WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[M2]

Quoting more verses does not change it Lenore.  The passage in 1 Cor 1:26-29 is talking about the worldly wise and the not-so worldly wise (weak in worldly wisdom).  It is not talking about the weak in faith from Rom 14.

Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

  Brent:  I think your last post pretty much makes my point.  You have strongly held opinions and when you can't get agreement you resort to vile sarcasm as a means to demean those who disagree with you.  I was hoping to keep the discussion on a Biblical footing and away from this kind of personal focus.

   You well know I am not suggesting that we accept error and sin, in order to win someone.  When I said, "we need to first win the person" it was for the intention of "correcting them" not to just make friends with them and tolerate their sin.

   Jesus was "the friend of sinners" and was accused by the Pharisees of being too lenient with them.  Jesus knew they were prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, cowards, and yes maybe even lesbians, but this did not stop him from caring about them and dying to save them!  

  Sondra was right on the money when she contrasted Nietzshe to Christian thought.  This philosopher despised Christianity because of Jesus' teaching on "meekness."

 Nietzshe believed in the "superman", a man of adamant strong will that would not allow compassion to weaken him.  From his philosophy sprung men like Hitler and Stalin.  Nietzshe also produced a work called, "The Anti-Christ" in which he lauded the beast like character who would show no mercy.

  I am not saying that Brent is a follower of Nietzshe, only that it is not a Christian thought to believe that Jesus came to take away all weakness via some kind of Ayn Rand self deterimination philosophy.

 When the disciples were weak in faith by running away at the time when Jesus went to the cross, Jesus did not reject them for their lack of courage and strength of will.  He met them where they were hiding for fear and strengthed their faith and gave them hope.

   Jesus did not feel that these Disciples were manipulating him, nor did he start to berate them for their lack of courage, etc.  Jesus did mildly remonstrate Peter in JN 21, but certainly did not insult him or rake him over the coals ("lovest thou me more than these---").

  In Rom. 14-15 there was a dispute, and we have a dispute here.  You can be sure that both sides wanted to win their argument, but Paul told them both basically to drop it.

   But not to drop it with the attitude, "if my argument will not be agreed with I am taking my ball and going home!"  He told them to "accept one another as Christ has accepted you" and BTW, " not in a spirit that judges." This means no snide sarcastic comments would be allowed after the kissing and making up.

   We are to be intolerant of sin, and this will mean that we have to "correct" those involved with it, or we do them a disservice, but we do not have the omnescience of God to truly know where the heart of this person is (whether they are a faker or trully needy).

  A true Christian may get upset when corrected, and even back slide in angry rejection, but cannot ultimately escape the conviction that God wil bring upon their heart (Jonah).  We need not fear that the HS is inadequate for the job that he has been sent to do in the hearts of believers, be they even a con-man wearing a weak sheep's clothing.

                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

    

    

    

[M2]

Mark,

I get the impression that the whole purpose was to address Brent on his style of communication.  Personally, I had got that point quite a while ago.  Even the Biblical discussion was focussed for that intent, such that you missed the obvious in Rom 14 in it's exhortation to the weak as well as the strong.  Your post is a shame based exhortation to the strong blunt forceful communicator.  That is OK BTW, but I needed to illustrate how it sometimes just gets/looks that way.

You said, 'You well know I am not suggesting that we accept error and sin, in order to win someone.  When I said, "we need to first win the person" it was for the intention of "correcting them" not to just make friends with them and tolerate their sin.'

I think we are splitting hairs here when we try to draw distinctions like making friends to tolerate, and winning for the intent of correcting.  It is easy to draw these kind of conclusions by the few posts that someone directed you to read, or because you caught up with on the weekend.  Like I said, you miss the flow of the tone of what is happening.  Unfortunately, the conclusion that there was not an attempt or even a happening of "winning the person" then gets thrown out out of the window, else you would be so passionate to address it.

However, I do not entirely agree with what I quoted, because I do not see the Lord doing this with the Pharisee.  If He did then why did they react the way they did?  Also, The Lord was blunt on occasion with those very ones that He he met and strengthened their faith.  "But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's. Mark 8:33"

I also disagree with manipulating a person in order to win them to ones POV.  I care for the whole individual.  It was never a matter of winning the argument.  It was a matter of helping the individual have an open honest discussion, with whomever, so that the person could make up their own minds with the information gained.  It is pretty pathetic to have a person say, "I will take it under advisement of my counsellors" and then ask the person "Do you have an opinion on the matter?" only to get ignored.  I do not believe that it helps a person to make a conclusion based on how ones feels about the person delivering the message.  I know that you are not exactly saying that, but in reality that is what actually happened when an impression was made based on how one viewed the deliverer of the message.

Where do you get the notion that we do not accept certain individuals?  Why would we be even communicating with them if we did not?  It is the other individual that is not doing the accepting.  You may not have noticed because you were focussed on this discussion.  I notice silent treatment when I get it.

I agree with Brent in that the atmosphere is pretty unhealthy when every discussion gets sidetracked because we hurt or offended some wounded one.

Anyway.  enough said.
Marcia

[vernecarty]

Hi Everyone!

  Brent:  I think your last post pretty much makes my point.  You have strongly held opinions and when you can't get agreement you resort to vile sarcasm as a means to demean those who disagree with you.  I was hoping to keep the discussion on a Biblical footing and away from this kind of personal focus.

 
                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.
 
  
    

This conclusion does surprise me a little. Having read Brent's posts over the last several years now, it is clear to me that ad reducto absurdum is a common literary device that he employs. He has occasionally thrown me for a loop but once I understood the tendency, I generally got a chuckle out of his approach. I would hardly characterize it as vile sarcasm Mark.
Verne

[moonflower2]

Here's what the greek has to say, according to Young's literal translation:

"and let not him who is not eating judge him who is eating,"

There is a subtle difference, but I still see that we must remain open to the possibility that Paul is addressing those who don't eat, and telling them not to judge.  I get that idea from the words.

What about what I'm saying do you not see?  Am I going crazy?

Brent

NO

[moonflower2]

That's why most of my friends are lesbian witches.  I can't win an argument with them, but I have won them as people, and that's the important thing.

Brent

 

[M2]

Mark and Marcia,

It's really hard to know when we do what around here.  Are we now getting personal?  I thought we weren't suppose to get personal.  I guess what was meant was that Sondra wasn't to get personal, but when Mark and Marcia want to get personal and now Brent is gone - so then it's ok to do whatever you want     It really didn't make any sense to you at the time, but because Brent said not to get personal - Mark and Marcia had to get behind the leader.  Very obvious contradiction.  We won't name Lenore in her relationship to the discussion, but we will name Brent.  Please help me out on this.  Should I not be taking your words seriously?  How do I know when I should?  And how can I know who the rules are for and who they do not pertain to?

My point.  See, I thought Lenore was worthy of personal mention (since we were talking about her anyway).  Well, now it appears that Lenore is not worthy, but Brent is....so not wanting to get personal is out the window when we see we have upset Brent. 

I am doing a sidestep here, I realize, but I think HOW THINGS ARE DONE and HOW WE GET TO WHERE WE ARE GOING is almost as important as WHERE WE ARE GOING.

Sondra

Just my opinion Sondra.

At the time it was important to focus the discussion, kind of like what you like to do sometimes but not exactly.

I can get personal about Brent and Mark and Verne because they are not wounded pilgrims anymore.  They are former wounded pilgrims.  I do not have to be concerned that they might think I am gossipping about them.  I do not have to be concerned about it further wounding them. etc. etc....  Hope you get the point.

It there is more I will comment later.

Marcia

[moonflower2]

This is what I have observed.

The weak can be an alcoholic, or addict of some sort.

Christians because they are not under the law, have every right to eat or drink anything they want. To use that right selfishly over someone who for some reason cant control themselves.

A Christian is within his right to drink wine, but not to excess, there must be control over this right.

 But to serve alcohol to someone who doesnt have control , thus sending a recovering alcoholic into a set back. That would be abusive use of the right.
That is when the strong the one who has control, be considerate of the one who is weak - the alcoholic.

Lenore

Lenore,

I don't consider an alcoholic to be a "weak" person anymore than I would consider a diabetic a "weak" person.

The situations are similar. They have a choice whether to take a drink, or whether to eat some candy. They have a physical condition going on in their body, and there are statistics that prove it. (Under The Influence by Milam and Ketcham, for one.)

Do we stop eating candy in front of a diabetic? Do we refuse to offer desert or snacks because an overweight person shouldn't be eating that much? Do we stop eating because an overweight person is eating too much? Do I not offer my obese co-worker a cookie, or refuse to get her a piece of cake from someone's birthday party when she asks and I'm getting one for myself? NO.

An alcoholic has a responsibility for his own actions. He will be offered drinks for the rest of his life and will be watching others drink for the rest of his life. It is always up to the alcoholic as to whether he will drink or not and at certain times in his life may want to avoid situations that will put him at risk for taking a drink that will put him over the edge.

I haven't run into any recovered alcoholics that will judge others who are drinking. They know that their own situation is unique and that they themselves cannot control their drinking.

In my experience, the ones who judge others' drinking are not alcoholics, but self-righteous, immature Christians who still live under the law.

Moonflower

[tenderhearted]

Lenore,

I don't consider an alcoholic to be a "weak" person anymore than I would consider a diabetic a "weak" person.

The situations are similar. They have a choice whether to take a drink, or whether to eat some candy. They have a physical condition going on in their body, and there are statistics that prove it. (Under The Influence by Milam and Ketcham, for one.)

Do we stop eating candy in front of a diabetic? Do we refuse to offer desert or snacks because an overweight person shouldn't be eating that much? Do we stop eating because an overweight person is eating too much? Do I not offer my obese co-worker a cookie, or refuse to get her a piece of cake from someone's birthday party when she asks and I'm getting one for myself? NO.

An alcoholic has a responsibility for his own actions. He will be offered drinks for the rest of his life and will be watching others drink for the rest of his life. It is always up to the alcoholic as to whether he will drink or not and at certain times in his life may want to avoid situations that will put him at risk for taking a drink that will put him over the edge.

I haven't run into any recovered alcoholics that will judge others who are drinking. They know that their own situation is unique and that they themselves cannot control their drinking.

In my experience, the ones who judge others' drinking are not alcoholics, but self-righteous, immature Christians who still live under the law.

Moonflower

I agree with you in this . We are each responsible for our own actions.

Each of us has our own choice, since I am obese I can personally answer to the one example you gave. Last night we had a social time after church.
We had sweets, we had sandwiches, and we had diabetic choices.
For the ones who are diabetic there was a choice at the table for them.
Since we have someone who has a peanut allergy, we post signs on the food that warns the one which has nuts.
We also offer sandwiches, or cheese, or vegetables, for those who are watching their sweets.
There is a choice available.

That way a person who is weak in the overcoming the temptations side of it, can make right choices for themselves.

It is the same as birthday cake, I have the choice to eat the birthday cake, because I enjoy cake, and not be ashamed to eat it. But if I was a diabetic and it would send my sugar to a dangerous level, then having another option served by the host of the party would be helping the one who is weak in this area.

The same with the alcoholic.  It is not going to area where they are served alcoholic beverages.
Unless the person is strong enough to say NO. Then they should be not exposing themselves to that situation. I totally agree, My father is 11 years dry.
If at a party, were alcohol is served, just turn the wine glass or whatever over to indicate you dont want it.
It is the one who pushes and nags the one, try it , one wont hurt. Whether it is alcoholic, food or what ever addictions.
It is the one who tempts the person outright.
Its the one who doesnt take NO for an answer.

The person who is weak in this area gives into the temptation, is because of persuasion of the person who has tempted him repeatly, and the person with the weakness has not the control yet to say NO.
This is where the person who is strong has stumbled the person who is weak.

I remember a person long ago telling me, because she was brought up in a religion that alcohol was absolute evil. When she saw a leader of another Christian organization taking a glass of wine for dinner, she almost left the organization. Maybe she should of at that time, not because the person was drinking wine.

I have no problems with people drinking casually. I dont drink, because of the historically and genetic factor of the alcoholism in my family. That genetic marker is there in side of me.
Years ago, I was also told that I would die of alcoholic poisoning before I even get drunk. I do have a funny story about this that occurred 12 years ago. Ever since I was told about this hazard, I have not touch a drop of alcohol ever since. ANother reason, I am so proud of my Dad accomplishment after drinking for over 50 years, to stop cold turkey and overcame. Why should I disrespect him by drinking. This is my choice. Only my choice.

Conclusion I agree with you, it is person's choice. It is also the one who is strong, to offer alternative choices in respect for the person who suffers a weakness.

Lenore

[tenderhearted]

I want to give every one a chuckle:

It is the story I was referring to about the last time I was drinking.

It was about 12-15 years ago.  I was volunteering at our local cablevision studio.
There was a party for the volunteers at the studio's managers house at the time.

I was also recognized as Volunteer of the Year award.  I had my own television show.

We were all gathered in the garage of this managers, having a BBQ and a great time.
Drinks were being served.  My girls were there.  Christie was about 10 years old at the time, and Sara was about 3.

I was drinking maybe 7 or 8 drinks.  I was not a heavy drinker.

Recently Christie was telling me, that she was counting my drinks and was waiting for me to fall down drunk.

In all those drinks, I didnt even feel it, I was flushed , I slept good that night. But I was not sick or anything.  I could make excuses I had about 100 pounds excess of weight on me. I was eating, but the reality of it came later.

Christie and I really laughed at that one, that she was so disappointed that I was not  a falling down, throwing up, drunken Mother. I really disappointed her.

The explanation came later, when I went to a doctor, and talk to her about it, She told me that if I hadnt stopped drinking, and continued on that night, I could of died from alcohol poisoning with out ever having the symptoms of being drunk.

It is a funny memory of disappointed my daughter, but it could of been a serious consequence of my choice, actions and judgments. This is the reason why I dont drink anymore.
My favourite choice of alcoholic beverage was Baracadic White Rum and Coke.

There has been a few tragic consequences in this town, from the results of error in judgements due to alcoholic consumptions.

Lenore

[moonflower2]

I agree with you in this . We are each responsible for our own actions.

Each of us has our own choice, since I am obese I can personally answer to the one example you gave. Last night we had a social time after church.
We had sweets, we had sandwiches, and we had diabetic choices.
For the ones who are diabetic there was a choice at the table for them.
Since we have someone who has a peanut allergy, we post signs on the food that warns the one which has nuts.
We also offer sandwiches, or cheese, or vegetables, for those who are watching their sweets.
There is a choice available.

That way a person who is weak in the overcoming the temptations side of it, can make right choices for themselves.

It is the same as birthday cake, I have the choice to eat the birthday cake, because I enjoy cake, and not be ashamed to eat it. But if I was a diabetic and it would send my sugar to a dangerous level, then having another option served by the host of the party would be helping the one who is weak in this area.

The same with the alcoholic.  It is not going to area where they are served alcoholic beverages.
Unless the person is strong enough to say NO. Then they should be not exposing themselves to that situation. I totally agree, My father is 11 years dry.
If at a party, were alcohol is served, just turn the wine glass or whatever over to indicate you dont want it.
It is the one who pushes and nags the one, try it , one wont hurt. Whether it is alcoholic, food or what ever addictions.
It is the one who tempts the person outright.
Its the one who doesnt take NO for an answer.

The person who is weak in this area gives into the temptation, is because of persuasion of the person who has tempted him repeatly, and the person with the weakness has not the control yet to say NO.
This is where the person who is strong has stumbled the person who is weak.

I remember a person long ago telling me, because she was brought up in a religion that alcohol was absolute evil. When she saw a leader of another Christian organization taking a glass of wine for dinner, she almost left the organization. Maybe she should of at that time, not because the person was drinking wine.

I have no problems with people drinking casually. I dont drink, because of the historically and genetic factor of the alcoholism in my family. That genetic marker is there in side of me.
Years ago, I was also told that I would die of alcoholic poisoning before I even get drunk. I do have a funny story about this that occurred 12 years ago. Ever since I was told about this hazard, I have not touch a drop of alcohol ever since. ANother reason, I am so proud of my Dad accomplishment after drinking for over 50 years, to stop cold turkey and overcame. Why should I disrespect him by drinking. This is my choice. Only my choice.

Conclusion I agree with you, it is person's choice. It is also the one who is strong, to offer alternative choices in respect for the person who suffers a weakness.

Lenore

Lenore,

I don't believe that an alcoholic/recovered alcoholic is a "weak" person anymore than I consider a diabetic or obese person a "weak" person.

I believe the scripture under discussion is talking about something that the "weak" person and "strong" person could equally be doing, if it wasn't for the fact that the "weak" person believes it is wrong to do.

Someone who offers an alcoholic a drink, knowing that who he is offering it to is an alcoholic, is not a "strong" person, but a person who is ignorant of what alcoholism really is.

Moonflower

[tenderhearted]

Lenore,

I don't believe that an alcoholic/recovered alcoholic is a "weak" person anymore than I consider a diabetic or obese person a "weak" person.

I believe the scripture under discussion is talking about something that the "weak" person and "strong" person could equally be doing, if it wasn't for the fact that the "weak" person believes it is wrong to do.

Someone who offers an alcoholic a drink, knowing that who he is offering it to is an alcoholic, is not a "strong" person, but a person who is ignorant of what alcoholism really is.

Moonflower

Oh, okay, I get your viewpoint.

I never thought of the weak and the strong as being equal people before, I always thought the strong was having more control, and the weak have less control, in light of temptation.
I will be doing some more studying on this.

It is a different way of viewing it.

You are also right:
Maybe we should be using our words more carefully, when addressing and labelling people.

Can I ask a question?  Do you believe once an alcoholic always an alcoholic? Do you believe the person who suffers from the addiction of alcoholism will be able to take that one drink without consequences?

Thanks for the discussion.

Lenore

[Mark C.]

Hello Everyone!

  I do need to apologize to Brent for several things.

First: I was trying to use this topic to zero in on him, and was not up front about it.  He tried to keep it non-personal and I thinly veiled my arguments as a means to "correct him," the very thing I was arguing against!

Second: He was right, along with Marcia and Hugh, that Rom.14 does include an exhortation to the weak.  Though I still believe the passage was mainly directed to "the strong" , as they were the majority party at the church in Rome and the ones who held all the cards.

  Why would I not admit Brent was right?  I had some preconceived notions and an agenda that I was trying to advance and used selected portions of commentary to advance my argument.  Again, something I have argued against on this BB often.

 Third: I did find Brent's sarcasm "vile" because of the mention of "lesbian witches", but it was understandable that he would become frustrated with my unwilliningness to admit the obvious in the verses he mentioned.

  Hypocritical?  Yep, and I apologize to Brent and everyone here for my deceptive practices, and attempts to manipulate the conversation.

   Marcia:  I had a little difficulty in understanding exactly what you were trying to say, but if I have offended/ignored you in this discussion I ask your forgiveness as well.  I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions, and take any criticism that you may offer seriously.
  
     You are correct that I may not know everything that is going on with the discussion, and if this has slanted my views in an un-balanced manner I am open to try and fix this.

   I do count myself among those who could be called "Wounded Pilgrims", and maybe at a later point I can try to explain this more fully.  I understand that some have difficulty with the whole notion that this could mean "eternal victim status", but this is not how I view it.

   Sondra:  You have been the biggest surprise to me of anyone on this topic, and others.  I had you already figured out as a follower of Witness Lee, and lacking in any real spiritual sense, and so worthy only of contempt.  I apologize for this.
  
     You have been the most honest one here and saw through the dishonesty of taking shots at folks behind a false front of "non-personal" biblical discussion.

  I still have some differences with you re. your understanding of spirituality, but I have reacted first without thinking, and I'm sure offended you as well--- please forgive me.

  To Everyone Else,
 Lenore, AL, Summer, Moonflower, and the great host of readers:  

   There are things that I have said on this topic that I most surely believe.  I am passionate about protecting those that were victims of abuse in groups like the Assembly.  I think this passion is a good and right thing, but it needs to be moderated.

   I have a deep seated resentment against those who use their strength to "lord it over" those who are vulnerable.  In this sense I am still "wounded" because I will react from emotional recollections, vs sound reason.  I think most reading my posts' can see this, and this can be a negative, but I believe it also can be something that God can use.  I will need to explain this more fully later.

  When I saw Lenore, and in the past others, being what I interpreted as being abused, I instantly reacted against it and was not successful in fully moderating my passion.  There is plenty of blame to go around to all the parties concerned, and I want you to reflect on this.

  I underlined the word "moderated" above because that is key to understanding the word "gently"(meekness) that I previously mentioned.  The greek word (meek) gentle has the sense of the ability to control (moderate) a strong passion that we have within.  Meekness has an inner strength, as exemplified in Jesus, that "wrath worketh not the righteousness of God."

  This does not mean we become "passionless," and never react in anger (as exemplified in Jesus in the temple, etc.), but we need to save it for the proper situation.

  As an example:  If we were in a church and a pastor was trying to cover-up his abuse of a child this would not be the circumstance to moderate our passion.  However, if someone on the BB points out a shortcoming in our life we should not let our emotions take us to making personal insults; choosing rather to not answer out of our hurt feelings.

  Those of us who are passionate in defending the weak need to also moderate that passion, just as those who have a passion to press the position of "the strong." Paul was "strong," and most certainly did not want "the weak in faith' to remain in that condition.  This is a very good passion to have, but this too must be moderated with a wise control that considers how the "weak" may receive our correction.

  In that sense both groups need to be willing to lay down their weapons, so to speak, in those areas that are not essential to preserve righteousness and truth.  Paul saw that there are "disputable" matters, that we must be willing to give up the battle on.  Paul said that rather than "offend a brother" he would no longer drink wine ever again.  It is clear that our choices need to be controlled by love for our brother, vs the enjoyment of our own personal liberty.

                                       God bless,  Mark C.

  

  

[M2]

Mark,

You probably did not understand me because I was trying say it without being direct and trying not to offend any wounded ones.  It is difficult to speak in generalities for fear that someone may get sensitive about something I said and then we end up having to deal with a reaction rather than discuss a topic.  So, honestly and not sarcasticly, I do not want the last word and I do not want to win any argument.

From a previous discussion I had understood that you are on board for the sake of other wounded ones and that you did not consider yourself in that category.  So I misunderstood you on that matter, and actually feel that it is too bad that you still 'react' out of that woundedness.  You are not free to be objective and to know the Spirit's leading.  Forgive me if this is just driving the knife in the wound just after you have apologized.

This board has evidently become the wounded pilgrims board and I do not feel free to discuss topics of general interest, so my participation will be limited as a result.

Thank you Mark, for the sound advise you have given re. assembly matters.  I truly appreciate it and respect you for it.

God bless,
Marcia

[tenderhearted]

Hello Everyone!

  I do need to apologize to Brent for several things.

First: I was trying to use this topic to zero in on him, and was not up front about it.  He tried to keep it non-personal and I thinly veiled my arguments as a means to "correct him," the very thing I was arguing against!

Second: He was right, along with Marcia and Hugh, that Rom.14 does include an exhortation to the weak.  Though I still believe the passage was mainly directed to "the strong" , as they were the majority party at the church in Rome and the ones who held all the cards.

  Why would I not admit Brent was right?  I had some preconceived notions and an agenda that I was trying to advance and used selected portions of commentary to advance my argument.  Again, something I have argued against on this BB often.

 Third: I did find Brent's sarcasm "vile" because of the mention of "lesbian witches", but it was understandable that he would become frustrated with my unwilliningness to admit the obvious in the verses he mentioned.

  Hypocritical?  Yep, and I apologize to Brent and everyone here for my deceptive practices, and attempts to manipulate the conversation.

   Marcia:  I had a little difficulty in understanding exactly what you were trying to say, but if I have offended/ignored you in this discussion I ask your forgiveness as well.  I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions, and take any criticism that you may offer seriously.
  
     You are correct that I may not know everything that is going on with the discussion, and if this has slanted my views in an un-balanced manner I am open to try and fix this.

   I do count myself among those who could be called "Wounded Pilgrims", and maybe at a later point I can try to explain this more fully.  I understand that some have difficulty with the whole notion that this could mean "eternal victim status", but this is not how I view it.

   Sondra:  You have been the biggest surprise to me of anyone on this topic, and others.  I had you already figured out as a follower of Witness Lee, and lacking in any real spiritual sense, and so worthy only of contempt.  I apologize for this.
  
     You have been the most honest one here and saw through the dishonesty of taking shots at folks behind a false front of "non-personal" biblical discussion.

  I still have some differences with you re. your understanding of spirituality, but I have reacted first without thinking, and I'm sure offended you as well--- please forgive me.

  To Everyone Else,
 Lenore, AL, Summer, Moonflower, and the great host of readers:  

   There are things that I have said on this topic that I most surely believe.  I am passionate about protecting those that were victims of abuse in groups like the Assembly.  I think this passion is a good and right thing, but it needs to be moderated.

   I have a deep seated resentment against those who use their strength to "lord it over" those who are vulnerable.  In this sense I am still "wounded" because I will react from emotional recollections, vs sound reason.  I think most reading my posts' can see this, and this can be a negative, but I believe it also can be something that God can use.  I will need to explain this more fully later.

  When I saw Lenore, and in the past others, being what I interpreted as being abused, I instantly reacted against it and was not successful in fully moderating my passion.  There is plenty of blame to go around to all the parties concerned, and I want you to reflect on this.

  I underlined the word "moderated" above because that is key to understanding the word "gently"(meekness) that I previously mentioned.  The greek word (meek) gentle has the sense of the ability to control (moderate) a strong passion that we have within.  Meekness has an inner strength, as exemplified in Jesus, that "wrath worketh not the righteousness of God."

  This does not mean we become "passionless," and never react in anger (as exemplified in Jesus in the temple, etc.), but we need to save it for the proper situation.

  As an example:  If we were in a church and a pastor was trying to cover-up his abuse of a child this would not be the circumstance to moderate our passion.  However, if someone on the BB points out a shortcoming in our life we should not let our emotions take us to making personal insults; choosing rather to not answer out of our hurt feelings.

  Those of us who are passionate in defending the weak need to also moderate that passion, just as those who have a passion to press the position of "the strong." Paul was "strong," and most certainly did not want "the weak in faith' to remain in that condition.  This is a very good passion to have, but this too must be moderated with a wise control that considers how the "weak" may receive our correction.

  In that sense both groups need to be willing to lay down their weapons, so to speak, in those areas that are not essential to preserve righteousness and truth.  Paul saw that there are "disputable" matters, that we must be willing to give up the battle on.  Paul said that rather than "offend a brother" he would no longer drink wine ever again.  It is clear that our choices need to be controlled by love for our brother, vs the enjoyment of our own personal liberty.

                                       God bless,  Mark C.

  

  

AMEN