I think my last post was a lesson in missing the point. 

Part of my problem was my wanting to participate and encourage your thread (it is one of the few that are actually dedicated to helping ex-Assembly folks) but having limited time.  I post when I am at work and for the most part I am supposed to be, well, working.  So I went back and read/skimmed as much as I could but evidently didn't grasp as much as I thought I did.

Your latter post, I think makes sense to me.  When I think of faith, I think of the 'ol "faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God".  The way I have learned to apply this, is that if I want to increase in faith, I read a book - faith is a result of bookishness, Bible Study, spiritual books, etc.  I probably picked this up because George himself would rather lose himself in a book than take his wife over to Granny's donuts.

But, as you say, I think it is the exercise of love that supports, clarifies, and strengthens our faith.  Here, I think, is where the risk comes in.

Books never hurt me, but people have.  That man at the soup counter could have responded negatively to your words.  Or, he could have become a burden and a parasite to you.  So much simpler to pass on the other side of the street reading your Bible and leave such matters for the Samaritans. 

But, then one's faith is a mere theoretical exercise.  And isn't this how we define hypocracy?

-Dave

[vernecarty]

Sorry, Mark.  I think my last post was a lesson in missing the point. 



But, as you say, I think it is the exercise of love that supports, clarifies, and strengthens our faith.  Here, I think, is where the risk comes in.

Is this perhaps why our faith has to be tested?
The verse in Peter suggests that it is actually the trial of our fatih, that establishes whether it is genuine or not, not simply our declaration of it.
I think we get into trouble because our priorities regarding love get misplaced. We preoccupy ourselves with a lot of talk about love for our fellowman, while completely failing to recognize that any such love that is genuine ultimately flows from firstly, a love for God.
How often do you hear people talking about a love for other people, when by their very conduct they display a complete contempt for God Himself?
If we truly love God, He then makes it possible to love the unlovely. It is entirely unnatural to us, no matter how religious we become. I believe God chose the standard of holiness for his own because He knows that true holiness is impossible to counterfeit. It is remarkable how He can use that fact, as Dave points out, to expose us as hypocrites.
Verne

[Oscar]

Fellers,

I would like to point out a couple of things that pertain to this discussion.

1. You must believe in God in order to love him.  Faith is a pre-condition of love for God.  As Verne has pointed out one must love God in order to love people correctly.

2. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" simply means that we come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel.  It doesn't mean that Joe, who reads the Bible 2 hours a day, will necessarily have more faith then Sam who reads less.

3. It is not the presence of faith that is crucial for our life issues, it is the exercise of faith.  This is where the work of faith comes in.  Feelings do not always cooperate in this process.  It is easier if they do, but they cannot always be counted on to be there.

To say, "I cannot believe or obey God unless I feel what I wish to feel" is really to say, "I won't".

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

I agree though, that those who, upon leaving the system or re-vamping it, resort to a Brethren type ministry, will continue to  perpetrate (correct word??) the same old problems of the Geftakys assembly system but without Geroge Geftakys.

Just my opinion.
Marcia

Whether it is a "Brethren-type" ministry or not has nothing to do with it.
The only relevant question in this regard concerning any gatheing of God's people is the quality of the shepherds. Are they faithful, godly men of exemplary lives who seek to honor God first and foremost or are they not?
Merely impugning the brethren assemblies fails to recognize the true problem.
Verne

[outdeep]

Whether it is a "Brethren-type" ministry or not has nothing to do with it.
The only relevant question in this regard concerning any gatheing of God's people is the quality of the shepherds. Are they faithful, godly men of exemplary lives who seek to honor God first and foremost or are they not?
Merely impugning the brethren assemblies fails to recognize the true problem.
Verne

I would agree with your point, Verne, that the main issue is the character and integrety of the individual as to whether they are going to be good leaders in other churches.  However, I think the type of ministry they go to does have something to do with the issue.

For example, take a person who lost their church ministry, has no credentials but wants to regain the position they had before.  If they went to Evangelical Free Fullerton, a strong Calvary Chapel, or my C&MA church, they probably wouldn't get very far.  If they joined the church, engaged in ministry for years and formed a good relationship with folks in the church, they might eventually become a deacon or an elder but these denominational positions are nothing compared to what they had before.  Would they ever be the "big guy" giving primary leadership in the church?  If it was even possible, it would take seminary, years of faithful service, and the vast majority of people feeling pretty good about the person.  Basically, strong churches have safeguards to keep strong-willed people from coming in and taking over.

What kind of churches would be vulnerable to strong-willed ex-leaders from coming in and taking over?

1.  Home churches.
2.  Plymouth Brethren "simplicity in Christ/brother among brother" churches who are against the trappings of larger churches.  (Possibly -  I knew of a Brethren church in Buena Park that was so in the clutches of 70 year old elders that the suggestions of the 50 year old elders were dismissed as coming from "younger brethren").
3.  Charasmatic or semi-charasmatic "you don't need no stink'in seminary for God to speak to you" type churches.

You get some churches like this and it doesn't take much with a charasmatic person who can handle a Bible to pursuade the others how things ought to be.

Even George started in a "structured" Baptist church but then kept gravitating more and more towards non-structured, non-accountable type of situations until he ultimately got full control.

-Dave

Disclaimer:  I share this as a matter of general principle.  I have no idea what the motivation of current and former Assembly leadership is.

[vernecarty]

I would agree with your point, Verne, that the main issue is the character and integrety of the individual as to whether they are going to be good leaders in other churches.  However, I think the type of ministry they go to does have something to do with the issue.

For example, take a person who lost their church ministry, has no credentials but wants to regain the position they had before.  If they went to Evangelical Free Fullerton, a strong Calvary Chapel, or my C&MA church, they probably wouldn't get very far.  If they joined the church, engaged in ministry for years and formed a good relationship with folks in the church, they might eventually become a deacon or an elder but these denominational positions are nothing compared to what they had before.  Would they ever be the "big guy" giving primary leadership in the church?  If it was even possible, it would take seminary, years of faithful service, and the vast majority of people feeling pretty good about the person.  Basically, strong churches have safeguards to keep strong-willed people from coming in and taking over.

What kind of churches would be vulnerable to strong-willed ex-leaders from coming in and taking over?

1.  Home churches.
2.  Plymouth Brethren "simplicity in Christ/brother among brother" churches who are against the trappings of larger churches.  (Possibly -  I knew of a Brethren church in Buena Park that was so in the clutches of 70 year old elders that the suggestions of the 50 year old elders were dismissed as coming from "younger brethren").
3.  Charasmatic or semi-charasmatic "you don't need no stink'in seminary for God to speak to you" type churches.

You get some churches like this and it doesn't take much with a charasmatic person who can handle a Bible to pursuade the others how things ought to be.

Even George started in a "structured" Baptist church but then kept gravitating more and more towards non-structured, non-accountable type of situations until he ultimately got full control.

-Dave

Disclaimer:  I share this as a matter of general principle.  I have no idea what the motivation of current and former Assembly leadership is.

I have to say that I for the most part agree Dave. I know that Scriptrure says that if a man desires the office of a bishop he desires a good work.
Personally, my view is that anyone actively and agressively seeking any position of spiritual leadership is automatically disqualified.
True spiritual leadership is not much recruited as it is recognized.
Your point about the quality of men rising to leadership being reflective of the maturity and discernment of the gathering is right on the money.
It seems lots of cults get started by men who at some point refused to be subject to any other authority but themselves.
I knew nothing about George Geftakys when I associated myself with this fraud.
Shame on me.
Verne
p.s one of the elders at the church I am attending and which has a Brethren legacy, told me about a pastor they had  few years back that made it clear to everyone that he wanted to be large and in charge.
He did not last. The Brethren have it right in that there should be a plurality of local leadership.
It is the best (and Scriptural) way  to safeguard the flock from serious problems. It does not prevent them necessarily, but it at least provides a means for effectively dealing with issues when they arise.
p.p.s Your comment aobut people who "loose their minsitry" is full of portent.
It is now sadly commom in the C &MA (as in the Catholic church) for a D.S., at least in the Midwest District, to shuffle pastors who have been dismissed by governning boards to other congregations without full disclosure. It is my understanding that this is the situation in Chamapign with the current serving pastor.
They euphemistically call it "transition".
This is a very serious problem as you can imagine. Some gatherings are doomed to failure even before they get started, as was the case with the assemblies.

[Mark C.]

Dave:

  No apology is necessary, and it is great to get your perspective on things.

  Yes, my intention is to try to actually help folks, not to win arguments.  If we engage in some healthy discussion where there is a difference of opinion that can be very helpful.

  I think most of the problem in discussing this issue is a semantic one, as you can probably notice in the talk between Tom and I.  When he hears me talk of "emotions" he is thinking in terms of inner comfort/distress level, which is part of inner life, but not the defintion I would give to what the Bible calls, "the heart."

 Was Paschal right when he said, "the heart has it's reasons the mind knows nothing of?"  Strictly, we cannot have any reasoning ability apart from the mind, but Paschal, a great intellect, recognized that our thinking about God is not just an endeavor of pure reason.

   Think of the child who hears the Gospel and is "moved" by the message of God's love for him.  Did he come to faith on the basis of logical reasoning, or did his sensitivity to feel his inner need, plus a sense that God could meet that need, tug on his heart and cause him to cry out for salvation?

                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

[vernecarty]

Dave:

  No apology is necessary, and it is great to get your perspective on things.

  Yes, my intention is to try to actually help folks, not to win arguments.  If we engage in some healthy discussion where there is a difference of opinion that can be very helpful.

  I think most of the problem in discussing this issue is a semantic one, as you can probably notice in the talk between Tom and I.  When he hears me talk of "emotions" he is thinking in terms of inner comfort/distress level, which is part of inner life, but not the defintion I would give to what the Bible calls, "the heart."

 Was Paschal right when he said, "the heart has it's reasons the mind knows nothing of?"  Strictly, we cannot have any reasoning ability apart from the mind, but Paschal, a great intellect, recognized that our thinking about God is not just an endeavor of pure reason.

   Think of the child who hears the Gospel and is "moved" by the message of God's love for him.  Did he come to faith on the basis of logical reasoning, or did his sensitivity to feel his inner need, plus a sense that God could meet that need, tug on his heart and cause him to cry out for salvation?

                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

Mark I have been thinking a bit about this. I am not so sure that you are entirely wrong in placing a premium on the emotional state of the believer as being something of great importance.
In Galatians 5:22 we are told that the fruit of the Spirit is:

 love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance:
Now I know many expositors say that these are all aspects of the one fruit - love.

Nonetheless, the case may certainly be made that the items being described in this verse are directly related to our emotional states.
I have learned for example, that it is unwise to correct my daughters when I am angry at something they have done as I am then unlikely to be gentle in my correction, needed though it may be.
I was hoping you could develop this theme a bit more.
I am increasingly of the belief that salvation also involves a work of renewal and transformation of the affections, as well as the intellect and the will. I can honestly say that some things that used to allure and tempt me as a young believer no longer do. I can only attribute the chage in my desires to the work of the Spirit of God and not to simply getting older and/or wiser...
Verne

[Mark C.]

Hi Verne,

  I recognized when I brought up this topic that it was going to be a difficult one.  Together, I think we might be able to learn a great deal about what part our emotions play in the Christian life.

   I also want everyone to know that I very much appreciate Tom's contribution, though it may seem we have some differences of opinion.  Tom is a good friend who helped me greatly when I left the Assembly, and for this I remain grateful.  He married my wife and I (29 years in June!) and even went trucking with me once!

  I also know that not everyone struggles with deep confusion upon their Assembly exit, and for them they wonder why some can't seem to just slide into a new church, make new friends, read their Bibles, etc.

   I remind those "strong in the faith" that the "weak are more necessary", and that love is kind and patient.  It is "the faith," and being strong in it, that most certainly is my objective in considering this topic, not just learning to cope with damaged emotions.

  I do want to try to get into this topic some more, and deal with the statements you have made Verne, but lack the time right now.  The verses re. "the fruits of the Spirit" do describe emotions:"joy and peace." 

  No, I am not a charismatic, nor am I promoting the seeking of "spiritual" experiences by sensing God; quite the contrary.  That would be, as Tom said, very unwise and unhealthy. 

  Thanks so much for your thoughts on this topic and I look forward to many more in the future.


                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

  We have had some differences of opinion (which is healthy) re. the role of emotions and one's faith.

   Verne asked if I could try and expand on my views re. this, and I am happy to do so.  Those with different opinions are invited to participate. 

     ---- And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.  Philp. 4:7

   This verse above is very pertinent to our discussion. 

  1.)  Hearts and minds are two different distinct parts of our soul.  Both need to be kept and both can experience peace.

     What of this word "heart" that the Bible uses so often?  In Rom. 10: 8 we notice that "belief" must be "from the heart" to be the kind of faith that saves.

   What could this mean?  It could mean that only those who are sincere will be saved---but then this understanding of the heart would make no sense when applied to the Philp 4 use of the word.

  Jesus told the disciples in JN 14, "let not your heart be troubled---"  I think we generally think of this use of the word heart, being troubled, in the context of "anxious care."

   While it probably wouldn't be accurate to think of the biblical use of the word "heart" as pure emotion, it is impossible to divorce feelings from our understanding of the word.

   Alll the individual parts of our soul (personality/humanity) are wrapped around each other in such a way that to leave off any of them will cause an unbalanced Christian life.

   The bible must be read and understood or we can subject ourselves to deception from those wishing to mislead us (chief possibly being our own fallen nature).  There are no subjective/intuitive "4th dimensions of revelation" that God has provided.  Objective Bible learning protects us from the arrogancy of a "higher spiritual experience" that pretends a "special" intimacy with God.

  Knowing this, and fearing our own depraved intuition, we can get into an attitude of, at best, ignoring our feelings, or at worst, a deep denial of their presence.

  Shoving down, suppressing, ignoring, denying, etc. our emotional life can have negative effects on a life of faith.  "How so?" you may ask.

  As in the example I used of the old man at the lunch counter, my locked down emotions kept me from paying attention to the needs of the man pouring out his heart to me.   In this situation my feelings served to direct the actions of my faith in a very positive manner.

                        More on this later------   God Bless,  Mark C.