My agnostic boss, is one of the most ethical people I've met in my life. He will do something, because it's the right thing to do. He DOES get angry when people screw him over, because he is very fair and just with people. I think the reason many people don't believe in God, is because Christians can fall far short of showing Him in their own lives. Myself included. :(
I guess my point was that, if you haven't acquired a sense of ethics in between kindergarten and grad school, it's likely to be an exercise in futility.
The only ethic I remember from TWI was "The suggestion of a general is paramount [sic] to an order!" (The proper word is "tantamount," not "paramount.")
There were more and better ethics in my Naval Petty Officer training than in anything TWI taught.
I have a regular old mouse trap with a plastic mouse and a little piece of yellow modelling clay that looks like cheese. I used these props once in a congregational meeting to show people how to get out from under the curse brought on by the Momentus training. I knew I would only have a few minutes before John Lynn would be on his feet and in my face, but I pulled it off, and that was the last time I saw John.
I think I will take the props to our first ethics class meeting tomorrow!
Ethics doesn't have to be a dry, academic subject!
Perhaps something that takes the following into account would probably work.
In as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me. I don't mean this in a soppy way...I'm thinking of writing a contract....how would you write a contract with Jesus Christ? How would you plow his snow? Keeping this in mind as you go about your work, your day......might be a good place to start.
Perhaps something that takes the following into account would probably work.
In as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me. I don't mean this in a soppy way...I'm thinking of writing a contract....how would you write a contract with Jesus Christ? How would you plow his snow? Keeping this in mind as you go about your work, your day......might be a good place to start.
You hit a nail on the head,krys!
In as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me. This is one of the most fundamental statements of genuine Christian ethics!
More later. This is an accelerated summer school course, and I got beau coup homework to do...
I guess my point was that, if you haven't acquired a sense of ethics in between kindergarten and grad school, it's likely to be an exercise in futility.
I have to say though, I worked in a bank for a time and we had to go through ethics training once a year. We all hated it but I was amazed how easy it is to commit an ethics violation without even really realizing it. For example if you find out that your CEO is resigning and then casually mention that to your spouse before the information is made public. You will be guilty of insider trading if your spouse sells their stocked based on that information. Or if you're a public employee and order pizza for your staff who have to work late, you'll be cited with an ethics violation if the vendor offers it at no charge and you accept it. Or if you tell a co-worker of the opposite sex they look "hot". Ethically that's an inappropriate comment. I know some that would actually think that's a compliment and maybe it is in other contexts but not at the workplace.
So even though ethics sounds like a pretty simple topic, which it is, we sometimes fail to consider certain actions that may seem innocent but in truth are unethical, or even illegal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing anybody in the news or who used to be considered a MOG, I'm just making a case for ethics training.
This class is very intense, a semester's worth of work in 3 weeks... 3 hours of classroom, 6 hours of reading and writing every day of the week till the end of the month!
This isn't just any ethics class (of which I had several as an undergrad). It's a Christian ethics class!
The first thing we talked about was the Kingdom of God, which broke into history in a mustard seed form in the ministry of Jesus Christ, and will reach full growth in the future when Jesus Christ returns. We are currently living in tension between the already and the not yet.
Wierwille taught that the Kingdom is being held in abeyance because the King is not present. Again... the "absent" Christ.
Morals are what we do. Ethics is what we think and say about what we do. The morals and the ethics of the Kingdom are set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount IS addressed to Christians. The authors of our text give a different twist to the articles of the Sermon by examining where the imperatives occur, and that's not where people usually think.
We also have another textbook called Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins by Miguel A. De La Torre. It exams the implications that the Word became flesh (however you want to interpret that) not as one of the powerful and privileged, but rather as one of the marginalized, oppressed people. And as you so aptly pointed out, krys, "in as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me" is one of the linchpins of Christian ethics.
Well, the class is over now, except for finishing writing the final paper which is due at 9:30 am Monday morning. Mine is going to be on the Christian ethical considerations involved with voting in America.
Here is a preliminary treatment:
Christian Ethics as American Voters.
What do the Scriptures have to say about voting in American elections? If we regard voting simply in terms of an American high school Civics class, we might think the Bible doesn’t have much to say at all. But if we look at the problem in terms of exercising authority, then we find some very pertinent passages indeed!
Let’s examine Luke 22:24-27,
24 A dispute also arose among them [Jesus’ followers] as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 But he [Jesus] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Here Jesus points out how power was exercised among the Gentiles, and says that it shall not be so among his followers. Just how was power exercised among the Gentiles? The kingdoms and empires of the world were set up as pyramidal hierarchies with power flowing from the few at the top in ever decreasing amounts to the many at the bottom. Those at the tops of the power structures were called “benefactors” by those lower down the pyramids. This practice indicated that the underlings in the hierarchies were not speaking truth to the upper levels, but rather engaging in hypocritical flattery to influence the flow of power in their own directions. Jesus tells his followers that he doesn’t want them to organize themselves in such a manner.
The greatest among Jesus followers should be as the youngest. Who flatters a youngster? What does a youngster have to offer that would prompt insincere groveling? And those who lead should be as those who serve. When Jesus spoke of the rulers of the Gentile power structures, he used the words “king” and “those in authority,” power words. But when Jesus referred to those “leading” his own people, Luke has the word hegeomai. While hegeomai can mean a prince, or regal power, its primary meaning is to go before, or to lead by example. And finally, Jesus presents his own service to demonstrate the example he wants his people to imitate.
In some regards, the Founders of the American republic tried to bring a version of Jesus’ view of power into realization. The American system scrapped the ideas of divine right monarchy and natural aristocracy. Checks and balances were written into the Constitution in order to prevent power from accumulating and flowing from the top. The leaders of the republic were intended to be part time amateurs, elected by the people, serving the public good instead of their own interests. If that were the actual case then the Christian ethics of voting should be fairly simple. We, as voters, elect representatives whom we follow. The train of thought can be traced by examining the idea of being followers, or imitators, in Paul. First, we are to be imitators of God the way children imitate their parents (Ephesians 5:1). Next, we are to imitate Christ the way Paul did (1 Corinthians 11:1). Then, we are to watch for people who walk in such a way that we have Paul for our example (Philippians 3:17). Finally, we are to remember our leaders, who spoke the Word of God to us. We are to carefully observe how they escape temptation in the action of their lives, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7). In practice, this would mean we should vote for the people who best imitate God and Christ and Paul, who speak the truth to us, and escape temptation in the action of their lives.
Unfortunately, the ideal vision of the founders of our Republic has been gummed up by the human propensity to be self-serving. The rise of the two party political system in the 1820s enabled people to develop full time careers operating the levers of governance. Their professional allegiance was to their party affiliations rather than to public service. Bit by bit, the Constitution was ignored and the power to make all kinds of decisions was garnered by the Federal government. American political rhetoric still assumes the language of the Founders, but the reality has radically departed from these framers intentions. The same words, such as “equal protection under the law,” are used, but their meanings are so distorted that they can be used to justify the exact opposite of what the say. Over time, the Federal government has transformed into a plutocratic oligarchy, rather than a constitutional representative republic.
It is still possible to cast effective votes in accord with Christian ethics at the local levels, not by voting along a party line, or by voting stereotypical positions dictated by “Christian” politicians, but by carefully examining the candidates and selecting the ones who most clearly exhibit truth-telling and morals that are not at cross purposes with Biblical instruction. How do Christians need to understand their relations with the Federal government, the Roman empire of our day?
Some have held that the early Church was apolitical, but modern research into the nature of first century politics demonstrate that was not the case. In A Political History of Early Christianity, Allen Brent shows that the politics of the first century were not conceived in modern, post-Enlightenment terms, but rather in language of the apocalyptic inauguration of a new golden age. The New Testament discussion of “this present evil age” and “the age to come” were as much political as they were eschatological. Far from being a veiled discussion of Rome in hidden symbolism, the book of Revelation was an “in your face” rejection of the Roman imperial system. Christian response to the injustice of the Roman system was not through seeking political redress. The Christians did not have the power or the privilege to do that. Nor was it through countering violence with violence. Christians demonstrated the power of the Kingdom of God over the power of the kingdoms of this age by accepting martyrdom. There may well come a time when Christian ethics requires martyrdom as the proper response to the Federal government’s overreach.
I'll post more reflections on the class as I wrap things up!
Thanks, Mark! I finished the paper (it was nearly three times as long as what I posted here) and submitted it at 12:30 am this morning. It was due by 9:30 am.
This has been the most intense three weeks of study I've had since I was in the Navy. Three hours of classroom, six hours of reading and writing outside of class, every week day for three weeks. I am exhausted.
BUT...it's been one of the best classes I've ever taken! Christian ethics boils down to this... Jesus cares, and so should we!
I've been following the "Corps Training: A Peek Behind the Curtain" thread, and can't help but feel overwhelmed at what a counterfeit the Corps training, and everything official about TWI, was...
The piece I originally posted was a biblical/theological reflection (1072 words) in preparation for writing the full paper (about 2750 words). My prof also had an underline and question mark on the "plutocratic oligarchy" statement.
Here is another chunk of the final paper:
"What can we learn from understanding how the first Christians, the people who wrote the New Testament and the first few generations of its readers, viewed the governments of their time, the kingdoms of this world? Is there anything in such learning that can inform our decision-making regarding the governments of our own day? In Allen Brent’s A Political History of Early Christianity, Brent detailed the political situation of Christians between the time of Jesus’ ministry and Constantine’s official recognition of the religion in the early fourth century. Before doing so, however, Brent explained the differences between the way we view governance today and the way it was understood in antiquity, first by describing Octavian/Augustus’ transition from the Roman Republic to the Principate in political terms that we would use today, and then by recounting the same process in the language actually used by Augustus and others at the time.
"Since the time of the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, we have viewed governments as rational machines composed of contracts. Whenever reform of a government becomes necessary, we can rationally adjust the operation of the government by modifying the contracts, that is, we change the laws by which we’ve agreed to abide. These are the presuppositions behind the Constitution of the United States and the rights and responsibilities of American voters. However, the understanding of government during the days of the Roman Empire and early Christianity was vastly different. Governments were not seen as rational machines, but rather as organic parts of nature exercised by the cooperation of human and divine agents, and like the seasons of nature, governments would go through periodic cycles.
"There were two kinds of cycles, a cycle of the form of government and a cycle of the quality of life. The cycle of the form of government went something like this: there were three virtuous forms, monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the best) and democracy (rule by the people). Yet each virtuous form had its pathological counterpart. Monarchy would descend into tranny, aristocracy would descend into oligarchy, and democracy would descend into mob-rule. 'Each tends to change into its opposite as history unfolds…' The cycle would begin and end in anarchy. A strong person would arise and restore order. This was the monarch. When the monarch became more interested in self-aggrandizement than in the public good, the monarch had become a tyrant. Then the best people in the community would overthrow the tyrant and rule well as aristocrats, but as their public-spiritedness faded, they would turn into an oligarchy. When the people became fed up with the oligarchs, they would rise up and seize the reins of power, becoming a democracy. When the peoples’ virtue failed, mob-rule would briefly prevail until anarchy set in once more, and the cycle would begin again. This pattern was an abstraction, and almost never realized in detail. The forms of government were often mixed. Sometimes the steps occurred out of order, and in some instances the whole process would play out over only a few years’ time, while in other instances it might take generations and centuries.
"The other cycle was one of ages that were distinguished by the quality of life and named after metals. It was assumed that everything had originally begun in a golden age, when everything was wonderful. The ancients didn’t have the idea of “progress” the way we do. They viewed everything as in a state of decline. The golden age declined into silver, the silver age declined into bronze, and the bronze age declined into iron. This is the imagery alluded to by the Jewish writer, Daniel. An iron age was not a good thing to the ancients. They didn’t focus on the strength of iron, but rather its corruptibility. 'Iron' was similar in meaning to them as 'rust-belt' is to us. The difference between gold and iron is that the iron rusts away while gold does not. During the civil wars of the first century BCE, the Romans very much considered themselves to be in an age of iron corruptibility.
"This cycle of decline was considered in the Stoic frame of reference to continue from the regeneration of the cosmos to its conflagration, after which it would begin again in the new regeneration. However, there were two possible exceptions to this inevitable cycle of decline. One was the transition from the Republic to the Principate in the late first century BCE, when Octavius performed rituals and sacrifices to persuade the gods to inaugurate a new golden age, for which reason he renamed himself Augustus. The other exception was the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God in the middle of the first century CE. As we can well imagine, these two events set the early Christians at fundamental odds with the civil governments of the world."
And,
"In some regards, the Founders of the American republic tried to bring a version of Jesus’ view of power into realization. The American system scrapped the ideas of divine right monarchy and natural aristocracy. In terms of Brent’s analysis of governmental forms, the American system was set up as a meritocracy, an aristocracy where the governors were temporarily elected on the basis of merit rather than birth or class. Contractual checks and balances were written into the Constitution of the United States in an effort to prevent power from accumulating and flowing from the top. The leaders of the republic were intended to be part-time amateurs, elected by the people, serving the public good instead of their own interests...
"Unfortunately, the ideal vision of the founders of our Republic has been gummed up by the human propensity to be self-serving. The rise of the two party political system in the 1820s enabled people to develop full time careers operating the levers of governance. Their professional allegiance was to their party affiliations rather than to public service. Bit by bit, the Constitution was ignored and the power to make all kinds of decisions was garnered by the Federal government. American political rhetoric still assumes the language of the Founders, but the reality has radically departed from what those framers intended. The same words, such as 'equal protection under the law,' are used, but their meanings are so distorted that they can be used to justify the exact opposite of what they say. Over time, the Federal government has descended into a plutocratic oligarchy, where a few spend life-long careers in Washington becoming wealthy by selling loop-holes in the law to people who are even wealthier. In a chapter entitled “The Iron Law of Meritocracy,” Christopher Hayes wrote, 'The leaders now control the tools with which to manipulate the opinion of the masses and subvert the organization’s democratic process… Whoever says meritocracy says oligarchy.' Miguel A. De La Torre wrote, 'The cultural influences of the Greek empire, the imperial might of the Roman empire, the religious supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, and the global reach of the British Empire pale in comparison with the cultural dominance, the military might, the capitalist zeal, and the global influence of the U.S. empire.'"
The authors of our text listed the seven marks of the Kingdom of God as deliverance/salvation, righteousness/justice, peace, joy, God's presence as Spirit or Light, healing and return from exile. According to my paper, the gist of Christian ethics in voting today is, as far as candidates are concerned, to vote for people who have spoken truth and who have escaped temptation in the action of their lives, and as far as issues are concerned, to vote in a way that would bring the marks of the Kingdom of God into realization.
This paper was a lot of hard work, but I enjoyed it. Corps papers weren't just jokes, they were VERY BAD jokes! The Corps Coordinators who oversaw the Corps papers couldn't have found their academic orifices using both hands AND a GPS!
There have been times in my life when the action has been very intense, and I couldn't realize what was actually going on until the action was over, and I had time to reflect and consider. When I DID have the time, I would begin to see how seemingly disparate elements, that didn't make any sense at the time, had fallen into place with wondrous mercy and grace and precision.
An event happened during the Christian ethics class. One of the other students asked a question to which we were all expected to respond. The question was on a topic I have studiously avoided talking about while at Anderson University. I had to make a decision to stay quiet or to speak up. I spoke up... and THAT changed everything, in ways I am still trying to figure out. I will detail what that question was, and how I answered it, but first I will have to tell about an incident that happened while I was on the WOW field in Tucson in '82-'83. I'm not ready to do that just yet, though I will within a day or two...
My wife has been seeing a counselor about going back to the church she grew up in. The counselor's name is Bonnie, and Elizabeth had an appointment with her this afternoon (Tuesday). Bonnie had asked Elizabeth to bring a picture of me with her to the appointment, along with pictures of several other people in Elizabeth's life, so that Bonnie could visualize the people Elizabeth was talking about. Instead of taking a picture of me, Elizabeth decided to take ME, as an object of "show and tell."
When we said I had been a student at Anderson College from September 1967 to May 1970, Bonnie said that she had also been a student there from 1966 to 1970. We had not known each other at the time, but we were students together on the same campus in the late-1960s. When I told her my number had come up "8" (out of 365) in the first draft lottery, she new EXACTLY what that meant, and why I had made many of the decisions I did at the time, decisions which took my life spinning in directions I could not have foreseen. Bonnie re-awakened memories in me.
Bonnie said Elizabeth had told her how we had met, but she wanted to know what MY interpretation of the experience had been. Elizabeth and I had become acquainted just before the Rock of Ages in 1982. We didn't consider doing anything together at the time because I was going WOW and Elizabeth was going into residence in the Family Corps at Rome City. So we spent maybe 45 minutes or so telling Bonnie all about our involvements with the Way International, and how we finally came out of it, and how we wound up getting married (and what a wonderful 23 years we've had since).
SO... I've been processing ALL this information about my whole adult life today, in light of the Christian ethics class I just finished.
This evening, I remembered hearing John Denver sing "Sweet, Sweet Surrender," and singing it myself 40 years ago, and it brought a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes...
This was the attitude of heart I had before I was first witnessed to... "Lost and alone on some forgotten highway, traveled by many, remembered by few. Looking for something that I can believe in, looking for something that I'd like to do with my life. There's nothing behind me, and nothing that ties me to something that might have been true yesterday. Tomorrow is open, right now it seems to be more than enough just to be here today. And I don't know what the future is holding in store, I don't know where I'm going, I'm not sure where I've been. There's a Spirit that guides me, a Light that shines for me. My life is worth living, I don't need to see the end..."
One of the things I learned in the Christian ethics class I just finished is that one of the marks of the Kingdom of God is His presence as Spirit or Light!
Forty years ago, when I was a total ignoramus, God was using Jon Denver to teach me about the Kingdom of God, and what it would have to do with my life...
Now, after forty years and this ethics class, I DO know what the "future" was holding in store, I DO know where I was going, I AM SURE where I've been. There has been a SPIRIT that has guided me, a LIGHT that has shined for me, my life HAS been worth living, and I CAN see the end (the purpose of it all)...
Enigmatic, Steve. Look forward to hearing your "question and answer."
Your wife's counselor is an ex-Wayfer herself? Wow!! Sounds like that was unknown to all of you until your recent meeting. That'lll put a different understanding into the counseling.
No, Twinky, my wife's counselor Bonnie was never in the Way. Bonnie and I were fellow students at Anderson (then only a college) back in the late-'60s, even though we didn't know each other at the time. What resonated with me was that Bonnie knew exactly what we were ALL going through at the time... the war in Vietnam, the draft, the Beatles, the seeming collapse of everything we had been taught. Bonnie could understand WHY I had volunteered to serve on a fast attack submarine.
We do indeed go through life as members of cohorts, groups of people who are subjected to the same experiences and develop the same attitudes because of it. My mom and dad's generation went through the Great Depression and World War Two together. Try as I can, I've never been able to figure out exactly what that meant to them, for good OR bad. Coming back to Anderson University, I've met a lot of people, professors and such, who are members of the same cohort as myself. The professor I had for Christian Ethics is less than a year younger than me. Most of those people are either at the pinnacle of their careers or retiring... and here I sit... God has brought me to the same place as them... even after everything...
and God wants me to write a paper for THEM...
My involvement with the Way has been a part of what God has brought me through in order to shape me to do this job... but ONLY a part... I guess what I'm seeing is that God IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN vastly much bigger to me than the Way International... even when I didn't know it at the time.
We spent three hours a day in the class room each week day. There were only five students in the class, so we had a lot of time to discuss things. We had about three chapters to read each day, and the prof assigned every chapter to a particular student to read, summarize, and lead discussion regarding. We would write two or three questions for each chapter to trigger discussion.
One chapter we read was dealing with how inclusive Jesus' ministry was. He didn't exclude people. He hung out with sinners, tax collectors, Gentiles and sometimes even with Pharisees! I remembered an incident, and I told the story this way:
A little over thirty years ago, I was on a year-long church planting mission in Tucson, Arizona. There were two households in our team, and we were establishing fellowships in our homes. At one point, some of the ladies in the other household invited prostitutes to their fellowship, and some of those women became regular attendees. Those women invited their pimp to come, and he wound up becoming a Christian, too. His name was Marcus. As the senior male in our team, it became my responsibility to teach Marcus how to regard women as his sisters in Christ rather than as merchandise. Marcus was an African-American from the inner city, but like "Louie" from the song, I was whiter than white. It was one of the strangest experiences I've ever had, but it convinced me that Jesus Christ is a lot more inclusive than most North American Christians realize!"
And the discussion moved on...
Then, about a week or so later, we were studying a chapter on race relations. The authors of our text had noted that American churches seemed to have continued an informal segregation even after the civil rights movement. The student leading discussion on the chapter wrote,"...racial reconciliation seems to be moving painfully slow, except within Pentecostal circles. One may wonder What is it that Pentecostals are doing that works?
And there I sat, knowing the answer, yet wondering whether I should say anything or not...
Speaking in tongues is a taboo subject at Anderson University, not because The Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana) has taken a denominational position for or against the subject, but because it HASN'T. There are some congregations within the movement that don't speak in tongues. There are other congregations that do. Folks above the congregational level have agreed to disagree. The faculty and staff at AU do not officially teach either for or against tongues. This has allowed us to live peaceably together without going for each others' throats. In the five-and-a-half years I've been going to school here, there have been well under a handful of times when I've talked with people about tongues, and none of those instances were in a classroom situation.
So, there I sat in class contemplating the question, wondering whether I should or shouldn't out myself as a tongue-talker... I decided to speak up.
I told the class that I don't usually talk about speaking in tongues because I don't want to upset the peace of the campus, but I told them that I do it. Then I reminded them of Marcus, the African-American former-pimp. I told them that speaking in tongues had a deep effect on my own sense of personal identity, and knowing that Marcus had spoken in tongues also had a deep effect on my sense of HIS personal identity, too. Blood is thicker than water, but spirit is thicker than blood... and that's what I think the Pentecostals are doing that works.
That discussion opened some doors, and will continue to do so for as far ahead as I can see. People feel free to talk with me about tongues now, knowing I am not trying to persuade them one way or another, but just listening to the things they say, and presenting them as humbly as I can with the things I see written about tongues in the New Testament. I've heard some wonderful things, but I've also heard some disgustingly horrific stories about people misinterpreting what the Bible says.
A couple of years ago, I decided to write a thesis about Acts chapter 2 because there is so much confusion and misinformation about what the promise of the Father is. Now I know I will need to write an appendix to the thesis going into minute exegetical detail about EVERYTHING the New Testament says about tongues. The faculty is on a retreat this week. Next week, when they are back, I will go in and talk with my adviser about this development...
Interesting story, Steve. And something I'd noticed too in my sojourns in the US at TWI HQ. There were some black people in my WC, great people to be around - but on forays into the field for Lightbearers, etc, there was little evidence of black people in twigs I went to. (Maybe it was just the places I went to.)
Your story reminds me of the racial segregation at the time of Roman occupation of Jerusalem. Peter goes to the house of Cornelius (gasp) (so racially unacceptable) and hears all Corny's household speak in tongues!
You might want to consider why Pentecostals - or at least the black contingent within the P churches - willingly embraces SIT where so many white churches look down on it and upon others who do SIT.
To look at a different side of your story, I wonder if now you'd "get away with" witnessing to prostitutes and pimps. Whether the TWI hierarchy would jump on you for hanging out with no-hopers. I gather that (long after I'd been expelled) people were forbidden to get involved with (invite to twig) prospects who didn't have a job (ie couldn't bring in ABS) or who were otherwise had problems or were socially unacceptable.
Who is Miguel A. De La Torre? I downloaded a Kindle sample of the book and it reads like a Marxist revolutionary pamphlet.
I much prefer your writing, Steve.
-JJ
I don't remember much of De La Torre's book, and the house is in an uproar (the house was built in the late-1800s and our nephew is doing some re-modelling, bringing it up to code, etc.), so I can't easily find the book to reference it, but you could well be right, JumpinJive! Marxist thought has influenced many Christian theologians since the introduction of "liberation theology."
I don't think the sharing that Christians did in the first century was the same as modern communism, but I don't think it was like modern capitalism, either. The premise of communism is that the state owns everything. The premise of capitalism is that private individuals own everything. But the premise of God-o-nomics it that GOD owns everything, and what we receive is given to us to steward. In the Old Testament, debts were to be periodically forgiven and land that had been lost as security was to be returned to its original "owners".
In TWI, ABS was originally administered in the twig, but Wierwille had it all sent to Headquarters so that it "wouldn't be misspent". Something similar happened in the late-first, early-second centuries when the metropolitan bishops (branch leaders) won their power struggle against the elders (twig leaders) of the church and had all the church funds of the city gathered in one location. Since the church was illegal, so were the church funds, and metropolitan bishops often operated like gangster bosses in 20th century prohibition cities.
Since I lost all my work in 2008, my wife and I are officially poverty stricken, but we are doing all right. We don't tithe anywhere, but we give what we can, when we can, to whoever in our circle of friends and acquaintances has a need. I was in St. Vincent's Hospital for a week in April, and I had the very strong impression that everyone there was serving the Lord, and I was "the least one of these" his brethren that they were doing it to him through.
Recommended Posts
waysider
I never understood why ethics is taught in grad. school instead of kindergarten.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Depending on the kindergarten,
ethics IS taught there, but it's ethics that a kindergartener can understand.
In grad school, they teach at a grad level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
My agnostic boss, is one of the most ethical people I've met in my life. He will do something, because it's the right thing to do. He DOES get angry when people screw him over, because he is very fair and just with people. I think the reason many people don't believe in God, is because Christians can fall far short of showing Him in their own lives. Myself included. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
its not really that much different though. maybe what is different at that point is Graduate Consequences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I guess my point was that, if you haven't acquired a sense of ethics in between kindergarten and grad school, it's likely to be an exercise in futility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The only ethic I remember from TWI was "The suggestion of a general is paramount [sic] to an order!" (The proper word is "tantamount," not "paramount.")
There were more and better ethics in my Naval Petty Officer training than in anything TWI taught.
I have a regular old mouse trap with a plastic mouse and a little piece of yellow modelling clay that looks like cheese. I used these props once in a congregational meeting to show people how to get out from under the curse brought on by the Momentus training. I knew I would only have a few minutes before John Lynn would be on his feet and in my face, but I pulled it off, and that was the last time I saw John.
I think I will take the props to our first ethics class meeting tomorrow!
Ethics doesn't have to be a dry, academic subject!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Perhaps something that takes the following into account would probably work.
In as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me. I don't mean this in a soppy way...I'm thinking of writing a contract....how would you write a contract with Jesus Christ? How would you plow his snow? Keeping this in mind as you go about your work, your day......might be a good place to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You hit a nail on the head,krys!
In as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me. This is one of the most fundamental statements of genuine Christian ethics!
More later. This is an accelerated summer school course, and I got beau coup homework to do...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I have to say though, I worked in a bank for a time and we had to go through ethics training once a year. We all hated it but I was amazed how easy it is to commit an ethics violation without even really realizing it. For example if you find out that your CEO is resigning and then casually mention that to your spouse before the information is made public. You will be guilty of insider trading if your spouse sells their stocked based on that information. Or if you're a public employee and order pizza for your staff who have to work late, you'll be cited with an ethics violation if the vendor offers it at no charge and you accept it. Or if you tell a co-worker of the opposite sex they look "hot". Ethically that's an inappropriate comment. I know some that would actually think that's a compliment and maybe it is in other contexts but not at the workplace.
So even though ethics sounds like a pretty simple topic, which it is, we sometimes fail to consider certain actions that may seem innocent but in truth are unethical, or even illegal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing anybody in the news or who used to be considered a MOG, I'm just making a case for ethics training.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
This class is very intense, a semester's worth of work in 3 weeks... 3 hours of classroom, 6 hours of reading and writing every day of the week till the end of the month!
This isn't just any ethics class (of which I had several as an undergrad). It's a Christian ethics class!
The first thing we talked about was the Kingdom of God, which broke into history in a mustard seed form in the ministry of Jesus Christ, and will reach full growth in the future when Jesus Christ returns. We are currently living in tension between the already and the not yet.
Wierwille taught that the Kingdom is being held in abeyance because the King is not present. Again... the "absent" Christ.
Morals are what we do. Ethics is what we think and say about what we do. The morals and the ethics of the Kingdom are set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount IS addressed to Christians. The authors of our text give a different twist to the articles of the Sermon by examining where the imperatives occur, and that's not where people usually think.
We also have another textbook called Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins by Miguel A. De La Torre. It exams the implications that the Word became flesh (however you want to interpret that) not as one of the powerful and privileged, but rather as one of the marginalized, oppressed people. And as you so aptly pointed out, krys, "in as much as ye have done (whatever was done) unto the least of these, my servants, ye have done it also unto me" is one of the linchpins of Christian ethics.
All for now, more later, as time permits...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well, the class is over now, except for finishing writing the final paper which is due at 9:30 am Monday morning. Mine is going to be on the Christian ethical considerations involved with voting in America.
Here is a preliminary treatment:
Christian Ethics as American Voters.
What do the Scriptures have to say about voting in American elections? If we regard voting simply in terms of an American high school Civics class, we might think the Bible doesn’t have much to say at all. But if we look at the problem in terms of exercising authority, then we find some very pertinent passages indeed!
Let’s examine Luke 22:24-27,
24 A dispute also arose among them [Jesus’ followers] as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 But he [Jesus] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Here Jesus points out how power was exercised among the Gentiles, and says that it shall not be so among his followers. Just how was power exercised among the Gentiles? The kingdoms and empires of the world were set up as pyramidal hierarchies with power flowing from the few at the top in ever decreasing amounts to the many at the bottom. Those at the tops of the power structures were called “benefactors” by those lower down the pyramids. This practice indicated that the underlings in the hierarchies were not speaking truth to the upper levels, but rather engaging in hypocritical flattery to influence the flow of power in their own directions. Jesus tells his followers that he doesn’t want them to organize themselves in such a manner.
The greatest among Jesus followers should be as the youngest. Who flatters a youngster? What does a youngster have to offer that would prompt insincere groveling? And those who lead should be as those who serve. When Jesus spoke of the rulers of the Gentile power structures, he used the words “king” and “those in authority,” power words. But when Jesus referred to those “leading” his own people, Luke has the word hegeomai. While hegeomai can mean a prince, or regal power, its primary meaning is to go before, or to lead by example. And finally, Jesus presents his own service to demonstrate the example he wants his people to imitate.
In some regards, the Founders of the American republic tried to bring a version of Jesus’ view of power into realization. The American system scrapped the ideas of divine right monarchy and natural aristocracy. Checks and balances were written into the Constitution in order to prevent power from accumulating and flowing from the top. The leaders of the republic were intended to be part time amateurs, elected by the people, serving the public good instead of their own interests. If that were the actual case then the Christian ethics of voting should be fairly simple. We, as voters, elect representatives whom we follow. The train of thought can be traced by examining the idea of being followers, or imitators, in Paul. First, we are to be imitators of God the way children imitate their parents (Ephesians 5:1). Next, we are to imitate Christ the way Paul did (1 Corinthians 11:1). Then, we are to watch for people who walk in such a way that we have Paul for our example (Philippians 3:17). Finally, we are to remember our leaders, who spoke the Word of God to us. We are to carefully observe how they escape temptation in the action of their lives, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7). In practice, this would mean we should vote for the people who best imitate God and Christ and Paul, who speak the truth to us, and escape temptation in the action of their lives.
Unfortunately, the ideal vision of the founders of our Republic has been gummed up by the human propensity to be self-serving. The rise of the two party political system in the 1820s enabled people to develop full time careers operating the levers of governance. Their professional allegiance was to their party affiliations rather than to public service. Bit by bit, the Constitution was ignored and the power to make all kinds of decisions was garnered by the Federal government. American political rhetoric still assumes the language of the Founders, but the reality has radically departed from these framers intentions. The same words, such as “equal protection under the law,” are used, but their meanings are so distorted that they can be used to justify the exact opposite of what the say. Over time, the Federal government has transformed into a plutocratic oligarchy, rather than a constitutional representative republic.
It is still possible to cast effective votes in accord with Christian ethics at the local levels, not by voting along a party line, or by voting stereotypical positions dictated by “Christian” politicians, but by carefully examining the candidates and selecting the ones who most clearly exhibit truth-telling and morals that are not at cross purposes with Biblical instruction. How do Christians need to understand their relations with the Federal government, the Roman empire of our day?
Some have held that the early Church was apolitical, but modern research into the nature of first century politics demonstrate that was not the case. In A Political History of Early Christianity, Allen Brent shows that the politics of the first century were not conceived in modern, post-Enlightenment terms, but rather in language of the apocalyptic inauguration of a new golden age. The New Testament discussion of “this present evil age” and “the age to come” were as much political as they were eschatological. Far from being a veiled discussion of Rome in hidden symbolism, the book of Revelation was an “in your face” rejection of the Roman imperial system. Christian response to the injustice of the Roman system was not through seeking political redress. The Christians did not have the power or the privilege to do that. Nor was it through countering violence with violence. Christians demonstrated the power of the Kingdom of God over the power of the kingdoms of this age by accepting martyrdom. There may well come a time when Christian ethics requires martyrdom as the proper response to the Federal government’s overreach.
I'll post more reflections on the class as I wrap things up!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Your paper sounds truthful and good Steve. So far I would give you an "A".
Here is another biblical reference for you on this subject dealing with Christian leadership in the church.
http://www.christianherald.info/lordship-of-jesus-christ-page-1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, Mark! I finished the paper (it was nearly three times as long as what I posted here) and submitted it at 12:30 am this morning. It was due by 9:30 am.
This has been the most intense three weeks of study I've had since I was in the Navy. Three hours of classroom, six hours of reading and writing outside of class, every week day for three weeks. I am exhausted.
BUT...it's been one of the best classes I've ever taken! Christian ethics boils down to this... Jesus cares, and so should we!
I've been following the "Corps Training: A Peek Behind the Curtain" thread, and can't help but feel overwhelmed at what a counterfeit the Corps training, and everything official about TWI, was...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nice, and (IMHO), you didn't make any jumps that weren't warranted by general
familiarity with the current political system. (That is, you didn't outline specifics
of the system because you expect the instructor to be familiar with it,
but otherwise, you moved systematically.)
In fact, I'm just musing about something- not disagreeing, but wondering about phrasing.
I was wondering if the sentence would be better served with the addition of the phrases
"de facto" and "officially", with a slight rephrasing to accomodate it.
On the books, the USA is still technically a constitutional representative republic.
In practice, it's a plutocratic oligarchy.
So, I was thinking, how about this?
"Over time the Federal government has transformed into a de facto plutocratic oligarchy,
while remaining a constitutional representative republic officially/on paper."
That's just me thinking, there. Otherwise, I saw nothing in need of correction or comment.
I thought that was worth repeating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The piece I originally posted was a biblical/theological reflection (1072 words) in preparation for writing the full paper (about 2750 words). My prof also had an underline and question mark on the "plutocratic oligarchy" statement.
Here is another chunk of the final paper:
"What can we learn from understanding how the first Christians, the people who wrote the New Testament and the first few generations of its readers, viewed the governments of their time, the kingdoms of this world? Is there anything in such learning that can inform our decision-making regarding the governments of our own day? In Allen Brent’s A Political History of Early Christianity, Brent detailed the political situation of Christians between the time of Jesus’ ministry and Constantine’s official recognition of the religion in the early fourth century. Before doing so, however, Brent explained the differences between the way we view governance today and the way it was understood in antiquity, first by describing Octavian/Augustus’ transition from the Roman Republic to the Principate in political terms that we would use today, and then by recounting the same process in the language actually used by Augustus and others at the time.
"Since the time of the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, we have viewed governments as rational machines composed of contracts. Whenever reform of a government becomes necessary, we can rationally adjust the operation of the government by modifying the contracts, that is, we change the laws by which we’ve agreed to abide. These are the presuppositions behind the Constitution of the United States and the rights and responsibilities of American voters. However, the understanding of government during the days of the Roman Empire and early Christianity was vastly different. Governments were not seen as rational machines, but rather as organic parts of nature exercised by the cooperation of human and divine agents, and like the seasons of nature, governments would go through periodic cycles.
"There were two kinds of cycles, a cycle of the form of government and a cycle of the quality of life. The cycle of the form of government went something like this: there were three virtuous forms, monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the best) and democracy (rule by the people). Yet each virtuous form had its pathological counterpart. Monarchy would descend into tranny, aristocracy would descend into oligarchy, and democracy would descend into mob-rule. 'Each tends to change into its opposite as history unfolds…' The cycle would begin and end in anarchy. A strong person would arise and restore order. This was the monarch. When the monarch became more interested in self-aggrandizement than in the public good, the monarch had become a tyrant. Then the best people in the community would overthrow the tyrant and rule well as aristocrats, but as their public-spiritedness faded, they would turn into an oligarchy. When the people became fed up with the oligarchs, they would rise up and seize the reins of power, becoming a democracy. When the peoples’ virtue failed, mob-rule would briefly prevail until anarchy set in once more, and the cycle would begin again. This pattern was an abstraction, and almost never realized in detail. The forms of government were often mixed. Sometimes the steps occurred out of order, and in some instances the whole process would play out over only a few years’ time, while in other instances it might take generations and centuries.
"The other cycle was one of ages that were distinguished by the quality of life and named after metals. It was assumed that everything had originally begun in a golden age, when everything was wonderful. The ancients didn’t have the idea of “progress” the way we do. They viewed everything as in a state of decline. The golden age declined into silver, the silver age declined into bronze, and the bronze age declined into iron. This is the imagery alluded to by the Jewish writer, Daniel. An iron age was not a good thing to the ancients. They didn’t focus on the strength of iron, but rather its corruptibility. 'Iron' was similar in meaning to them as 'rust-belt' is to us. The difference between gold and iron is that the iron rusts away while gold does not. During the civil wars of the first century BCE, the Romans very much considered themselves to be in an age of iron corruptibility.
"This cycle of decline was considered in the Stoic frame of reference to continue from the regeneration of the cosmos to its conflagration, after which it would begin again in the new regeneration. However, there were two possible exceptions to this inevitable cycle of decline. One was the transition from the Republic to the Principate in the late first century BCE, when Octavius performed rituals and sacrifices to persuade the gods to inaugurate a new golden age, for which reason he renamed himself Augustus. The other exception was the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God in the middle of the first century CE. As we can well imagine, these two events set the early Christians at fundamental odds with the civil governments of the world."
And,
"In some regards, the Founders of the American republic tried to bring a version of Jesus’ view of power into realization. The American system scrapped the ideas of divine right monarchy and natural aristocracy. In terms of Brent’s analysis of governmental forms, the American system was set up as a meritocracy, an aristocracy where the governors were temporarily elected on the basis of merit rather than birth or class. Contractual checks and balances were written into the Constitution of the United States in an effort to prevent power from accumulating and flowing from the top. The leaders of the republic were intended to be part-time amateurs, elected by the people, serving the public good instead of their own interests...
"Unfortunately, the ideal vision of the founders of our Republic has been gummed up by the human propensity to be self-serving. The rise of the two party political system in the 1820s enabled people to develop full time careers operating the levers of governance. Their professional allegiance was to their party affiliations rather than to public service. Bit by bit, the Constitution was ignored and the power to make all kinds of decisions was garnered by the Federal government. American political rhetoric still assumes the language of the Founders, but the reality has radically departed from what those framers intended. The same words, such as 'equal protection under the law,' are used, but their meanings are so distorted that they can be used to justify the exact opposite of what they say. Over time, the Federal government has descended into a plutocratic oligarchy, where a few spend life-long careers in Washington becoming wealthy by selling loop-holes in the law to people who are even wealthier. In a chapter entitled “The Iron Law of Meritocracy,” Christopher Hayes wrote, 'The leaders now control the tools with which to manipulate the opinion of the masses and subvert the organization’s democratic process… Whoever says meritocracy says oligarchy.' Miguel A. De La Torre wrote, 'The cultural influences of the Greek empire, the imperial might of the Roman empire, the religious supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, and the global reach of the British Empire pale in comparison with the cultural dominance, the military might, the capitalist zeal, and the global influence of the U.S. empire.'"
The authors of our text listed the seven marks of the Kingdom of God as deliverance/salvation, righteousness/justice, peace, joy, God's presence as Spirit or Light, healing and return from exile. According to my paper, the gist of Christian ethics in voting today is, as far as candidates are concerned, to vote for people who have spoken truth and who have escaped temptation in the action of their lives, and as far as issues are concerned, to vote in a way that would bring the marks of the Kingdom of God into realization.
This paper was a lot of hard work, but I enjoyed it. Corps papers weren't just jokes, they were VERY BAD jokes! The Corps Coordinators who oversaw the Corps papers couldn't have found their academic orifices using both hands AND a GPS!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
There have been times in my life when the action has been very intense, and I couldn't realize what was actually going on until the action was over, and I had time to reflect and consider. When I DID have the time, I would begin to see how seemingly disparate elements, that didn't make any sense at the time, had fallen into place with wondrous mercy and grace and precision.
An event happened during the Christian ethics class. One of the other students asked a question to which we were all expected to respond. The question was on a topic I have studiously avoided talking about while at Anderson University. I had to make a decision to stay quiet or to speak up. I spoke up... and THAT changed everything, in ways I am still trying to figure out. I will detail what that question was, and how I answered it, but first I will have to tell about an incident that happened while I was on the WOW field in Tucson in '82-'83. I'm not ready to do that just yet, though I will within a day or two...
My wife has been seeing a counselor about going back to the church she grew up in. The counselor's name is Bonnie, and Elizabeth had an appointment with her this afternoon (Tuesday). Bonnie had asked Elizabeth to bring a picture of me with her to the appointment, along with pictures of several other people in Elizabeth's life, so that Bonnie could visualize the people Elizabeth was talking about. Instead of taking a picture of me, Elizabeth decided to take ME, as an object of "show and tell."
When we said I had been a student at Anderson College from September 1967 to May 1970, Bonnie said that she had also been a student there from 1966 to 1970. We had not known each other at the time, but we were students together on the same campus in the late-1960s. When I told her my number had come up "8" (out of 365) in the first draft lottery, she new EXACTLY what that meant, and why I had made many of the decisions I did at the time, decisions which took my life spinning in directions I could not have foreseen. Bonnie re-awakened memories in me.
Bonnie said Elizabeth had told her how we had met, but she wanted to know what MY interpretation of the experience had been. Elizabeth and I had become acquainted just before the Rock of Ages in 1982. We didn't consider doing anything together at the time because I was going WOW and Elizabeth was going into residence in the Family Corps at Rome City. So we spent maybe 45 minutes or so telling Bonnie all about our involvements with the Way International, and how we finally came out of it, and how we wound up getting married (and what a wonderful 23 years we've had since).
SO... I've been processing ALL this information about my whole adult life today, in light of the Christian ethics class I just finished.
This evening, I remembered hearing John Denver sing "Sweet, Sweet Surrender," and singing it myself 40 years ago, and it brought a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes...
This was the attitude of heart I had before I was first witnessed to... "Lost and alone on some forgotten highway, traveled by many, remembered by few. Looking for something that I can believe in, looking for something that I'd like to do with my life. There's nothing behind me, and nothing that ties me to something that might have been true yesterday. Tomorrow is open, right now it seems to be more than enough just to be here today. And I don't know what the future is holding in store, I don't know where I'm going, I'm not sure where I've been. There's a Spirit that guides me, a Light that shines for me. My life is worth living, I don't need to see the end..."
One of the things I learned in the Christian ethics class I just finished is that one of the marks of the Kingdom of God is His presence as Spirit or Light!
Forty years ago, when I was a total ignoramus, God was using Jon Denver to teach me about the Kingdom of God, and what it would have to do with my life...
Now, after forty years and this ethics class, I DO know what the "future" was holding in store, I DO know where I was going, I AM SURE where I've been. There has been a SPIRIT that has guided me, a LIGHT that has shined for me, my life HAS been worth living, and I CAN see the end (the purpose of it all)...
More, later... too much for now...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Enigmatic, Steve. Look forward to hearing your "question and answer."
Your wife's counselor is an ex-Wayfer herself? Wow!! Sounds like that was unknown to all of you until your recent meeting. That'lll put a different understanding into the counseling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
No, Twinky, my wife's counselor Bonnie was never in the Way. Bonnie and I were fellow students at Anderson (then only a college) back in the late-'60s, even though we didn't know each other at the time. What resonated with me was that Bonnie knew exactly what we were ALL going through at the time... the war in Vietnam, the draft, the Beatles, the seeming collapse of everything we had been taught. Bonnie could understand WHY I had volunteered to serve on a fast attack submarine.
We do indeed go through life as members of cohorts, groups of people who are subjected to the same experiences and develop the same attitudes because of it. My mom and dad's generation went through the Great Depression and World War Two together. Try as I can, I've never been able to figure out exactly what that meant to them, for good OR bad. Coming back to Anderson University, I've met a lot of people, professors and such, who are members of the same cohort as myself. The professor I had for Christian Ethics is less than a year younger than me. Most of those people are either at the pinnacle of their careers or retiring... and here I sit... God has brought me to the same place as them... even after everything...
and God wants me to write a paper for THEM...
My involvement with the Way has been a part of what God has brought me through in order to shape me to do this job... but ONLY a part... I guess what I'm seeing is that God IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN vastly much bigger to me than the Way International... even when I didn't know it at the time.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
We spent three hours a day in the class room each week day. There were only five students in the class, so we had a lot of time to discuss things. We had about three chapters to read each day, and the prof assigned every chapter to a particular student to read, summarize, and lead discussion regarding. We would write two or three questions for each chapter to trigger discussion.
One chapter we read was dealing with how inclusive Jesus' ministry was. He didn't exclude people. He hung out with sinners, tax collectors, Gentiles and sometimes even with Pharisees! I remembered an incident, and I told the story this way:
A little over thirty years ago, I was on a year-long church planting mission in Tucson, Arizona. There were two households in our team, and we were establishing fellowships in our homes. At one point, some of the ladies in the other household invited prostitutes to their fellowship, and some of those women became regular attendees. Those women invited their pimp to come, and he wound up becoming a Christian, too. His name was Marcus. As the senior male in our team, it became my responsibility to teach Marcus how to regard women as his sisters in Christ rather than as merchandise. Marcus was an African-American from the inner city, but like "Louie" from the song, I was whiter than white. It was one of the strangest experiences I've ever had, but it convinced me that Jesus Christ is a lot more inclusive than most North American Christians realize!"
And the discussion moved on...
Then, about a week or so later, we were studying a chapter on race relations. The authors of our text had noted that American churches seemed to have continued an informal segregation even after the civil rights movement. The student leading discussion on the chapter wrote,"...racial reconciliation seems to be moving painfully slow, except within Pentecostal circles. One may wonder What is it that Pentecostals are doing that works?
And there I sat, knowing the answer, yet wondering whether I should say anything or not...
Speaking in tongues is a taboo subject at Anderson University, not because The Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana) has taken a denominational position for or against the subject, but because it HASN'T. There are some congregations within the movement that don't speak in tongues. There are other congregations that do. Folks above the congregational level have agreed to disagree. The faculty and staff at AU do not officially teach either for or against tongues. This has allowed us to live peaceably together without going for each others' throats. In the five-and-a-half years I've been going to school here, there have been well under a handful of times when I've talked with people about tongues, and none of those instances were in a classroom situation.
So, there I sat in class contemplating the question, wondering whether I should or shouldn't out myself as a tongue-talker... I decided to speak up.
I told the class that I don't usually talk about speaking in tongues because I don't want to upset the peace of the campus, but I told them that I do it. Then I reminded them of Marcus, the African-American former-pimp. I told them that speaking in tongues had a deep effect on my own sense of personal identity, and knowing that Marcus had spoken in tongues also had a deep effect on my sense of HIS personal identity, too. Blood is thicker than water, but spirit is thicker than blood... and that's what I think the Pentecostals are doing that works.
That discussion opened some doors, and will continue to do so for as far ahead as I can see. People feel free to talk with me about tongues now, knowing I am not trying to persuade them one way or another, but just listening to the things they say, and presenting them as humbly as I can with the things I see written about tongues in the New Testament. I've heard some wonderful things, but I've also heard some disgustingly horrific stories about people misinterpreting what the Bible says.
A couple of years ago, I decided to write a thesis about Acts chapter 2 because there is so much confusion and misinformation about what the promise of the Father is. Now I know I will need to write an appendix to the thesis going into minute exegetical detail about EVERYTHING the New Testament says about tongues. The faculty is on a retreat this week. Next week, when they are back, I will go in and talk with my adviser about this development...
Love you all!
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting story, Steve. And something I'd noticed too in my sojourns in the US at TWI HQ. There were some black people in my WC, great people to be around - but on forays into the field for Lightbearers, etc, there was little evidence of black people in twigs I went to. (Maybe it was just the places I went to.)
Your story reminds me of the racial segregation at the time of Roman occupation of Jerusalem. Peter goes to the house of Cornelius (gasp) (so racially unacceptable) and hears all Corny's household speak in tongues!
You might want to consider why Pentecostals - or at least the black contingent within the P churches - willingly embraces SIT where so many white churches look down on it and upon others who do SIT.
To look at a different side of your story, I wonder if now you'd "get away with" witnessing to prostitutes and pimps. Whether the TWI hierarchy would jump on you for hanging out with no-hopers. I gather that (long after I'd been expelled) people were forbidden to get involved with (invite to twig) prospects who didn't have a job (ie couldn't bring in ABS) or who were otherwise had problems or were socially unacceptable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Who is Miguel A. De La Torre? I downloaded a Kindle sample of the book and it reads like a Marxist revolutionary pamphlet.
I much prefer your writing, Steve.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't remember much of De La Torre's book, and the house is in an uproar (the house was built in the late-1800s and our nephew is doing some re-modelling, bringing it up to code, etc.), so I can't easily find the book to reference it, but you could well be right, JumpinJive! Marxist thought has influenced many Christian theologians since the introduction of "liberation theology."
I don't think the sharing that Christians did in the first century was the same as modern communism, but I don't think it was like modern capitalism, either. The premise of communism is that the state owns everything. The premise of capitalism is that private individuals own everything. But the premise of God-o-nomics it that GOD owns everything, and what we receive is given to us to steward. In the Old Testament, debts were to be periodically forgiven and land that had been lost as security was to be returned to its original "owners".
In TWI, ABS was originally administered in the twig, but Wierwille had it all sent to Headquarters so that it "wouldn't be misspent". Something similar happened in the late-first, early-second centuries when the metropolitan bishops (branch leaders) won their power struggle against the elders (twig leaders) of the church and had all the church funds of the city gathered in one location. Since the church was illegal, so were the church funds, and metropolitan bishops often operated like gangster bosses in 20th century prohibition cities.
Since I lost all my work in 2008, my wife and I are officially poverty stricken, but we are doing all right. We don't tithe anywhere, but we give what we can, when we can, to whoever in our circle of friends and acquaintances has a need. I was in St. Vincent's Hospital for a week in April, and I had the very strong impression that everyone there was serving the Lord, and I was "the least one of these" his brethren that they were doing it to him through.
It's all Christian ethics... all of it...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Thanks, Steve! Excellent discussion as always!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.