Menu•SiteMap |
Guests
My Stand: No. 4
PLEASE NOTE: For the security of our readers, all @ signs have been changed to 'AT' in order to prevent unsolicited email. If you wish to contact any of our guests please remember to replace the @ sign in the address line of your email.
WRONG ATTITUDE TOWARDS WOMEN
By Modern Exclusives
|
|---|
The following comments were originally in a letter of
Mon, 22 Jan 2001, to Sarah Clarke. |
|---|
Dear Sarah,
… Certainly there was and is a wrong attitude towards women in general
and single women in particular among modern so-called 'exclusives'.
- It had already begun in the 1960's and has doubtless developed.
- To my knowledge, from historical documents and my limited personal experience, this was not so in the early years of the brethren,
- and indeed was not so up until the emergence of the legal system in 1959.
- In those years, in Toronto and the nearby meetings with which Betty
and I were acquainted, there were quite a number of single sisters – and many widows who should not be forgotten.
- Most, if not all, of these single women were intelligent, compassionate, spiritual persons.
- Some had no doubt chosen to remain single to be holy to the Lord, others because of the shortage of eligible men had chosen to remain single in faithfulness to the Lord and – what they believed was – Scriptural truth rather than marry one who did not share their commitments, or was an unbeliever.
- We had many happy and encouraging visits with these sisters, both in their homes and in ours.
Such women had always been respected and valued by the brethren.
- But as the system became more pervasive there were unflattering remarks about their status made in the city reading. I recall rebuking one such comment and defending the sisters in the late 1960's.
- The uncalled for comment was made by a brother who in earlier years would never have spoken so rudely and callously. A year or so later he was promoted to 'leader' but I had escaped with my life.
Most if not all younger than I am – brothers and sisters alike – will not have any personal, or other, knowledge of the position of women among the brethren prior to 1959.
- Your remarks on the present and recent situation have impressed me with the need for an article on 'My Brethren' on the Scriptural status of women, and their historical status among the brethren.
- Alas, I may never find either the time or the energy to write such an article, but I have it in mind as it could be a useful contribution to the issues you properly raise.
- There is, of course, MB's Doctrine: Man and Woman: The Divine Order, but it is almost exclusively concerned with the matter of the covering. It doesn't deal with wider issues in any detail.
- To do justice various matters relating to the status of man and woman would need examination:
- creation; the fall; teaching and practice in the Old and New Testaments in Israel, in the assembly,
- and particularly the example of our Lord in the gospels and Paul in the Acts and epistles;
- primitive and more recent societies, both religious and secular;
- and comments in ministry and letters as to women among the brethren.
Besides yourself, MB has had a number – too few relatively – of single and married women as guests.
- Their contributions have been very welcome and I have tried to ensure that they would not receive the – wrong and unintended – impression that they were intruding on a male preserve …
Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.
Page Top
Mon, 27 May, 2002
Dear Richard,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. Yes, I do have some comments on your remarks.
For literalness, I too prefer the translation of ethnos, in its various cases, by JND as 'nation(s)'.
- However, the use of 'Gentiles' – i.e. non Jews, according to common usage – by AV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and others, is quite intelligible, perhaps more so, to what JND calls the mere English reader. Usually the context makes this quite clear.
- Reference to Wigram's 'Englishman's Greek Concordance', shows that ethnos in the singular usually refers to Israel, while in the plural is refers to the non Jewish nations.
Paul's commission, as the Lord explained to Ananias, was as
- "an elect vessel to me, to bear my name before both nations and kings and the sons of Israel: for I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name", Acts 9: 15-16.
- He was to witness before both "nations … and the sons of Israel". This Paul did as he later affirmed to Agrippa,
- "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; but have, first to those both in Damascus and Jerusalem, and to all the region of Judaea, and to the nations, announced that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance", Acts 26: 19-20.
However, he was not "sent out by Jesus of Nazareth", but he and Barnabas were "sent forth by the Holy Spirit".
- That Paul – both on his first journey with Barnabas, and later with Silas and Timothy – should go to the synagogue, if there were one, does not prove his mission was to the Jews only.
- In fulfilment of "the work to which I" the Holy Spirit "have called them", Acts 13: 1, they would go to the synagogues expecting to find some Jews who waited for the hope of Israel as well as exercised Gentiles who had fled from idolatry to the then available knowledge of the one true God.
In the synagogue at "Antioch of Pisidia … many of the Jews and of the worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas", Acts 13: 14, 43.
- The next sabbath following opposition
- "Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly and said, It was necessary that the word of God should be first spoken to you; but, since ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the nations;
"for thus has the Lord enjoined us: I have set thee for a light of the nations, that thou shouldest be for salvation to the end of the earth.
"And those of the nations, hearing it, rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and believed, as many as were ordained to eternal life", Acts 13; 46-48; Isaiah 49: 6.
- Compare Acts 28: 25-28, and throughout the Acts.
Paul's ministry of "the glad tidings … both to Jew first and to Greek", Romans 1:16, would doubtless be supported by his great affection and concern "for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to flesh", Romans 9: 1-5.
- But following that Paul states unequivocally,
- "For I speak to you, the nations, inasmuch as I am apostle of nations, I glorify my ministry", Romans 11: 13.
Later he speaks "of the grace given to me by God, for me to be minister of Christ Jesus to the nations, carrying on as a sacrificial service the message of glad tidings of God, in order that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit", Romans 15: 15-16.
- This was in accord with his opening words to the Romans that he had
- "received grace and apostleship in behalf of his name, for obedience of faith among all the nations", Romans 1: 5.
- Of course, this is also clearly stated and expanded by Paul in Galatians 1: 15-18, Colossians 1: 24-29 and Ephesians 2: 11-2; 3: 8-12.
If, as you suggest "Paul's apostleship should be seen as one in which he was sent out to the Jews of the Dispersion, rather than to Gentiles",
- it is indeed strange that it is Peter – not Paul – who addresses himself
- "to the sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,", 1 Peter 1: 1.
- Strange too, according to Galatians 2: 7-9
- "seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,
"(for he that wrought in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision wrought also in me towards the Gentiles,)
"and recognising the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the nations, and they to the circumcision".
- The words "uncircumcision" – the 'nations' or 'Gentiles' – and "circumcision" – the Jews – are unequivocal.
- If your suggestion as to the relative spheres of their commission is correct, the foregoing would mean that James, Peter, John, Paul and Barnabas agreed together to do the complete opposite. Unthinkable!
Matthew 28: 16-18 clearly does not limit Peter and the others to the nations, i.e. non Jews.
- Luke 24: 47 explicitly states "to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem, which must include the Jews, as does Acts 2: 8.
Time available does not allow further exploration of this interesting matter, but I trust you will find the above of value in your considerations.
In the Lord, Gordon.
UNSOLICITED EMAIL
Abuse of the Internet |
|---|
A response to Gary Cuccia who says
"I have been writing devotions on the Internet for some 2 or 3 years".
|
|---|
To: Gary Cuccia
Wed, 21 Aug 2001
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your reply and explanation.
'My Brethren' has received earlier complaints from some guests because they believe they are the target of unsolicited and unwanted email as a result of their email addresses appearing on MB.
- In view of this I ask you to respect my request that you remove both MB and any of its guests from your mailing list.
- You may not be aware of it but unsolicited and repeated emailings by anyone – regardless of the worthiness of the subject –
- are considered by many as an unconscionable abuse of the internet, comparable to the intrusiveness of ordinary 'junk' mail and telemarketing.
- Even those who might normally be sympathetic to your messages may well be annoyed and alienated.
- Your zeal and desire to share your thoughts on the Scriptures with others is understood and appreciated –
In the Lord, Gordon.
Page Top Article Top
S. M. ANGLIN
Re Baptism and Circumcsion |
|---|
1. A response to Stephen Hesterman who disagrees with Mr. Anglin's position.
2. A response to Stephen's subsequent booklet on Baptism'.
|
|---|
Sat, 1 Apr 2006
Dear Stephen,
On March 7, 2006 you wrote, "I have had some correspondence with a brother about Anglin's baptism article ... Anglin likens New Testament baptism to Old Testament circumcision in the
manner of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1562, and I don't believe this is supported by Scripture ... nor by the Biblical ministry of Godly men which we appreciate.
- "I had never heard of S. M. Anglin before reading the article, and I wondered where this article came from.".
- [Note: Some underlining has been added to the following to clarify the issues.]
In answer to your second paragraph. As noted on 'My Brethren':
The article 'What Baptism Is And Who Should Be Baptized' on the Doctrine: Baptism page is from the fourth edition of an old booklet (no date) published by Geo. Morrish, 20, Paternoster, Square, E.C., London.
- The back cover advertised: Other Pamphlets on the Same Subject:
- Some Thoughts on Baptism by J.N.D., 6d. per doz.
- On the Baptism of Households by J.N.D., One Penny.
- The Symbols of Christ’s Death, and the Scriptures thereon by A.P., 2d.
Information as to Mr. Anglin is scant, but he was evidently an able and valued teacher in the 1890's. In addition to the article on Baptism, this is borne witness to by four papers on the Ministry: S. M. Anglin page.
- The articles by Mr. S. M. Anglin are taken from 'A Voice to the Faithful' 1895-96, edited by Mr. J. B. Stoney. They are particularly valuable as bearing witness to the Spirit's testimony through others to the truths advanced by those more prominent in the work of the Lord.
- As only the initials S.M.A. are shown in the "Voice", his name would not be known except for his booklet on Baptism. The inclusion of his articles by Mr. Stoney is sufficient commendation in itself.
- The only other reference to him is an obscure and tantalizing mention of "Anglin" on page 100 of 'Letters of F. E. Raven'.
Your suggestion that "Anglin likens New Testament baptism to Old Testament circumcision in the manner of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1562"
- is, in our judgment, immaterial as agreement or disagreement with such an extra-scriptural document can neither establish nor set aside truth.
In the doctrinal portions of the New Testament 'circumcision' is referred in various passages in two distinct ways":
- "circumcision in the flesh done with hand", Ephesians 2: 11 – and elsewhere – the literal act and public bearing of circumcision to which S.M.A. refers.
- "circumcision not done by hand … in the circumcision of the Christ", Colossians 2: 11. Your quotations from J.B.S. and J.T. appear to only refer to the spiritual sense of circumcision for us as in Colossians and do not bear on the point you raise.
- It is, of course, the first original and literal sense of circumcision which S.M.A. compares to baptism; the second sense refers to the spiritual bearing of the death of Christ on us.
As to "the Biblical ministry of Godly men which we appreciate" – on that same Doctrine: Baptism page Mr. C. W. Wycherley in his well known 'Letters on Baptism', published by Stow Hill Depot, says:
- I take it that a person is baptised in view of living upon earth, a sphere which is, as apart from Christ, under death and exposed to judgment; and not in view of going to heaven; it is the initiatory act that introduces into the Christian sphere, out of Judaism, or out of heathenism.
- As circumcision was in Judaism, no uncircumcised persons could partake of the privileges of the house of God; to attempt to do so was profanity.
- In like manner, no unbaptised person has any footing in Christianity. He may have faith in Christ, know forgiveness of sins, and be fit for heaven, but he is not a Christian outwardly until baptised. He puts on Christ outwardly in baptism, and not by faith.
- Every person born into the world, is born into the world (and he remains in the world), outwardly exposed to its condemnation until he in figure dies out of it. He may be a believer and entitled to eternal forgiveness, or even have it in the faith of his soul, but his position is anomalous; he is outwardly in association with a system that is under judgment. If you say, 'Why?' my answer is, 'Because God has been pleased to connect these things together, and what He has joined man should not put asunder'.
|
And Mr. J. Taylor, in 'Spiritual Formation for Assembly Service (5)' Glasgow, July 1-3, 1947, on Colossians 3: 1-17 says:
- It is clear that the part of the chapter read involves the conclusion, in the apostle's mind, of the doctrinal part of the epistle. It therefore reverts back to chapter 2 especially, again recalling what we have had before us as to the crucial side of the subject and the place death has in these chapters
- In chapter 3 (including what is said of it in chapter 2) the allusion is to baptism. It is, as it were, what each one of us has had our hand in, for baptism enters into Christianity as a public sign as over against the Passover or circumcision in Israel, J.T. 63: 84.
|
We believe the above answers your objection to S.M.A.'s position as to which you say that "baptism in New Testament times is not analagous to circumcision in Old Testament times and does not 'supersede' it".
- And, certainly the ministry of both J.T. and C.W.W. above would qualify as "the Biblical ministry of Godly men which we appreciate".
The following dictionary definitions show that these words leave room for a general likeness of terms without claiming absolute exactness:
- "analogous adj. having resemblance; similar; corresponding in certain ways"
- "analogy n. partial similarity between things that are somewhat different".
|
From the above we trust you will understand why we cannot accept your conclusion that "it is clear that Anglin's traditional teaching as to circumcision and baptism is not Biblically sound and should not be relied on as a basis for the baptism of infants in a believer's household".
But lest anyone, from your statement above, should think that Mr. Anglin is espousing 'infant baptism' as practised among the sects we repeat his remarks to clarify his position:
- Nobody amongst us, that I know of, contends for infant baptism as such, that is, that infants ought to be baptized because they are infants; those, therefore who are opposing this are combating an imaginary error of their own devising.
- That some infants ought to be baptized I have no doubt, not because they are infants, but because they are the children of believing parents; and that believing parents ought to have their children baptized I am equally assured of; but as this is the chief point of dissent with many we will go into it more fully.
|
All arguments considered, Mr. Anglin's article will remain on 'My Brethren' without qualification.
Despite having to disagree, Stephen, be assured that we do appreciate both your brotherly interest in what appears on 'My Brethren' and the fact that, as we believe, there is a great body of teaching which we all value and hold.
Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon and Jeff.
Page Top Article Top
'Baptism' by S. E. Hesterman
Wed, 5 Apr 2006
Dear Gordon,
I received your email reply, and I would like to send you and Jeff a booklet with several articles concerning baptism, including one by C. H. Mackintosh.
I would be thankful for your impressions after prayerfully considering these articles.
Love in Christ to you both. Your brother in Him,
Stephen Hesterman.
Mon, 1 May 2006
Dear Stephen,
Dear Stephen,
We received your booklet 'Baptism' which you asked us to consider "prayerfully". We have both carefully reviewed the articles and offer our comments.
Jeff was brought up in an Anabaptist type group and baptised eight full years after his confession.
- Gordon, following his conversion at 16 years, was baptized in connection with an 'open' meeting.
- Both of us are therefore quite conversant with the arguments for adult believer's baptism, as well as those against 'household' baptism, and find nothing new or convincing to us in either respect in your booklet.
We believe that you are mistaken in your interpretation and the position you have now taken, but in view of your definite rejection of what we believe is sound ministry on the subject there does not appear to be any value in answering all of your remarks point by point.
It is interesting to note that when Gordon left the legal sect in the early 1970's, in his disillusionment he sought various points of doctrine to attack, seeking to justify both his position and the state of things.
- Baptism was not one of these points, but there were others on which he attempted to 'pin' all the trouble.
- We wondered whether your experience has not affected you in the same way to one degree or another.
We note that you only lightly object to J.N.D.'s views of textual matters –
- overlooking that he was probably stronger than any in his denunciation of adult believer's baptism only, and said "I affirm, according to scripture, baptism is just christening that is, the introduction into Christianity, and nothing else. Every other view of it is unscriptural and false"
- – and that you seem to rely heavily, if not completely, on C.H.M.'s views.
Also, there are several remarks you make which cause us serious concern:
Page 9: "F.E.R.'s teaching shows the influence of unbiblical Anglican church teachings and practices as to baptism."
- But F.E.R.'s own testimony is: "I had the errors of the Church of England exposed to me, and I was attracted to brethren"; 9: 106.
Page 11: "Here J.T. downplays the importance of infants … And when J.T. says that it is not infant baptism that is being advanced, is he not playing with words?"
- You do not seem to have understood the force of A.N.W.'s remark nor J.T.'s response. He is not saying that infants are unimportant. He is saying the difficulty over infants is irrelevant – that it is not the age of the subject of baptism that is the force of the doctrine and that people may miss the 'household' while focusing on 'infants'.
- Additionally, we feel that qualifying a point in ministry is not playing with words, it is a common thing to qualify this way in ministry.
Page 11: "it is also sobering to consider J.T.'s household conditions and the evil influence which arose out of it …"
- J.T.Jr., born in 1899, was most certainly not living in J.T.'s household at the time of this ministry and it is an even greater stretch of the imagination to blame that household for things J.T.Jr. did as an adult, in his early 60's, several years after his father was taken.
- Your conclusion here is, we think, based on a fallacious reasoning.
Page 12: "… cleverly worded statements in the Wycherley letters",
Page 13: "C.W.W.'s clever use of the phrase 'strict letter' … tends to unfairly bias the readers' mind to devalue the authority of Scripture."
- Surely you don't mean to attribute to Mr. Wycherley such a deceitful practice as that from which Peter dissociates himself:
- "For we have not made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly imagined fables, but having been eyewitnesses of his majesty", 2 Peter 1: 16.
What saddens us is that your tendency to use such pejorative remarks – in the manner of those we have left – serves to discredit the ministers personally not just their ministry – servants whose commitment, devotion and service, we believe, far exceeds ours and yours.
- The attack on Moses was – to use your word – "cleverly" put forward to discredit him but his attackers received the reply "Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?", Numbers 12: 8.
Having published your position, as you have, tends to make it unchangeable but, nevertheless, we hope and trust that you will "prayerfully" reconsider your views.
Andrew Robertson, to whom you also sent your booklet, shares our concerns.
- He points out that C.H.M. says, "I complain not of any who conscientiously hold this view or that view on the subject, but I do complain of those, who instead of preaching and teaching Jesus Christ, are disturbing the minds of God's people by pressing infant baptism on them."
- Andrew suggests that this "complaint" could and should apply equally to those who press adult believer's baptism only.
Affectionately In our Lord Jesus, Gordon and Jeff.
Page Top Article Top
Your guest entries and messages will show that
the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.
|
Page Top