Menu•SiteMap | Guests


My Stand: No. 6

• Gordon Rainbow     § Jeff Kuns     † Guest
Peebs.Net: Objectives Discrediting early servants, their ministry, and history
Education for the Work of the Lord Secular versus Spiritual
Banning of Television Background and various considerations
• Practical Fellowship: Serious Considerations 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



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.






PEEBS.NET:  OBJECTIVES
Discrediting early servants, their ministry, and history
Peebs.Net is a successor to Dick Wyman's 'Exclusive Brethren Information' and Daniel Little's 'Withdrawnfrom.com' – both closed under legal pressure.

I am not a 'member' of Peebs.Net, as it would compromise the independence, integrity and principles of 'My Brethren'. However, I do monitor its 'public' forums for news items and any mention of old friends.

Unexpectedly, the following correspondence revealed Peebs.Net's objectives as to the whole history of the 'brethren', not only the departure from 1959 on.


In accordance with MB's Site Standards policy below there would normally be no acknowledgment of, or reply to, Peebs.Nets 'clarification'.

  • However, in view of the need of clarifying the objectives and policy of Peebs. Net, we have decided to post the correspondence, along with my comments and those of some valued guests.
    SITE STANDARDS
    Messages – and Guest Book entries – will not be posted nor will they be acknowledged if they
  • are disrespectful of Divine Persons, or the brethren or servants – of whatever persuasion – caustic, sarcastic or otherwise offensive,
  • seem to be merely promoting personal prejudices or partisan views rather than an objective view of the Holy Scriptures and the history of the assembly,
  • promote anti-scriptural or anti-christian views.

Annotations in [square brackets] are mine.

G.A.R.


GAR/Peebs   Comments: Daniel Soukoreff   Gordon Simmonds   Jeff Kuns   

To: Peebs,Net
12 Dec, 2006

Re: Restricted Area: Access Denied
Why do I not have access? Gordon Rainbow.


From: Peebs,Net
12 Dec, 2006

Hi Oh Editor Emiritus [sic]!

Please don't be so paranoid! Life is too short ... :-)  [ paranoia: a mental disorder marked by systematized delusions, especially of grandeur or persecution.]

We may entirely disagree with your seeming doctrinal "sympathetic" support of a blatantly heretical system, but we would never stoop to blocking you!

It was a technical glitch which we will explain to our members once we know the details. We have people deciphering the logs as we write.

Regards, The Peebs.Net Team
"The Truth will set you Free"
Web: http://peebs.net
Email: infoATpeebs.net


To: Peebs,Net
22 Dec, 2006

To Peebs.Net Team,
All I asked was "Why do I not have access?" But thanks anyway for the free diagnosis!

You are quite mistaken however if you think I support the current aberrant EB system.

In the Lord, Gordon.


From: Peebs,Net
22 Dec, 2006
Subject: Clarification

Hi...
(We really DO love the 'Emiritus' [sic] Title you have given yourself! We must dream up some for ourselves sometime! Mind you BDH has called us 'The Opposers' and we rather like that...)

No Gordon, we obviously were not referring to the blatant evil of Jtjr and his successors.

We were referring to the heresy of even dreaming that any assembly holds 'the position'. It is utter rubbish and has hurt thousands of people. The EB started their journey into disaster via JND who was clearly in error. His legacy was simply amplified by those who came after - FER, JT, AEG [AEM or AJG ?], PL ... the 'Seperate [sic] from the world' and 'we are the church' brigade.

That is the heresy of which we spoke. It has bred disaster and that is sufficient evidence of its true origin - rather hot and smoky!

We are grateful for you having retained all the material you have - we will be featuring the full panoply [sic] of historical error in a major doctrinal expose sometime in the future. It's time that the full extent of Darby's error and its consequences was made fully public.

Of course each of the men we mention were not completely in error. JND remains a wonderful and respected scholar. FER has a more 'poetic' spiritual legacy ... but JT opened a doorway into the Pit [ ??? ] and by tempting [sic] the EB to become physically seperate [sic], they started their journey away from Christ and just look at them today!

It would seem that most ministry was tainted by the 1930's. Since then, the EB slide has simply gathered momentum.

We shall enjoy [!] ripping the covers off. We hope that it might help more than just the Taylorite EB.

Regards, The Peebs.Net Team


To: Peebs.Net
29 Dec, 2006
Subject; Clarification and Comments

To Peebs.Net Team
Regarding your replies, first some clarification:

'Emeritus' is not, as you suppose, a title I have given myself. It is used on 'My Brethren' and in my email address to distinguish from MB's successor Editor, Jeff Kuns.

As to your reference to my "seemingly 'sympathetic' doctrinal support", the "sympathetic" appears to have been culled from the description of 'My Brethren' in the links on the 'Christian Brethren Archives' site, and is their judgment.

While it is quite unlikely that anything I say will deter you from your proposed "major doctrinal expose", I can only hope and pray that you will realize that this would be a serious blunder.

1972-78 HOPELESS

A long period of decline and compromise ensued.

A collective testimony to the truth of Christ and the assembly seemed impossible – all seemed hopeless.

  • Bereft of friends – those who remained in the sect, and those we thought had judged it – we were alone.

  • Did we still not have the Lord and the Spirit? Surely; we could not have survived otherwise.

  • Only those who have had such an experience will understand the agony of the isolation and loneliness.

Fearing more sorrow, we concluded that we could not identify ourselves with any brethren from our background.

  • What then were we to do? It is clear now that quiet waiting on the Lord was the proper course. But that was then – and this is now.

  • I longed for Christian companionship, and allowed my need to override my responsibility to the Lord – to overwhelm my conscience and the convictions that had first moved me as a young man in 1950, and later in recovery in 1959.

  • I questioned the ministry of the recovery – questioning God's operations in the revival – not to justify leaving but

    • to blame it for the catastrophe that had come upon us,

    • then to ease my conscience as I sought companionship with believers in companies marked by doctrines and practices of which I had once had a judgment.

I am ashamed of the way I rationalized – questioning and then surrendering truths that had once been and, thank God, are again, blessed and precious to my soul –

  • speaking against ministry of some beloved servants – ministry I had once cherished as from the Lord,

  • attempting to convince some – with whom I corresponded – to follow my twisted reasoning.

  • onvictions as to truth cannot be lightly cast aside, but the enemy's powerful weapon of disillusionment – against which I had warned others – overcame me.

  • It is difficult to believe that one could thus go so far astray – but it was possible – and it did happen.

May the Lord help you, as He graciously did me, to review your position and see the positive and enduring value of the ministry that He gave through so many early servants.

In the Lord, Gordon.


From: Daniel Soukoreff
24 Dec 2006

Hi Gordon, Thanks for the forwarding of Peebs Net Site Objectives. This brings into focus the minds and assumptions behind the site.

The test of all ministry is scripture and if they really want to discuss a specific principle or practice prior to the "System" I believe in the main they will hold up to examination.

Greetings to you both, Daniel.


From: Gordon W. Simmonds
Re: Peebs.Net Clarification
24 Dec 2006

Dear Jeff,
I received the above document a couple of days ago. Rather distressing I find it.

Parts of this interesting letter are not shown here but appear in
Guests: Mailbox: Gordon W. Simmonds.

As I expect you know, I put some criticisms regarding the E.B. website on the Peebs.Net website in August 2005. The words "Status: To be Forwarded" still appear even after such a long time interval.

I fear that the Peebs.Net team are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (the truth with the error) as I often expected many would do.

On the positive side Peebs.Net seem to be doing a good job inasmuch as they enable ex E.B.'s to come into contact with one another again after being many years apart. I made such a contact recently with a guest on Peebs.Net.

If I can be of help in any way please let me know.

Greetings in Christ, Gordon.


To: Gordon Simmonds
Dec 27, 2006

Dear Gordon,
We appreciate your kind thoughts, Gordon. Thanks for writing.

Yes, I think you're right. Not wanting him to take it personally, I wrote to Gordon Rainbow that the difficulty this person has thinking for himself preceded whatever interaction he had with the EB.

But it seems that personal responsibility takes a back seat to getting even or, as you say, gloating. I also think it is a question of not having judged one's self.

Yours in Him, Jeff.

Page Top   Article Top

EDUCATION
FOR  THE  WORK  OF  THE  LORD
Secular versus Spiritual

There can be no doubt that, in these times, young people require a much higher level of formal education than in former years in order to obtain employment that will allow one not only to

But, even though legitimate, advanced secular education can also be a hindrance in various other ways:

In the coming years, whatever time may remain until the coming of our Lord, every young believer will have to face the above dangers and go through them with God.


While many may generally agree with the foregoing, the dangers and the unscriptural character of a formal secular style edu­cation in regard to the Scriptures and the things of God in general may hardly, if at all, be recognized.

These and other unscriptural aberrations are accepted, virtu­ally without question or investigation, as the divine­ly ordained pattern of the church.

A few enlightened individuals do see the great discrepancy between the present confusion and the inspired description of the early assembly.

A serious and objective examination of the Scriptures will clarify the above mentioned matters, but our present interest is the secular style seminary training which conventional wisdom deems indis­pensable for any who seek to serve the Lord in a specific and dedicated manner.


What follows may seem irrelevant but, as the Scriptures are reviewed, in humility of mind and dependence on the Spirit, may there be the beginning of looking at all things from the divine view­point rather than the pervasive short sighted secular standpoint which colours and clouds the minds of many true believers

Moses makes no mention of his education, but Stephen tells us that

Solomon, made king by Jehovah after the death of David, says

The leaders of the Jews, "seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were unlettered and uninstructed men," [i.e., without the formal higher education of the time] "they wondered; and they recognised them that they were with Jesus", Acts 4: 13.

Earlier "The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, Why have ye not brought him?" [i.e., Jesus]

How ignorant these Pharisees were, who prided themselves in their knowledge of the Scriptures! If they had taken their own advice

Paul, was one of the most highly educated Jews of the day in religious matters. He could say

The Corinthians had had the benefit of Paul's presence


It is not being suggested that there is no need at all for a spiritual education,

The greatest instruction of all for those who were to be servants was that given by the Lord Himself. The principles and patterns that marked His instruction have been examined in Mark – The Divine Standard Of Service.

October 1997, Gordon A. Rainbow.

Page Top   Article Top

BANNING  OF  TELEVISION
Background and Various Consideration in answer to Robert Munster.

Sat, 18 Aug 2007
Dear Robert …

You ask about the background to the 'banning' of television among the brethren. To the best of my knowledge this is an outgrowth of the earlier, and still current, ban on radios.

As to "However, I am not quite so sure about making blanket rules about such things or making it a test of fellowship. What is your view?"

There is a great difference between what the Spirit by the Scripture requires of Christians as to their conduct and what men, however personally godly, may consider necessary to protect the brethren from various evils.

At a critical time in the testimony, the apostles and elders and the wholes assembly at Jerusalem wrote

There are doubtless many lures of the devil on radio and TV, but that is so perhaps to a greater extent on the internet which many of use. There are also dangers in newspapers, shopping malls, and many other situations we face daily.

Conformity to a rule should not be "a test of fellowship" but rather the personal conduct and commitment to Christ as measured by the Scriptures.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Following is an interesting 1962 comment from an older brother who withdrew from the legal sect in 1959-60:

… Is anything evil in itself? Scripture says not. Can its use be evil in the sense that it hinders communion with Christ or grieves the Spirit? Yes! When this electronic device becomes an idol, then there is no place for it in a Christian's home. Can a library card be a hindrance? I believe so. Can a newspaper?

To me the ministry against the radio is a repetition of the early objections to telephones, street cars, airplanes and automobiles – also pianos. Two of these (the telephone and using the street car) were brought as charges of looseness against my father 55 years ago.

  • Lack of confidence in one another is the fundamental cause of the objection to the radio and even TV. Ministering brothers sim­ply did not trust the brethren. J.T.Sr. said one should read a newspa­per standing up!

Yes, there are radios among us in — My son has one in his plane, another transistor at home. I have none. We've just got a new car – no radio. Why? Because of $140.00. I can get a portable tran­sistor for $50.00.

  • With this we can hear the news (we take no paper), also get warnings on freeway traffic conditions, also smog alerts and air defence warnings. I believe all should have a set – but not for worldly entertainment. I know of no TV's here.

The public personalities appearing on radio and TV are a part of the world's entertainment system. We have no part in that. Chil­dren in school now are required to give reports of educational pro­grams. A radio in a home must be strictly supervised, just as read­ing matter and records should be.

Why do we not hear about alcoholic beverages, cards, dancing and movies – are these not the devil's tools, and have always been?

We in — try to avoid rules and regulations – also the domi­nance of any one man. A deliberate violation of Scripture if not repented of would breach the fellowshi p …

  • I'm free to say we would accept an applicant such as you describe if: (1) Devoted to Christ and has a real desire to remember Him, (2) Separate in walk from [trade] unions or bad associations, (3) Sound in doctrine. I realize that each of these three points is subject to a variety of interpretations and endless argument.

Are you happy and free with these folks who are leaving a system? Do they love the brethren? How wonderful and encouraging to have any say to you: 'The Lord is with you of a truth'.

  • Honestly, —, I'm thoroughly ashamed of the superior attitude I've had towards other blood bought Christians! …

I would not for a moment disparage our [illegible] serving the Lord. He deserves honour but, nevertheless, he can't and doesn't speak for me, and his exercises should not be forced on anyone – or else back we go to where we left.

    • "All things are lawful, but all are not expedient" (or, profitable). [1 Cor. 10: 23]

Page Top   Article Top

PRACTICAL  FELLOWSHIP:
Serious Considerations
Reply to a Friend who shared his Exercises

Dear —
Yes, who we may walk with in a practical sense is a great exercise.

What you do will obviously affect your children – a vital consideration.

As to ourselves, we sorely miss practical fellowship but cannot with a good conscience compromise truth bought at a price, and what we have been taught and learned as divine principles, for the sake of 'fellowship'.

I will be greatly interested to hear how you get on in your exercises and to hear any further thoughts you have on this important but complicated matter.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top