Deeper Life Women
Home » Discussion Area » Rant/Rave » Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey
Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7416] Sun, 24 October 2010 12:24 Go to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Greetings,

Elswhere on the board a brother recently wrote along lines of the
ministry being regular people "not the icons that
they were built up to be."

This keyed a memory and I would appreciate feedback.

---------------------

As I recall....

* Bro freeman died in Dec '84

* In Sept/Oct? of '84 he had a message
wherein he came against "weapons of death"

* HEF-> "As to weapons of death I do not know
why you would have them in your house"

* This put an end to using those weapons to hunt
deer in hunting season.

* Talk was that several 5-fold were really
having a tough time dealing with giving up hunting

* Bruce Kinsey was one of these brothers who had a
hard time giving up hunting.

------------------------

After HEF died I thought at that time that HEF had
used the "weapons of death" issue to be "the last straw"
for Kinsey and to cause Kinsey to leave the church.

Sort of a church politics manipulation of Kinsey since
the hunting prohibition was short lived and not Scriptural
... and was a "hot button" for Kinsey.

Also at that time, if anything happened to HEF, Bruce Kinsey
was the likely replacement for HEF as the most respected
leader of the whole group - was respected in the Word, popular,
and a son-in-law.

So if HEF anticipated his own death, prolonged physical trial unable
to get to church, or his incarceration in the upcoming (Jan/Feb '85)
court trial ... HEF might have wanted to cause Kinsey to
leave the church so Kinsey would not have become the replacement leader.

Apparently HEF/Kinsey had had some prior discussions in disagreement
on misc topics.


So . . .
Did anyone else smell church politics back then?


========================
========================
========================

PS.

I heard much later that Kinsey was ethical in leaving the group.
Told the Lafayette church what he was doing in leaving. Said come back
here to the regular meeting next week and he would arrange a teacher from Faith Assembly
to replace himself. That he would hold his own meetings elsewhere. That the people
should pray and decide for themselves to attend his (Kinsey) meeting or not.

.... a far cry from the character assassination of Kinsey that rippled through
the various churches.


========================
========================
========================

PSS.

Strengths and faults all included . . . Bruce Kinsey was a really good guy.
Much agape love/condolences to Kathy.






Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7417 is a reply to message #7416 ] Sun, 24 October 2010 13:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
Hey jman,

Good to hear from you, I'd like to give my view on what happened as best I can remember. Oh, first let me say that I agree that Bruce was a good guy, I really liked him.

First as to the politics of FA and Bro. Freeeman possibly forcing Bruce's hand with his own future in question; I don't have any reason to think that, not now or then...but I wasn't there, I was on the outside looking in. But I think HEF would have just named Jack Farrell or Steve Hill his successor, he never seemed shy about doing what he thought was right.

On to the weapons of mass destruction... I mean "weapons of death". You might be right about that specific quote being in the fall of '84, but hunting and weapons had been mentioned as early as the fall of '82. As I recall HEF mentioned in a teaching that he wondered about the mindset of an overcomer who was believing God to be part of God's end-time army of deliverers, how one would confess to wanting to 'set the groaning creation free', would go around 'killing' God's creation. I remember fasting and praying about it then because I was a serious hunter(Bruce and I had talked about hunting, and some brothers from Indiana had came to Alabama and deer hunted with me.)

I prayed and asked The Holy Spirit to give me the right additude and to remove from me anything that would hinder me from total obedience to His leading. Almost overnight the desire to hunt and kill left me(and you'd have had to have known me then to fully understand, I didn't do anything half way, I had a new CJ5 Jeep, a travel trailer, did all my own reloading, had dozens of expensive guns, bows, ect. I would take off 3-4 weeks during hunting season <self-employed> and hunt.) and while I still have a great love for the outdoors, I haven't killed an animal on purpose since 1982. I destroyed my guns and haven't owned a firearm since(I'm not saying anything about anyone owning guns, I'm only speaking of what I did). But I understood the point Bro. Freeman was making about weapons of death, and still believe that a Christian has no business carrying a weapon.

Did some brothers have trouble with those teachings? Yes, for sure, I knew several who continued to hunt and have guns. I have no problem with a person hunting or having a gun to keep around the house to plink cans with or chase off critters, but shooting another human being(even in self-defense) is in disobedience to Jesus' teaching on nonresistance.

I think a person has to be willing to yeild to The Holy Spirit and allow God to work in our hearts whatever is necesary; for me I chose to allow Him to change my heart. I haven't regretted it for one second; I have some fond memories of camping and hunting, mostly the fellowship with hunting buddies and enjoying God's creation, but hunting 'big deer' to hang on the wall, I don't miss.

Just my experience, no judgment concerning those who don't agree with me...enjoy the venison. Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 24 October 2010 13:50]


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7418 is a reply to message #7417 ] Sun, 24 October 2010 15:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 430
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
OK James. It sounds like you were very good at hunting deer so maybe the solution here is . . . you go do the hunting and I will humble myself and eat it for you. You know me. Anything to help out a bro. Smile

Very interesting question re: the politics. What I remember was the issue BK left over was blue jeans. HEF wanted everyone to dress properly in public and especially word ministers. I don't think the exact issue really matters though.

I think to my mind what settles the issue was subsequent events. As I recall Bk after leaving left off walking with the Lord too. To even going back to a heathen lifestyle. He then returned to the Lord around 95 after someone shot a few shell from a rifle into his house.
To me the fact that he walked away from the Lord would settle who was right and who was wrong. That's not meant as criticism btw

As far as HEF goes in a way I'm really thankful we have the benefit of 25 yrs of hindsight. We can see him as being human rather than getting pronouncements from on high. Something I was really guilty of. I would be surprised though if it was in his mind about succession. There would have been other ways to deal with it.

[Updated on: Sun, 24 October 2010 16:05]

Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7419 is a reply to message #7416 ] Sun, 24 October 2010 18:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sparkles  is currently offline sparkles
Messages: 249
Registered: March 2008
Senior Member
Hello Jman,
I believe there was much more going on with Bruce than any of us realized. I am sure it was not any one issue, and especially not a "political" one so Bruce would not lead Faith Assembly. There were other men at FA who could have taken over, and I am certain Brother Freeman would not have removed Bruce just so he wouldn't lead the church. I don't believe we will ever know all of what happened, not does it really matter.

As far as Brother Freeman anticipating his own death or not making it to FA to preach, I am certain he believed he would be in the pulpit the next time he was to preach after his vacation. God had always been faithful to heal him and as far as I know he never missed a service he was to preach at, even when he was going through a trial with his heart.

Bruce was a blessing and now is with Jesus. I use to be on Bruce's automatics and was very blessed with what the Lord gave him to share. One of the best teachings I heard of Bruces was:
What to do with a second chance. Like Bruce said in his message, what you do with a second, or third, or fourth or whatever number chance God gives, is you take it. If I remember correctly Bruce used the example of someone who attached helium filled balloons to a chair he was sitting in, and then had someone release the chair from that which was holding it down. Well, the man went much higher than he thought, but somehow he survived. Bruce shared this story and he how this man was given a second chance because he could have very easily been killed. And what this man did was take his second chance.

There are things that could be shared about some who were at FA, but it isn't important anymore, Bruce is gone, Brother Freeman is gone as are others. If it was me I wouldn't want my husbands, or fathers, or grandfathers or brother-in-laws name brought up in a bad way for all to see on the internet. At some point people need to either contact others one on one, or just forget those things that are behind and press on. Where are we today in our walk with the Lord, and what we were convicted to walk in 30 years ago are we still doing it?
God hasn't changed, but many have. And I am saying what we were convicted to walk in from the Lord. There have been many who have gone back from true convictions from Jesus, and now just make excuses or try to blame others. That sure wont' fly with the Lord, not for me and not for anyone else. We need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. And also to bear one anothers burdens.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7420 is a reply to message #7418 ] Sun, 24 October 2010 18:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GWB  is currently offline GWB
Messages: 713
Registered: March 2008
Location: Louisville, Ky area
Senior Member
The politics mentioned sounds like a lot of manipulation and wavering from a man who taught, walked, lived, ate, and breathed faith. I can't imagine HEF even going there. He was too much of a straight shooter. Just MO.

As far as Bruce goes...I think we would have to ask him for the exact reasons, and he is with Jesus now.

Bruce did his job well and now there are thousands of people all over the world with the Word of Faith in their hearts. My understanding of the purpose of the Charismatic School was to prepare Overcomers for end-time ministry who would be disbursed to the four corners of the earth.

As always, we never knew/know how God will do things.

IMHO, the big picture is this: If we truly believe we are in the end-times, are we ready to rumble? Do we have these questions settled in our hearts, for ourselves, so that we are not hindered in anyway? I know that I am believing for a quick work in myself.

No criticism intended...just my opinion.

[Updated on: Mon, 25 October 2010 07:42]


Shalom,

GWB

"Be still and know that I am God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7535 is a reply to message #7420 ] Sun, 19 December 2010 09:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
The Lord has dealt with me on this subject here specifically. First have to have a answer to a question.

Not able to remember the ethics tape taught by HEF, but it has reference to hunting. That you should buy meat as much as needed but he also added that if you hunt the policy is kill and eat. Never to just kill only for sport.

In Christian liberty we are free to have a gun, but if we feel we would misuse it we should get rid of it. Personally the only reason I have no guns is because though free to have them, don't like to hunt. Just sensitive to the thing. It's hard to kill a fish but am learning to eat my own and not just store bought.

For extra thought like to shoot targets with bow and arrows, but very careful no one is in harms way. It is neat to use any thing with a projectile which knocks a target thing down. Perhaps any thing good we do speaking of conscience-- to be skilful and enjoy our lives is good for our personal being.

We must always choose that which doesn't hinder our testimony also.

If it was taught to be ethically okay to hunt if you kill and eat-- then it is hard to see why there was a issue.

I remember testimony by BK that his guns were stolen but the Lord caused his faith to be manifested and they were returned.

As said earlier the Lord has revealed something but need this question answered first. thanks.


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7536 is a reply to message #7535 ] Sun, 19 December 2010 10:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GWB  is currently offline GWB
Messages: 713
Registered: March 2008
Location: Louisville, Ky area
Senior Member
What is your question?


Shalom,

GWB

"Be still and know that I am God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7538 is a reply to message #7416 ] Sun, 19 December 2010 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Brodave9, I am not totally clear what question you raise but from your post I
think the question might be . . .

"Did HEF teach it was OK to hunt for food but not OK to hunt for fun?"

In response to that question . . .
I am 100% sure of what HEF taught that last fall
before his death in December and how it was understood by the people and how it
challenged many of the 5-fold to give up hunting.
This is all accurate as I described it at the top of this thread in the first post.
Even the quotes above are very close to word for word.

Did HEF ever say "OK for food but not for sport" in any other message?

Maybe he did in previous messages. If so this would point to a change of nuance
in his last months which raises the question of "politics in play?"

But it definitely played out in the months immediately preceding his death
as I wrote it in the first post.

Jman
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7539 is a reply to message #7538 ] Sun, 19 December 2010 15:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
It seems to me that this should be a 'NON-ISSUE ', especially by now.(the 'to hunt' or 'not to hunt' question)
I am certain that he didn't care for hunting...but remember, he only liked home cooked, from scratch, foods.(I do too, but so what? it's just personal preferences...he didn't like shrimp either, said they looked like grub worms...)

If we haven't learned by now to discern right from wrong in matters as simple as this, God help us. I sure don't have the authority or liberty to tell anyone what to do, but if a person lives a lifestyle where they live off the land(harvesting their own meat) I can't see anywhere in scripture that forbids it.

I really believe(again just my opinion) the point he was trying to make centered around what he believed God was desiring to work in HIS people as we learned to WALK in the principles given us through teachings like 'Deeper Life in The Spirit'. I still agree with that line of thought, overcomers, being used by God to set free this groaning creation, will be instruments of LIFE, not death...

But again, "There IS therefore NOW no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." ~ Romans 8:1


Concerning the 'Politics of FA'...no longer interested.


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7540 is a reply to message #7539 ] Sun, 19 December 2010 20:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GWB  is currently offline GWB
Messages: 713
Registered: March 2008
Location: Louisville, Ky area
Senior Member
"Concerning the 'Politics of FA'...no longer interested."

I have to agree with that as well. IMO, Dr. Freeman did not have to manipulate through the Word of God to get his way doing anything....he would have just said what was on his mind...like he always did.

As I recall, Bro. Bruce went hunting Shocked , enjoyed hunting Shocked , cut his finger going wild boar hunting and believed for it to stop bleeding, and had no condemnation doing so (hunting).

I am doing the best I can to walk in what the Holy Spirit tells me to do. I believe Bruce did too. I think that is the whole point...IMO. Smile



[Updated on: Thu, 27 January 2011 12:46]


Shalom,

GWB

"Be still and know that I am God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7541 is a reply to message #7540 ] Mon, 20 December 2010 09:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
Does that mean that when HEF taught on hunting and the 5-fold were challenged to give up hunting that they thought he was telling them to give up hunting, or that they should follow ethical guidelines and only kill to eat only.

The reason this question arises is only those who attended know the answer. It is not my purpose to raise any questions concerning mistakes made in understanding ethical qualifications. It is of utmost importance to deal with issues where Satan has a foothold.

What the Lord has revealed to me is extremely important concerning this issue. The investigation of the question is to find out if a mistake has been made. Then it can be repaired. You wouldn't believe what happens when mistakes are made and not corrected.

It is clear that the message on the tape was kill and eat but not for sport. So it appears that somebody may have misunderstood and legislated no hunting allowed. Just wanted to see if the not allowed happened because we lost a great man of God in ther event. BK had a lot of enfluence outside of faith Assembly and was a tremendous teacher. I knew he had the anointing.

Also it is not our calling to criticise but to heal wounds and right noe there are wounds to be healed, That is to be taken as love not rebuke. Still desiring to reveal what the Lord showed in the Spirit. God bless all my friends in Christ, amen.


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7543 is a reply to message #7541 ] Mon, 20 December 2010 10:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
Whenever you have Christian Ethics taught there's always the probability that legalism will follow. This issue was no different from any of the other areas that fall under the ethical category.

People who worked in the recreational industry were constantly harangued about installing sewer lines in the motor homes... an ethical question was almost always reduced to an ethical mandate.

After the ethical question concerning hunting had been considered there was a pronouncement that while no one 'wanted' to legislate anything, it was highly unlikely that an 'overcomer' (one who was presumably going to play a part in setting creation free from bondage) would participate in killing that same creation.

Logical arguments gave way to untenable positions that we could continue to eat our t-bone steaks as long as we didn't participate in the killing of the creatures.

1 Timothy 4:3 saved us from becoming vegetarians.

Blessings,
William

[Updated on: Mon, 20 December 2010 10:37]


I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7544 is a reply to message #7543 ] Mon, 20 December 2010 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GWB  is currently offline GWB
Messages: 713
Registered: March 2008
Location: Louisville, Ky area
Senior Member
"1 Timothy 4:3 kept us from becoming vegetarians."

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Your entire post was very well said. Thanks moulder!


Shalom,

GWB

"Be still and know that I am God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7545 is a reply to message #7543 ] Mon, 20 December 2010 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
moulder wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:10

After the ethical question concerning hunting had been considered there was a pronouncement that while no one 'wanted' to legislate anything, it was highly unlikely that an 'overcomer' (one who was presumably going to play a part in setting creation free from bondage) would participate in killing that same creation.



That's my distinct memory of the crux of the matter...But like I mentioned, for people who 'live off the land'(as I did when growing up...we grew most of our food, both meat and vegetables, and the cows and pigs just don't jump into freezer bags and climb into the freezer, something happened in between...we had to kill them.) the truth of the matter is that every piece of meat we eat has to be killed...REALITY, whether it's done by us or the meat processors.

I quit hunting...I didn't lose touch with reality, if I found myself in a position where I needed food and nothing was available besides an animal...end of story, dead animal. But maybe God will never allow that situation to occur, maybe He'll feed with manna from heaven.


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7547 is a reply to message #7545 ] Tue, 21 December 2010 08:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
Hi thanks James it is appreciated for your answer. You have given the answer to the question in a way that tells what is needed to know.

That is because you are saying we can under the right circumstances. Though I have never shot anything, it is still possible to do so.

It cannot be always possible for different brethren to see things the same way at the moment until they personally have the Lord's revelation to the heart. Even in ethics as we learn to seperate from the world. We are so used to things. Once we get the revelation in the heart there's no more question.

Some have even gone back to Christmas celebration. No names here. One minister says it's okay to tithe and borrow. It is more than a teaching that is needed but also the rev. to the heart by the Holy Spirit.

Some out of fear of being accepted by the body, had to do something to not be rejected. I'm not sure that when a word went out of the pulpit it was expected to be instantly applied but it was sometimes seen to be that way in a sort of you got to approach. Yes we have to obey the light but it must be understood in the heart.

The one time there in the N.T. the fellow was required to sell all then follow Jesus. He couldn't do it he had great inheritance. He was really to get the rev. that giving to the poor (which takes time) would be his sowing good seed of righteousness and then he would be following Jesus by actions and not just words of mouth.

It is easy for those who have the light to say don't do something than for those who don't. They must give up something.
They may have light also , that is I am free to have my hunting , but must not kill for sport.

There are those in a Assembly who feel that if they obey the word taught they will have approval. Sometimes that is to discard for any of those feelings that they will be rejected if they don't. The opposite of rejection is need of approval.
Even at this time it is difficult to find a Assembly that is labeled walking in all truth. If one is exed from a Assembly they will say where can we go. They are forced to obey or get out.

That is not the way taught in Corinthians. It should be that a body would never want to lose a member and so they would pray for them that God would reveal things to their heart.

Evidences of this issue is we want only so and so to teach.
So if so and so wants to do anything contrary no one will listen to them. (speaking of 2 people here. )

There is nothing wrong with this post for it is simular to the things Paul dealt with in the N.T. writings.

May it be understood that there will be Assemblies who are seeking to obey God and difficulties arise. The Israelites were used as examples that we should not follow their ways. That was for benefit and not to make Israel look bad. For Israel must be viewed with great hopes of recovery.

Extra---if you study the context of the word creation where it says groaning you will find it is animals and humans. All will be at peace one day and no more accidental misunderstandings about ethics. Smile It may be added that if I should do anything that would cause my brother to stumble I will leave it alone. My freedom is not a licence to do any harm. Very Happy


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7548 is a reply to message #7416 ] Tue, 21 December 2010 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Hi,

Some things to throw into the mix in remembering how we reacted
to various teaching topics back in the day.

We had an extremely strong assumption that we had anointed teachers
(Bro. Freeman in the lead) who had very accurate Holy Spirit led
teachings. So it was no small thing to disagree with the pulpit
from which the assumption was that God was teaching us as the
elite end time group with the deeper, true message that no one else had.

We also had a strong awareness of demon spirit activity trying
to come against our successful Christian walk. When someone deviated
from the teachings he/she was thought to be deceived, at least
temporarily, by a demon.

This made for an incredible conformity pressure far beyond mere
peer pressure such as seen in a high school.

-----------------------


To link these ideas to the hunting topic . . .


When the hunting things were said by Bro. Freeman - as I mentioned in the
first post of this thread - there was incredible pressure to agree
and conform. Especially a 5-fold minister had even more pressure to
conform.

If Bro Freeman went to the point of saying something like
"As to weapons of death I do not know why you would have them in your house"
over the pulpit then it was given the assumption of being from God.
And if you did not agree/conform then you were "missing God."

So it is understandable how Bro. Freeman's words rippled
through the people even to the point of considering
never eating meat.

And we can understand the tremendous vise squeezing the 5-fold if they
either disagreed w/r "weapons of death" and/or really, really liked hunting.


-----------------------


My 2 cents w/r the hunting topic.

It is not a topic worth even studying out to a conclusion
until we work through the much weightier issues of our need for
anointing.

-----------------------

Please note that my original post at the top was about church politics
and hunting was merely the topic Bro. Freeman used back then - the topic
of his that made me wonder about politics.

Jman





Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7549 is a reply to message #7548 ] Tue, 21 December 2010 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
Hi Jman,

First let me say that when I stated in an above post that I was no longer interested in FA politics, I wasn't trying to disrespect your question and post. I am learning how to be more tactful and also am aware that we all deal with things in different ways and at different times. Personally, I have dealt with most of the negative issues associated with FA long ago.(and believe me, I understand about 'peer pressure', both being under it as well as exerting it upon others.) Have I arrived yet? I think the answer to that is obivious, but I have, by God's GRACE, sought to correct wrong mindsets and legalistic additudes(and of course, that is an ongoing process).

As Dave just said, things that would cause a brother to stumble, I'll strive to leave alone...though I might have liberty in Christ to do myself. I'm sure that I wrestled with the right additude towards brethren who didn't 'see the light' about hunting...back then. But, like I said, FOR ME, the horse is dead so I have no reason to continue beating it. Smile

It is so amazing how God works, just this morning I spent over 3 hours witnessing to a Jewish man and we probably spent an hour talking about 'hunting'...right or wrong? For food, versus for sport. I gave my testimony of what and how God had dealt with me 28 years ago concerning hunting, guns, nonresistance, and Christian ethics and the practical way I've learned to apply these principles to day to day life. (Yeah, I had to maneuver the minefields of 'the Rabbi said' or 'tradition tells us', but in the end he was receptive)


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7550 is a reply to message #7416 ] Tue, 21 December 2010 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
James,

Thanks for posting. I did not focus on your "not interested"
comment when posting my last post. All the talk on the hunting tangent
reminded me of how pressurized it was in the past.

Nor do I feel any pressure to conform anymore.

So if I post something and you want to embrace the topic or dismiss it I
totally respect you either way. Actually I appreciate that you regularly post.

You would be amazed at how many legitimate topics I have no interest
in at this current time.

Jman





Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7551 is a reply to message #7550 ] Wed, 22 December 2010 08:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
To wishing34 God bless you. Sincerely--

You may not know that your involved in this issue by divine appointment. So are the rest of us. First by including James we have a simular testimony. 2 individuals just appeared in my life. One is a political man. the other a man opening a gunshop. Both of these are being deeply moved by my ministering to them.

When God wants to deal with a issue he is very serious about it. When saints of the body of Christ come together and are being drawn into a certain topic, they have to discern that God is leading them so they need not be concerned about liking a topic or not.

It is difficult for some when they don't know what's going on but if they are yielded they will come out in the end with joyful hearts. For me I see the whole picture.

God is dealing with James because he is not disinterested just that he is gently flowing along with this thing. (post) now he is getting confirmations. Sometimes the biggest blessings come out of the strangest places.

I love wishings post this time because he is getting right to the point. Now we can begin to reveal what the Lord is showing.

To give a analogy when a person shoots a shotgun he doesn't always think about the bullet leaving a spray which can hit other objects. A few months ago while standing in the kitchen I was brought in the Spirit into a vision. While in that, I began to travail in the Spirit. That means God was praying through me. It was concerning different people who were hurt by the situation of misunderstanding concerning the insident which occured back then.

It is obvious that demons played a big role in hurting many people which is under the topic of trying to abort the manchild.
The manchild must forgive and move on. As a army heals wounded soldiers in battle this is God's desire.

unfortunately it is not always possible to communicate but only by letter, for I would love to be with saints if could be. So the forum is a wonderful means of doing this.

As said before Moses was a wonderful man and his mistake of smiting the rock made me no less respectful for him. On his part he paid great price, that is sad. So is the same if one anointed man touches another, even though it be a accident the one who touches the other has to pay a price , this is sad also but still I respect him because of all the good he has done in my life. But in our time and case we must move on and continue to cherish the things that were give through any man of God because they were really given by the Holy Spirit through the man or men.

That is the point we must see, not looking at the outward situation and forgetting where Jesus work comes into sight. in simple terms--- the word , the vessel, the mistake of the vessel and then throwing away the word that came from the vessel, which really came from God. God bless and may his love be shed abroad in your hearts by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 5:5


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7552 is a reply to message #7551 ] Wed, 22 December 2010 09:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
brodav9 wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 08:16



When God wants to deal with a issue he is very serious about it. When saints of the body of Christ come together and are being drawn into a certain topic, they have to discern that God is leading them so they need not be concerned about liking a topic or not.

OK, I'll take it by faith that this will minister to someone reading who is still confussed or uncertain concerning this topic.

It is difficult for some when they don't know what's going on but if they are yielded they will come out in the end with joyful hearts. For me I see the whole picture.

I thought I did, but maybe there's more to it than I realize.


God is dealing with James because he is not disinterested just that he is gently flowing along with this thing. (post) now he is getting confirmations. Sometimes the biggest blessings come out of the strangest places.

"...gently flowing along with this thing..." Smile I'm not aware that God is dealing with me and don't quite 'get' what the comfirmation is...? But we'll see where it leads, as I've said previously, it's been a dead issue for me from the start, once I've settled something from God in my heart. But am more than willing to share my testimony and experiences if they'll help another brother in coming to a place of understanding and peace.

unfortunately it is not always possible to communicate but only by letter, for I would love to be with saints if could be. So the forum is a wonderful means of doing this.

I live within 35-40 miles of you, I would love to get together sometime.

That is the point we must see, not looking at the outward situation and forgetting where Jesus work comes into sight. in simple terms--- the word , the vessel, the mistake of the vessel and then throwing away the word that came from the vessel, which really came from God.

I posted on this same thought three years ago in message #1704 under Introductions and General..."Opps, there went the baby..."



"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7553 is a reply to message #7416 ] Wed, 22 December 2010 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Hi Brodave,

Thanks for posting.

I am jumbled up trying to understand what you just wrote.

Could you please re-post your ideas in an outline form?
Then it will be in a logical order.

Plus you said above you had something shown to you by God - on the hunting topic I think.
I've read what you posted and I am unclear what you are saying that God
showed you. Please write this in one or two sentences so I can grasp it.
I've had trouble gleaning it out of your post as a whole.

Thanks

Jman





Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7554 is a reply to message #7553 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 08:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
Hi brethren, through your replies it is seen that you need clarity. Guess I speak better than write. my apologies. You know when it is said (be with you in last post)---anything that is said there may be a question asked until full understanding is acquired. May add I don't know how to take phrases out of post to repeat them I think they call them quotes.

For James I thought he was confirming when he said he talked with a Jewish man about guns for a hour. Whatm may be assumption on my part is that saints may not understand about predestinated confirmations. I apologise for assuming this is known. Also God leads people differently.

No offenece to anyone who doesn't have same leading. Just to add here that what I mean here is a good example of HEF. He would be in a motel and look at the wallpaper and it confirmed that he was in the right place. The paper I beleive was seen in a vision or something like that.

Jeff B. would have a vision of the front door of a church and then when he saw that door when visiting a church confirmed that he was speaking in the right place. Said all this to say that the events in saints lives , though not alwways understood are things they are showing them. My discernment is perhaps different than others. I see and hear God all the time--- desire to get better.

It is my desire now to speak in a few sentences a clear picture for your asking.

1. what is the purpose and goal of the post
a. To answer the question are we allowed to hunt if it is to eat and not just to kill for sport.
b. to find out why there was a division over the issue in BK term of ministry.

2. Why do we want to find out this information
a. because if we have understanding of the situation, it could deter it from happening again. (being positive here)
b. because it can bring healing to members of the body of Christ.
c. because it will cause the Holy Spirit's work to not be thrown in the trash due to mistakes made.
it will bring understanding that great men of God make mistakes, but the work that they have done preceding the mistake should result in a respect for their hard labors. (Moses example)
d. to make clear to many who have turned against the teachings, that they were given by God using a human vessel.

3. the shotgun example
a. some people get hurt by mistakes of others.
b. The person most hurt would be a family member.

4. was there a mistake??
a. the question was answered among brethren. They see that

1. they should consider whether to have guns or not
2. that they don't see it wrong to kill to eat but not for sport.
3. that convictions may vary. The result of our convictions should never put a stumbling block in another saints way.
4. we cannot force another to make a decision without allowing them to seek the Lord and move in that direction.
(5.) no one is exempt from touching the Lord's anointed. Even if it is by our thinking okay to do so. The result (could) be to cause them to fall. Actually though there is no reason to fall.
6. it was hopeful that this number 5 statement was clear in the other posts so when it is read it, will be sure that it is not just opinion that the anointed was touched ot not.

God will still use a man of God --- Moses did bring the Israelites to Canaan, he just didn't go in himself.

5. what is the point??

1. Other individuals were hurt by( the mistake) more than we can possibly know. apologies are due by those who still have a legalistic stand that it is not okay to have a gun or hunt. For that is a breach on the freedom in Christ, to have the liberty to have convictions on beliefs that one may have until receiving the rev. from the Holy Spirit to do other wise.

I still hold the conviction ---Mine--- my freedom is not to put stumble blocks in others paths. Also that my conviction is that a brother in error is still to be first helped if possible, before setting a seperation. Also that by the grace of God will not touch God's anointed. That respect for the good teachings of God remain in my heart and I will appreciate those who taught them. --- extra--- helping others--even who I do not know, is part of my co--mission. Especially those of the household of God.

Hope the readers enjoy my convictions, that's all they are . Very Happy
any questions no problem your servant .


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7555 is a reply to message #7554 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 08:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
PS--- Hope this answers the question concerning the charector assasination of BK. Though I'm not sure of any other problems as to whether there aren't any, (meaning is the hunting question the only reason for the assasination? ) I don't know if he made any mistakes in ministry. I know that he didn't make a mistake concerning the hunting issue. It appears that if he was assasinated people owe his wife and others a apology. This PS is a additional response to the last post.

That is what the Lord has shown me. apologies are due.*****


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7556 is a reply to message #7555 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 09:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GWB  is currently offline GWB
Messages: 713
Registered: March 2008
Location: Louisville, Ky area
Senior Member
"it will bring understanding that great men of God make mistakes, but the work that they have done preceding the mistake should result in a respect for their hard labors. (Moses example)"


We all make mistakes. The fruit of Bro. Kinseys's teachings is that there are people all over the world with the Word of Faith in their hearts. Also, who knows what is deep within our spirits that was deposited there through the Holy Spirit by Bruce that we draw upon today?

Did Bro. Bruce backslide? Who knows and who cares. I did and I am glad that He has drawn me back to Him through His grace and love. If Bruce did backslide in any way, I am glad He drew him back to Him as well. I have, even as of late, known the rejection of God's people due to mistakes I made years ago. God help us when we can't restore people after blowing it! Isn't condemnation the opposite of what overcomers are to bring to a "groaning creation?" Especially if that creation should be one of us! May God smite elitism among us so that we are able to "stoop" down and help someone or even believe the best after people are gone and have no voice.


It has always bothered me when negative things are said without proper grace and mercy applied. Family members come here for healing, out of curiosity, to gain knowledge or memories of their loved ones, maybe even to determine if they should continue in the walk. What we say on OO will always have an impact in some form. We should work very hard that the impact is to draw people closer to Jesus.

Just last night, I talked with a sister from FA. I had no idea that she is just now dealing with many issues regarding FA. I personally have been through good and bad things from the fall out of FA. I said it last night and I will say it again, I would go through it all over again for what I have gained from the Word that came forth from FA. We agreed that we are both thankful for it regardless of the struggles since FA.


Someone once said on OO that we got so much in such a short period of time. Of course some things were not right in the body itself...we were/are human. If anything, I hope we have learned how to apply grace and love to each other with whatever arises. And yes, people were hurt too. Again, we were/are human.

I am reading a book by a dear brother, who was part of FA, who has been ministering about love. In reading the book, I have often wondered if his passion for having love in the Body of Christ is due to the lack of love we all had at FA. It is an awesome book and it truely has ministered to me in many ways. God help anyone who might mock a brother for ministering on the need for love in the Body of Christ. I would love for them to show up on OO and to speak with them and tell them that their very attitude shows how much love is needed to balance out the message of Faith that we were given.

In the foreward of the book, it says, "It is good to remember that we were created for Someone rather than something. We are loved for who we are instead of what we do." I have been guilty of religiously walking in works of being an overcomer and forgot Who I was walking with. That is just me and I am not pointing fingers. I am sharing in hopes that possibly no one else makes the same mistakes I have made in this particular area.

I appreciate OO and all who share. I hope we can continue "to give each other a break" so that we can all learn how to go on and be what we all desire to be; like Jesus.


Shalom,

GWB

"Be still and know that I am God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7557 is a reply to message #7416 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 09:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Hi Brodave,

Thanks for posting.

It is very helpful to understand your message
when you use outline form - much better for me anyway.

Please pray about using outlines even more.

Thanks

Jman




Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7558 is a reply to message #7555 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 10:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
Well, I for one have a better understanding of what you were saying. I also understand about the difficulty of communicating in this medium, it is very easy to misunderstand a person without being able to communicate in person.

And now that you point it out, I suppose the fact that the Jewish man brought up hunting and killing for sport and I had the opportunity to share with him right while we were in the middle of discussing it on the forum would be a way of God confirming it to me. I guess it would be presumptuous of me think that every thing I do I'm being lead of The Lord to do it; because I know I miss the mark more than I want to admit to myself...but God's Word does say that the steps of a righteous man are ordered of The Lord, so when something like that occurs I just believe it was God directing it.(same thing,just different ways of viewing it) So, yes, it was God confirming to me that what I was sharing was truth.

Also you laid out your preception of the topic much clearer, thanks.

One other thing, before you joined this forum, a few years ago leading up to Bruce's passing, we had a thread on him that was many pages long with hundreds of responses and there were statments made that were negative and could have fallen under character assasination.(this thread was removed out of respect for Kathy and his children) I do recall Jman stating that he liked Bruce, calling him a really good guy(I concured) and he sent out "much Agape love/condolences to Kathy."

I can see the benefit in discussing things that have brought people into bondage or caused pain and long term problems in fellow believers lives, obiviously everyones experience varied, I just guess I wrongly assumed that 25 years were enough time to get it figured out. But that was insensitive of me, I think it reflects some of the negative results of being isolated from others of like background, we tend to think everyone deals with things at the same pace and grow at the same speed...not so.

I did communicate with Kathy after Bruce's death and relayed to her my respect and fondness for Bruce and how what he'd taught had blessed me. I didn't apologize to her, I had nothing to apologize for except maybe I could have offered an apology on behalf of those who spoke evil of him, but I didn't feel lead to do that.


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7559 is a reply to message #7554 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 10:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
I'll echo the appreciation expressed for the outline form, brodav!

Concerning the hunting issue... (and I'm with James when he said this issue should have been settled long ago); you keep making a distinction between hunting for sport and hunting for food. Now I understand why the distinction was made back then and why it became such a big issue but I do not understand how this issue and others like it do not fall under the category of shepherd-ship?

Remember the shepherd-ship movement? You had ministers telling people what they could and could not do--sell their house, marry, etc., etc., and you had followers who blindly followed that rot.

If there is a difference, and you have prophetic insight, please enlighten me.

I'm not a hunter, but if I wanted to hunt I would not fall into condemnation if I didn't eat everything I shot.

Again, could someone show me the difference between this and shepherd-ship?

Blessings,
William



I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7562 is a reply to message #7559 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
moulder wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 10:42

I'll echo the appreciation expressed for the outline form, brodav!

Concerning the hunting issue... (and I'm with James when he said this issue should have been settled long ago); you keep making a distinction between hunting for sport and hunting for food. Now I understand why the distinction was made back then and why it became such a big issue but I do not understand how this issue and others like it do not fall under the category of shepherd-ship?

Ok, Ok, you drew me back in (maybe the 'dead horse' isn't dead yet... Laughing ) I believe The Holy Spirit was using Brother Freeman to teach 'some' of us (me, for sure) that it's our motives that's important. Not really sure why it became such a big issue unless it was just flesh rebelling. If it was continually hammered down as 'law' and people were made accountable to him if they disobeyed, then that does sound like shepherd-ship. Not being there I had/have no discernment of additudes of the brethren. Down in Clanton we had some who continued to hunt and some who stopped. Some did so out of obedience to what they believed The Holy Spirit to be showing them(me) and others out of fear of peer pressure.

Remember the shepherd-ship movement? You had ministers telling people what they could and could not do--sell their house, marry, etc., etc., and you had followers who blindly followed that rot.

If there is a difference, and you have prophetic insight, please enlighten me.

I'm not a hunter, but if I wanted to hunt I would not fall into condemnation if I didn't eat everything I shot.

I'm assuming here you're refering to shooting vermin/varmints, not just shooting a deer and leaving it to rot.(maybe you meant give the meat to someone else who needed it...I did this many times) I do believe killing for sport alone isn't the right reason...imo Even dove hunting where there are hundreds of birds and shooting them is a challenge, I think they should be eaten. btw: There is more to it than just 'for food' or 'for sport'. It becomes an obsession and a matter of pride with some people, trying to kill 'trophy' animals(guilty).

Again, could someone show me the difference between this and shepherd-ship?

Could 'this' be the difference? I just gave my opinion, it was only my opinion, what someone does with it is entirely up to them...it won't change my opinion of them whatsoever, verus this, if I find one of you hunts and don't eat the meat, I'm gonna delete all your posts. To me, that would be the difference, one is a person sharing their convictions and how and what The Lord has done in their live; and the other is a person making laws and enforcing 'their' will upon others.

Did that happen at FA? I honestly don't know...But I'm not aware of it still going on...are you?

Blessings,
William




[Updated on: Thu, 23 December 2010 14:34]


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7563 is a reply to message #7562 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 15:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
Quote:

If it was continually hammered down as 'law' and people were made accountable to him if they disobeyed, then that does sound like shepherd-ship.


What difference would it make whether or not you had the law/accountability thing going on, if the end result was the same as what you had in the shepherd-ship movement-- it walked, talked, and smelled, like shepherd-ship-- then it can be easily compared to shepherd-ship, right?

Concerning the extent of the thing, I can assure you that you all down in B'ham, got a much greater dose of shepherd-ship than anyone got at FA. So, if you didn't see that in B'ham then it is probably an illusion of my own mind! <grin>

Blessings,
William


I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7564 is a reply to message #7562 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
Quote:

Could 'this' be the difference? I just gave my opinion, it was only my opinion, what someone does with it is entirely up to them...it won't change my opinion of them whatsoever, verus this, if I find one of you hunts and don't eat the meat, I'm gonna delete all your posts. To me, that would be the difference, one is a person sharing their convictions and how and what The Lord has done in their live; and the other is a person making laws and enforcing 'their' will upon others.

Did that happen at FA? I honestly don't know...But I'm not aware of it still going on...are you?


James, the difference is, and it is pretty major, you aren't standing behind the pulpit making these observations, and even if you were, I would hope that you would make clear distinctions between your opinion and the word of God you would be bringing us.

We moved to Indiana to hear the word of God and be a part of a group of believers that were sold-out to Jesus Christ, a group, we were told, that was going to be used mightily in this end-time, and when we got to the meetings we hung on every word.

1) Because we didn't know any better.
2) Because we assumed that everything was the word of God.
3) Conformity to "the word" was expected.
4) No one who didn't conform would have lasted very long, in this-- the end-time-move-of-God-in-the-earth-today-- body of believers.

We've gone over and over the "how much was peer-pressure/how much was pulpit" routine, and I don't want to separate the two right now mainly because it would have been hard for either to exist without the other, but what did happen, comes about as close to shepherd-ship in the way it played out as the real-shepherd-ship movement did in the way it played out. Think about it... both movements have similar legacies IN SOME RESPECTS--NOT ALL!

Blessings,
William


I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7565 is a reply to message #7563 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 15:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
moulder wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 15:05

Quote:

If it was continually hammered down as 'law' and people were made accountable to him if they disobeyed, then that does sound like shepherd-ship.


What difference would it make whether or not you had the law/accountability thing going on, if the end result was the same as what you had in the shepherd-ship movement-- it walked, talked, and smelled, like shepherd-ship-- then it can be easily compared to shepherd-ship, right?

Not much.......right.

Concerning the extent of the thing, I can assure you that you all down in B'ham, got a much greater dose of shepherd-ship than anyone got at FA. So, if you didn't see that in B'ham then it is probably an illusion of my own mind! <grin>

I guess you're refering to the pastor there, remember I was in the Clanton Body and only 'regularly' attended B'ham's monthly meetings when Jim was still living in Indiana.(I did go there for about 6 months at the conclussion of the Clanton assembly after they moved down here) He must have treated me differently than the 'regulars'..although there were some pretty strong things that one could interpret as legalistic and controling.

Blessings,
William



"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7566 is a reply to message #7564 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 16:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
moulder wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 15:27



James, the difference is, and it is pretty major, you aren't standing behind the pulpit making these observations, and even if you were, I would hope that you would make clear distinctions between your opinion and the word of God you would be bringing us.

Thank God I wasn't, because I would probably have made the same mistakes they made...We've had 25 years to look back and reflect and discern issues. But today? YES, I MOST DEFINITELY would endeavor to make sure people understood that there is a VAST difference between God's Holy Word and my personal preferences or opinions. But that's because we've learned (from FA)just how easily people can get hurt when they don't make the distinction.

We moved to Indiana to hear the word of God and be a part of a group of believers that were sold-out to Jesus Christ, a group, we were told, that was going to be used mightily in this end-time, and when we got to the meetings we hung on every word.

1) Because we didn't know any better.
2) Because we assumed that everything was the word of God.
3) Conformity to "the word" was expected.
4) No one who didn't conform would have lasted very long, in this-- the end-time-move-of-God-in-the-earth-today-- body of believers.

We've gone over and over the "how much was peer-pressure/how much was pulpit" routine, and I don't want to separate the two right now mainly because it would have been hard for either to exist without the other, but what did happen, comes about as close to shepherd-ship in the way it played out as the real-shepherd-ship movement did in the way it played out. Think about it... both movements have similar legacies IN SOME RESPECTS--NOT ALL!

OK, I take your word for that being your experience(and many others), we were young and zealous for The Lord, and God in His Wisdom, saw fit to take Brother Freeman(maybe very much like the account of Moses and the Hebrews he lead out of Egypt...both not being allow to see the end results due to something God told them to do and they disobeyed?)
I do know this, here we are today, what have we learned? And what is our focus now? There was a purpose in what we was taught and now is the time to 'put it all together' (so to speak) and move forward...cause the time of coming of The Lord is MUCH closer than when we first believed, and we'll be of no use to this 'end-time restoration of The Kingdom of God' if we've got our minds filled with the baggage of the past.

So, let us throw off every weight that would easily beset, and run the race that's set before us...I once had a vision of two runners in a foot race and the race included 'hurtles' that both runners had to jump every few yards. One runner who was leading the race, as the finish line approached, looked back and fell over the last hurtle allowing the other runner to win the race. I've never forgotten this, and I believe it's as valid a warning/exhortation/encouragment today as it was in 1984 when I received it. We need to look forward and stay focused, if there are things that need to be dealt with from the past...OK, let's deal with it, confess, ask forgiveness, repent, turn, pray, encourage, deliver... and get back in relationship WITH JESUS.


Blessings,
William



"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7567 is a reply to message #7566 ] Thu, 23 December 2010 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
Quote:

I do know this, here we are today, what have we learned? And what is our focus now? There was a purpose in what we was taught and now is the time to 'put it all together' (so to speak) and move forward...cause the time of coming of The Lord is MUCH closer than when we first believed, and we'll be of no use to this 'end-time restoration of The Kingdom of God' if we've got our minds filled with the baggage of the past.



Yes, I agree... and don't get me wrong-- I fully see the irony of me comparing some of our experiences with the shepherd-ship movement AND the fact that everything I learned about shepherd-ship came from the ministry at FA!

Blessings,
William


I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7568 is a reply to message #7567 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 00:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brodav9  is currently offline brodav9
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2009
Senior Member
You all have been so exciting. Love you all. James post shows he is very understanding. His points are very true. Gwb is got good points. The direction of the response is really going in a good direction.

If I may say, are we really sure about the shepherdship thing?
From my understanding, it appears one way but is really another. I'll explain, Shepherdship is taking away your goods and completely controling your life. The situation seems to be about FA a little more like being pushy. It is one thing to say we obey all the truth, then someone disagrees.

Methinks that what the word of God is saying about being one mind, and agreement can be necessary to make the presentation of a body who is in one mind and one accord. It is important that the mind refered to is the mind of Christ. That means we can't do it in the flesh.

1. How can we approach a biblical standard.
a. over a period of time
b. mutual consent
c. in prayer we seek the Lord so no one could be confused about the will of God on the matter.

2. can we be in one mind when having a different one?
a. yes-- different cultural background
b. one eats with the left hand the other with the right.

3. what is one mind?
only one answer--- the mind of the Lord.

4. can problems be resolved?
a. only by patience
b. some things are obvious
c. a manifestation of righteousness in individuals shall always cause them to seek the Lord speedily.
d. a humility of heart and a fear of God.
5. it is always understood that those who are divisive cannot remain. I repeat if they are divisive. One issue is not divisive unless a manifestation of rebelion.

By accident went to a Shepherdship meeting and it was by no means like you think. The people were walking around like the living dead. There was a strong spirit in each person, being they were deceived. They would not receive truth of the word they said things like Joshua didn't use faith to cause the sun to stand still. Have seen manifestation of rebelion in some that refuse to listen and laugh at truth as though you are a nut.

I see what happened at FA as a mistake. By mistake I mean a wrong conception of requirements to line up with a ethical standard. As being a example what I just said I cannot expect a agreement on my statements, they are something to be prayed over. Any minister should feel more comfortable with his people knowing they were doing things from the heart.

Fornication is a whole new topic. That must be dealt with-- even allowing for repentance. You know --- the one about turn over to Satan to save him.

Good question--- wasn't a certain man telling the truth when he gave tremendous testimonies of his manifestations of faith. Not everyone can have a heart attack and stand right up and continue to preach. I will personally admit that sometimes my faith seems to come short. But I never confess it won't come or manifest. The Holy Spirit always helps me. The inner dealings begin to say, hold on don't be discouraged and so forth.

What I'm saying is a person of faith has difficulties no matter how great their faith is. Also if they miss the mark they may also be missing the conditions which faith requires. Or even made a great mistake somewhere that must be cleared up by the Lord.

Once again you all are a blessing. Notice how differently I spoke to wishing34 instead of saying what was said to the others He received a different communication. He was being thanked also by adding a outline which was to make him happy. Laughing


faith-- forsake all I trust him. Baal-- believe apostacy all lost. bible-- believe in bible life eternal.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7569 is a reply to message #7416 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 06:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
Outline actually did make me happy.


Jman



Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7570 is a reply to message #7416 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 10:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wishing34  is currently offline wishing34
Messages: 212
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
I never before heard it analogized to shepherdship although I
see the comparison - our people used to feel compelled to obey
whatever was preached by Bro. Freeman even though we could see
at the time that it was not yet in their hearts.

I remember it called legalism.

---------------------------------------

Might we infer the following from I and II Corinthians ? . . .
(I really mean "Might" like I am asking a question)

Assumed:
That the church in Corinth had a pastor.
That they also had teachers.


But it was Paul the apostle (not the local teachers) that set them
in order by saying God's will in many topics (in I and II Corinthians)

Possibly many of the topics that Paul dealt with in I and II Corinthians
were "hot button", difficult topics to the Corinthians believers - similar to
how hunting, TV, and woman's pants were to us.

Can we infer that it is the role of the apostle to be the first to teach
the church w/r "hot button", controversial, difficult to receive topics?
And that the pastors and teachers would teach only the
established (ie: Biblically clear) doctrines.


This being because the apostle is in a special place in the church
having been validated to the church via the "signs of an apostle."
If the apostle goes into error his validating signs stop or worse - chastisement
is sent upon him.



<<<< By the way this us how it worked in the past - all
the teachers would wait and let Bro. Freeman be the first
the break new ground w/r doctrine - but he was not an apostle >>>



Concept: Apostle sets the churches in order w/r "new" doctrines and new applications
of Bible principles . . . and pastors and teachers teach the clear, established
Bible doctrines being careful not to overstep and take on the apostle's role.

---------------------

If this is correct then we in all the churches made a mistake to see our teachers and
pastors as authorized by God to apply the Bible principles very far beyond the simple
clear Bible applications.

Without any apostles in our midst men moved (unavoidably "moved in the flesh")
to fulfill the anointing of the missing apostle - but without that anointing or calling.

--------------------

Catch22:

Even if the above happens to be right we cannot implement it into our theology because
assigning such limitations on the pastors and teachers is not explicit in the Bible
therefore no one outside of God through an apostle can define such a new doctrine.


Jman



---------------
PS.

Even setting all the above aside.

Say the teachers have (from God) a lot of latitude to apply
the Bible principles in a wide ranging way.

Once hunting (or whatever topic) became a controversy
our apostle could have come in and clarified the topic
to everyone's satisfaction . . . and possibly then had a stern
talk with an offending teacher.

------------------
PSS.

As we look back and analyze what was wrong in our past
churches we must include the "missing apostle" in our
analysis.




Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7571 is a reply to message #7570 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 12:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james  is currently offline james
Messages: 1926
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Senior Member
wishing34 wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 10:12

I never before heard it analogized to shepherdship although I
see the comparison - our people used to feel compelled to obey
whatever was preached by Bro. Freeman even though we could see
at the time that it was not yet in their hearts.

I remember it called legalism.






Having mulled over it for a while and going back and reading what other opinions<on the net> were of the Shepherdship/Discipleship Movement, I'd have to go along with Jman in saying that it (to me) resembled legalism more so than shepherdship. Although, like William points out, there are similarities in what went on that overlap into both errors.

As for the topic of 'women wearing pants', to me the much bigger problem(and it goes on today even more than then) is 'women wearing THE pants'...That'd include in the home and in the church as well as society. But we don't need to let the worms out of 'that' can... Smile

I'd say Jman, that what you have presented concerning in need for ALL the 5-fold ministry offices (Apostle) would have benefited FA and Co. greatly in keeping things in check.


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7572 is a reply to message #7570 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 13:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
I don't disagree about the apostle stuff, Jman, but I think that I'm looking at this from a different perspective than you guys. I don't think it is the business of a minister to tell anyone whether or not they can or cannot do something that lies in the area of Christian liberty.

If someone wants to work at a TV factory, then it is between him and the Lord. If someone wants to work for animal control (which would involve killing animals--and not for food-- I presume) then let them work. I'm certainly not understanding the difference James made concerning varmints and bambies and I don't think the ministry can make such distinctions either-- which highlights the point-- God ordained ministry should not be delving into areas that would have been more appropriate in the OT dispensation under Moses (I'm not even sure that it would have even worked in his case!)

Look at it this way Jman, HEF taught us the bible like no other and I think that most of us here are very appreciative of that teaching, I know I am, but trouble was aways a-brewing whenever he got into areas that were not bible issues.

Theological teaching is one thing, then there is the area of Christian ethics, in this arena you have got to let people hear the word, assimilate the word and then work it out in their own lives or you've got nothing but outward conformity to things that ARE NEVER PRESENTED AS LAW. Otherwise you've got what we had back then, people who were conforming to the outward standards, thinking they were doing God's will, (and in some cases dying) all the while believing that they were 'doing' righteousness. Afterward they either bitterly turned away from 'the faith once delivered to the saints' OR they claimed it was a 'Job's trial'.

And on top of all that you've got ministers trying to legislate issues like tee shirts, shoes, glasses, and hunting??? Give me a break!

Fast forward 20 or so years and those authoritarian wannabes are nowhere to be found-- and here WE are still arguing about the merits of whether or not it is a sin to kill a mouse???? (A little hyperbole for emphasis!<grin>)

If we are loving God with our whole hearts and showing that love to those around us then I think it can safely be said that we are 'doing' all we can do for the kingdom and ultimately we will see the good fruit of our labor. If we say we are loving God and at the same time find ourselves beating up on the hired servants (acting like authoritarian shepherds), we may find ourselves looking back in twenty years with regret.

Blessings,
William


I want to believe!
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7573 is a reply to message #7572 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 13:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark L  is currently offline Mark L
Messages: 430
Registered: October 2006
Location: Canada
Senior Member
I don't think it is the business of a minister to tell anyone whether or not they can or cannot do something that lies in the area of Christian liberty.

I would really agree with that. Unless something is really out of line. Another reason would be that once you start then where or when do you stop.
Re: Church politics ? Bruce Kinsey [message #7574 is a reply to message #7571 ] Fri, 24 December 2010 13:47 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
william is currently online william
Messages: 1185
Registered: January 2006
Senior Member
Administrator
james wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 12:55

wishing34 wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 10:12

I never before heard it analogized to shepherdship although I
see the comparison - our people used to feel compelled to obey
whatever was preached by Bro. Freeman even though we could see
at the time that it was not yet in their hearts.

I remember it called legalism.






Having mulled over it for a while and going back and reading what other opinions<on the net> were of the Shepherdship/Discipleship Movement, I'd have to go along with Jman in saying that it (to me) resembled legalism more so than shepherdship. Although, like William points out, there are similarities in what went on that overlap into both errors.

As for the topic of 'women wearing pants', to me the much bigger problem(and it goes on today even more than then) is 'women wearing THE pants'...That'd include in the home and in the church as well as society. But we don't need to let the worms out of 'that' can... Smile

I'd say Jman, that what you have presented concerning in need for ALL the 5-fold ministry offices (Apostle) would have benefited FA and Co. greatly in keeping things in check.


I should clarify... I don't think that we were shepherd-ship, only that in certain areas the shepherd-ship tendency prevailed.

Legalism is one thing, but when you've got authority figures that propagate that legalism under the threat of 'missing out on the end-time movement of God in the earth' and in some cases going even so far as to suggest that a person's salvation was at stake, (because they didn't see it the same way as the minister) then I think it goes far beyond legalism.

You had married couples (and here is an example for you brodav, you no doubt saw this in B'ham) coming into the body who in their former lives were divorced from their first spouse, actually divorcing again so as to comply with the 'teaching' proffered by these men. IF THAT ISN'T SHEPHERD-SHIP I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

I've got people in my own family who were shunned in the B'ham body because of this very issue. They are not over such treatment--to this very day.

Blessings,
William


I want to believe!
Previous Topic:Deception, Using Creation Teaching
Next Topic:WHAT IS GODS WILL IN MY LIFE
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Mar 25 14:35:55 CDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01710 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

OvercomersOnline.com is Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.3.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software