From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Alpha Course…

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997

Peter Hooper wrote:

> However, being the original cynic, the jury
is still out (re Alpha)as far as I am concerned. My one and only
reservation is the degree of (IMO) "commercial" advertising
the programme receives. I am well aware that it costs money to
produce good materials, but I can’t shake the **impression** that
it is a money-making programme. And that always worries me (Look
at the huge variety of cults, including one that is very vocal
in this newsgroup, led by self-inspired businessmen.)

A good question. As one who runs a small ministry
I’m constantly having to defend our costs/charges. Our Board has
calculated it costs $500 a week – yes, a week – to run our little
show, before I get paid (a grand $21,000 a year, plus some expenses).

How/why? Well for starters, we’ve just outlaid $7000
for a new photocopier, having costed it all: over five years that’s
cheaper (with a maintenance contract, copies at less than 2c plus
paper etc.). Then I pay a secretary a couple of hundred a week.
Our phone bills (I do a lot of counseling by phone) have been
up to $1500 a quarter, and are never less than $7-800. We’ll have
to print new brochures – $2000. Office overheads/equipment – $100
per week. Non-refunded transport – $100 per week. Taxes and bank
charges – $100 per week. Books and professional journals – $80-100
per week. And so it goes on…

Factor in all these costs (oh, I forgot our Internet
ministry – $100-plus per week, as I pay someone to load our homepage),
and it doesn’t surprise me that Alpha etc. seems expensive. I
haven’t known a ministry yet that pays its way without direct
monetary gifts…

Sorry to take us along this by-path, but you struck
a raw nerve… 🙂

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997

Patrick Canion wrote:

> Now this to me is a tremendous contrast to people
like yourself Rowland who freely make available ministry materials.
I mean, you keep doing crazy things like post devotions from your
books! You’ve saved me at least $12 in doing this, cause I haven’t
had to buy your book!

Patrick, I wouldn’t want you to feel guilty about
all this. If you can’t sleep at night ‘cos you’re availing yourself
of all these freebies, there are several courses of action open
to you:

* Confess – and you’ll be forgiven (there’s a devotional
on that on the homepage 🙂

* Write our little ministry into your church budget

* Share your tithe with JMM – or others like us serving
the church

* Buy our devotional books for Christmas presents
(only 32 weeks to next Christmas 🙂 You can do it easily by credit
card (details of which we don’t keep on file)

Oops… in my desire to help Patrick I may be in
danger of making this commercial, so I’ll stop.

> What’s more, you encourage people to ignore
your rights under law , ie copyright, if they want to pass them
on! But as you give in the same way that you have receive, you
speak a testimony beyond words….

Not all my published stuff is available on our homepage,
due to the publishers’ copyright restrictions on me, the author!

However, once it’s on our homepage – it’s not copyright,
s’long as you copy it right 🙂 The text driving all this: ‘Freely
you have received, freely give’ – and it’s a great privilege to
have more people read our material on the ‘Net in one day than
in print in a month previously…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,alt.christnet.ethics

Subject: Bad news from China

Date: Wed, 21 May 1997

From a reliable North American source:

Dear Mr. President:

Reliable sources in China have informed International
Christian Concern that the Chinese government has ordered the
execution of China’s most prominent Christian house-church leaders.
Xu Yong Ze could be executed at any time soon, according to the
source.

Pastor Xu was arrested in Zhengzhou, Henan province
on March 16th along with 16 other popular house-church leaders.
The eight were arrested after having met together to discuss uniting
their house churches. Pastor Xu’s church network Cong Sheng (Born
Again) is estimated to be over eight million in number. The merger
would have created the largest organized body of Christians in
China.

The names of the other seven arrested in March are:
Liu Zhenying, Wang Xincai, Wang Baoquan, Fang Xian, Mui Sheng,
Ging Jing, and Elder Qiao. The fate of these seven is unknown.

The Born Again House Church is considered a "heresy"
by the Chinese government. In the government’s "strike hard"
campaign against crime, the illegal house churches are being targeted
because of their rapid growth and evangelistic fervor.

Pastor Xu Yong Ze had been imprisoned three times.
He has been in hiding since 1991 following his release from his
last prison sentence. His last arrest occurred in 1991 following
an attempt to meet with evangelist Billy Graham.

Since you, Mr. Clinton, are expected to decide this
month whether or not China should continue to receive Most Favored
Nation trading privileges, I wish you to know my outrage that
you would consider this while China has such contempt for the
principles we embrace in our Constitution. I would also ask, on
behalf of your Christian constituents, that you withhold any further
trade negotiations with China until this concern is addressed
to the satisfaction of any Christian American.

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: On Reading the bible (was Re: FALLING OVER – what a joke!)


Date: Thu, 22 May 1997

Michael Kennedy wrote:

> (Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:

> (Michael Kennedy) wrote:

> >>Our doctrine is God’s truth, no more,
no less.

>To Michael:

>1. They only read the parts of the Bible that
can be twisted to suit their own doctrines.

> You have got to be kidding, we encourage people
to read their Bibles every day, from cover to cover.

This worries me. Groups that ‘read the Bible from
cover to cover’ invariably are/become sectarian.

Better idea: read the whole Bible, yes, regularly.
But for every time you read Ecclesiastes, say, read the Gospels
ten times.

People with a ‘flat’ view of the authority of all
the books of the Bible generally have problems seeing Jesus/the
Gospels as the pinnacle of God’s revelation in Scripture. The
rest of the Bible has to be reinterpreted (as Paul in particular
did so well) in the light of Jesus’ life and teachings and Easter-event…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Kids brainwashed into nutty religions.Date: Thu,
22 May 1997

Peter Sundstrom wrote:

> > Well, do YOU believe there’s a space-ship accompanying
Hale-Bopp? Do you think Elron Hubbard might have been two stubbies
short of a sixpack? Do you have fantasies of becoming a Voodoo
Zombie? Err.. I could put a cheap shot here. 🙂 Do you think
David Koresh was the messiah reborn? Do you think Jim Jones was
a mental giant? Aren’t some of those Moslems just a weeny bit
howling barking mad?

No, yes, no, no, no, yes…

> Well do you believe that Jesus was born to a
virgin mother? Do you believe that he performed miracles? Do you
believe he floated to heaven?

Yes, yes, yes (though I might express these things
differently)…

> More seriously, the main reason there is so
much distrust and conflict between peoples beliefs is due to the
"Greatest Sin of All" – ie: my beliefs are true and
yours are wrong.

No, this sin is not as bad as creating God in your
own image and worshipping your creator/creation…

> I am therefore superior to anyone who doesn’t
hold my beliefs and it is my God given right to shove my beliefs
down everyone else’s throat.

Which is the classic cop-out for refusing to think
(on the one hand) but is a warning to religionists against propagandizing
rather than evangelizing…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Kids brainwashed into nutty religions.

Date: Thu, 22 May 1997

rod speed wrote:

> Rowland Croucher <> wrote in
article <3383A167.770>…

> > Peter Sundstrom wrote:

> > > Well do you believe that Jesus was
born to a virgin mother? Do you believe that he performed miracles?
Do you believe he floated to heaven?

> > Yes, yes, yes

> Pathetic really.

> > (though I might express these things differently)…

> Yeah, as is the wont of you fakers.

> > > More seriously, the main reason there
is so much distrust and conflict between peoples beliefs is due
to the "Greatest Sin of All" – ie: my beliefs are true
and yours are wrong.

> > No, this sin is not as bad as creating
God in your own image and worshipping your creator/creation…

> Who cares ? People with any sense dont ‘worship’
anything.

Depends on what you mean by worship. If, as its root
meaning implies, it is all about ‘giving worth’ to someone/something
we all do it all the time. It’s the _object_ of our worship that
differs from person to person…

> Pathetic creatures who need a crutch for their
minds…..

If you mean by this we who follow Jesus need his
help to ascertain the truth about life you’re right. I think a
crutch is a necessary accessory in some situations…

> Maybe you can tell me how I flog my soul to
that devil fellow.

Simple: refuse to follow the God who has made himself
known to us in Jesus…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion

Subject: Re: Death of Christ: why?

Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:59:39 +1100

Graham Wallace wrote:

> >>>Dave Haas <>
wrote in article

> >>><>…

> >>>> Why was Jesus killed?

1. Cos he was a prophet: you can’t have them mucking
up the rip-off systems…

2. God ordained it: for three reasons (connected
with our three greatest existential needs) –

* atone for sins/guilt

* defeat death/hell/evil

* declare in a final form God’s love

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Postmodern approach to truth

Date: Thu, 22 May 1997

Here’s something I lifted off another newsgroup.
Interesting…

Anyone know what the First Veridican Assembly is
(or is this Br pulling my leg ?)

EGordon873 wrote:

> The Need to be Right

> I have finally found the greatest barrier to
truth. It’s the need to be right. I just finished a conversation
with an old man who, after I agreed with a statement he made,
told me I was wrong. I really don’t think this man is stupid,
he was just so concerned with being right that he had to automatically
disagree with anything I said.

> This perverted need to be right is a fundamental
need. If we are right, we are important. If we are right, we are
powerful. If we are right, we are good. If we are right, we are
worthy. If we are right, we are sane. If we are right, we are
more like God than the next guy. If we are right, we have a hold
on the truth, and that is a fundamental psychological need of
the human mind. In fact, it is so fundamental that we will deceive
ourselves into thinking we’re right, even when we can’t rationally
defend the propositions we make.

> It’s easy to throw out the baby with the bath
water here and say that if the above is true, then the best thing
to do is abandon the fight to be right. We exchange reality for
a relative truth that is right in the eyes of the individual.
But that is taking it too far. People want to be right because
it is good to be right. If you really are right, you really do
have a hold on the truth. The problem arises when the need to
be right overcomes the ability to be right. When the desire to
be true drives us into behaviors that deplete our ability to find
the truth.

> Of course, all of my reasoning in this article
is based on the assumption that you believe the truth is objective.
That is, you believe that if two people are looking at an object,
and they agree on definitions, and one of them says the object
is a cube and the other says that the object is a sphere, that
only one of them can be correct. How daring and politically incorrect
it is today to say that someone is wrong and that someone else
is right in the name of truth! But if you believe the truth is
real, only one person can be right. In other words, if two people
hold contradictory beliefs, they can both be in error, but they
can not both be true. That is what we call objective truth.

> Here are some barriers to finding the truth:

> A Perverted need to be right Defensiveness in
debate

> Not reading or studying the subject in question

> Settling for the easy answer without consideration

> Insecurity of faith

> Fear of knowing the truth

> Inability to admit error>

> Here are some aids to finding the truth:

> Learning to have a two-way conversation with
God

> A proper need to be right

> Active speculation

> Reading books

> Direct experimentation

> Thought experimentation

> Testing for contradictions

> Testing for logical connections

> Maintaining skepticism until the above list is performed


> The ability to admit error

> Debating with others to find the truth in good faith

> Being right is all well and good, but it can’t
dominate the need to find the truth. When it does, the truth always
suffers. There is no sense in having a debate with someone who
can’t admit when they are wrong, or even consider anything other
than what they believe. Could it be that these individuals truly
fear the weakness of the logic of their reason? Yes, that is always
the case!

> It is as important to know when we are wrong
as it is to know when we are right. Without an ego that will allow
us to admit error, the truth becomes cheap. We must recognize
the difference between opinion and truth; we must know the difference
between the need to win an argument and the righteousness of recognizing
the truth; we must want the truth more than we want to dominate
in debate. If we can submit our egocentric natures to the common
good of bringing the truth into the world, my friends, then we
are the children of God.

> Sincerely,

> Br. Edward Jerome Gordon

> The First Veridican Assembly

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: I’m losing my struggle against Porn!

date: Thu, 22 May 1997

Something I wrote for another newsgroup which I feel
quite strongly about…

> HB wrote:

> > I’m a born-again follower of our Lord Jesus
Christ. I have no doubt whatsoever that eventually I’ll win my
battle, but I need help soon.

> > Growing up protected with everything a
child could desire, I was extremely successful. My school-years
were the only bright part of my life thus far. I exceeded beyond
most every record my school ever presented in various areas: Academically,
in sports, leadership, socially etc. At my school my record far
exceeded anything in the history of the school!

<>

I’m a little suspicious about the veracity here,
but anyway, it allows me to make another point:

As a non-American I wonder about the success thing.
A publication in the church I preached in last Sunday quoted James
Dobson’s advice to someone who was a highschooler and depressed:
try to find something you’re good at, and become very good at
it…

Now I’ve read enough of Dobson to know that he understands
the connection between most depressions and the need for love,
but the paragraphs in question gave no indication of the deeper
need.

Let’s not be sucked into the mindset which values
humans in terms of their achievements, eh?

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Tongues/9

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997

Patrick Canion wrote:

> (Graeme) wrote:

> >On the Day of Pentecost tongues was used
to communicate the Gospel to many different language groups, people
who had travelled from many countries and who spoke many languages.
Through the gift sovereignly bestowed by the Holy Spirit each
group heard the Gospel in its own language. That is point one!

> Just another question that occured to me reading
this Graeme – how do you interpret the stated occurrence in Acts
2:11 of the various nationalities hearing the wonders of God in
their own tongues/languages as being a presentation of the Gospel
message? Could it not equally have been just that – "the
wonders of God"?

> Because if it was the gospel message that they
heard

Forgive me (a glossolalist who doesn’t normally buy
into these discussions – but who understands anthropologists have
found tongues-speaking in non-religious contexts as well: someone
got a source?) for intruding, but I would have thought

‘Gospel/Good News’ =/is nothing but ‘the wonders
of God’

IOW, let’s apply the word ‘Gospel’ to the many aspects
of God’s communication to us, as it’s so richly diverse a concept
in the NT.

If ‘Gospel’ = ‘receiving Jesus as your personal Savior’
then frankly I’ve got problems with that sort of minimization
of the idea (besides which, that phrase is a product of our individualistic
culture, and isn’t in the N.T.)

I’ll now climb off my high horse…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,alt.christnet.evangelical


Subject: Re: Three tests of a true religion…

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997

John Anthony Edmiston wrote:

> When I first became aware of God at age 21 I
asked naturally enough, which God I was believing in,,,, I started
out with one assumption – that there was One God who was the Creator
of all things. In doing my Science degree in Chemistry I had become
convinced that there was one Designer and one Mind behind all
the laws of creation because they meshed so well into a beautiful
harmony. My tests for a true religion were….

> 1. Is it compatible with the confirmed and tested
facts of Science?

> 2. Functionality – can it be fully followed
by absolutely everyone? When they do so will the world keep on
functioning properly or will it fall to bits?

> 3. Life – are the followers made more alive
by following it? Is the Life-giving Creator evident in their lives.

These three questions eliminated (to my mind) all
religions except Judaism and Christianity. While reading Galatians
I was struck by the verse that said "if righteousness could
come through the law then Christ died for nothing"… I then
decided that Christ had not died for nothing and settled on Christainity
as being the true religion.

> What do you think?

The only problem I have with this is its cognitivity
(is that a word?).

Christianity is essentially loving/obeying/following
Jesus.

IOW, the reasons I become a Christian, and the subsequent
rationalizing of that commitment for apologetics, may follow different
routes…

And add to this: those who are seeking God have already
been found by God.

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Salvation and the Ark

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997

Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

> (Michael Kennedy) wrote:

> >Why am I not surprised, that you reject
certain parts of the Bible as false.

> I have never said that any of the Bible is false.
I think that most of it is a-historical, but that does not stop
it from being both ‘true’ and ‘the word of God’.

Karl Barth preferred the word ‘saga’ – I think a
good word (‘myth’ has confusing connotations for many people)

<>

I’d suggest the literalists be honest and confess
that there’s a whole bunch of miracles here – Noah getting animals
from everywhere and getting them back again, fossils on Mt. Everest,
dietary/food requirements, keeping predators from their prey (at
least in the initial stages), salt/fresh water creatures surviving
in an alien environment.

You’ve one or two miracles – why not multiply them
and be done with it.

Oh, by the way: if everything in the Bible which
seems to be allegory/ folk-tale/saga etc. has to be historical:
was their a real prodigal son, good samaritan, etc.? Most of my
literalist friends reply: not necessarily…

So where are we going to draw the line?

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist


Subject: Re: Baptism, Again !! (alias – Nigel’s passion)

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997

Richard Kerr wrote:

> Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

> > If you say that "Baptism by immersion
in living water is the ideal, Baptism in still water is almost
as good, but baptism by pouring is also OK", then we can
agree and have nothing to argue about. This is what the Didache
says, and it is what I see going on in my church and most other
Christian churches around.

> You’ve got it all wrong, Nigel. Michael K. isn’t
interested in things being "OK". He wants a rule. A
straightforward and immediately applicable hedge around the word
of God to stop people doing things (like sprinkling) which God
finds offensive.

> In your view, as far as I can tell, God is far
more interested in our attitudes and motivations, and, in fact,
finds these interminable debates about the processes we go through
pointless.

> This is actually a debate about the nature of
our interaction with God. In Michael’s eyes the rules are an end
in themselves. In your eyes, if I understand you correctly, most
rules encourage Godliness which is broader and deeper than the
application of rules.

I’m in a naughty mood: what are we going to do with
the lady who I baptized who has a skin disorder aggravated by
water? (I baptized her by pouring – oil)

What about all the people baptized by weird sects
– by whatever method – and want to be ‘redone’?

Or when they were infants, and want to be rebaptized
‘cos they believe their original baptism was invalid. Or, for
that matter, the Southern Baptist/ occasional Australian Churches
of Christ person baptized by ‘choice’ at three, four, five, six,
and want to do it again…

Or the lady I baptized who suffers from hydrophobia,
and I didn’t immerse her head, but she later phoned me and wanted
to do it again, by total immersion, ‘cos she said God would give
her the requisite courage? (My wife and I took her and her discipler
to the local swimming pool and I ducked her in the name of the
Father Son and Holy Spirit, after telling her it wasn’t really
a rebaptism, but a completion of the one event. She came up smiling
so I ducked her again).

I give talks on all this at Baptist/Churches of Christ
clergy conferences, and believe me, the permutations are endless.

If you want Jesuitical-type laws to cover everything
you’re going to have whole forests turned into paper.

And miss the whole point: grace.

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Preaching the Gospel ?

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997

Andrew Bromage wrote:

(I’m leaving Andrew’s irenic response below, in full, in case
anyone here missed it.)

Obviously Chris has more than two people who read
his posts. He’s had an important ministry here, on two levels:

* He’s alerted us left-brain theologs that there
is an _experiential_ dimension to the Christian faith and life.
We/I may not agree with his biblical interpretations, but he’s
alerting us to something important, I believe…

* And he’s not afraid to go over his head exegetically,
and thereby has provided a forum for some splendid threads.

But let’s hear his pain: when we who’ve had the privilege
of a theological education quote Greek that’s OK – necessary –
but it has an unintended put-down effect on some…

Now the best remedy to all this (and here I agree
with Nigel) is to study the original languages of the Bible before
we pontificate on the meaning of this or that text… Or if you
can’t, at least learn your way around a good Hebrew and Greek
lexicon…

Oh, and one other thing that came to me as I prayed
about our group this morning: We could all add some authenticity
to our posts if we communicated here on several Christian levels.
I’ve said it before: why don’t the tongues-people give us their
biblical theology of compassion/justice for example; or a review
of a book with which they might disagree; or… well plenty of
subjects.

We carry more credibility if we play on more than
one harp-string…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

> For the record, I agree that we could all be
a little more loving in our postings here (including myself) and
more than a few people would be better off by spending a few moments
in prayer and thought before hitting the "follow up"
key.

> However when you say:

> All Chris wants to see is people experience
the same power he has, yet you want to ensure people don’t!!

> I’ve never seen Nigel even imply that.

> What I, as well as others, intend is that people
are not disappointed when God acts in their life in a way different
to what RCI/RF doctrine says he should. If every Christian did
speak in tongues, that would be great, but they don’t, as Scripture
and history proves time and time again.

> >Yes we all have our differences in scriptural
interpretation yet I think all, except Graham, would agree that
the net result of RCI/RCF doctrine is that the individual does
indeed receive something from God.

> The issue is not that every individual receives
something from God. The main problem with RCI/RF doctrine is that
they teach that everyone receives the SAME thing, has the SAME
experience and must do it the SAME way.

> >I know the Toronto experience has been hased
many times, but I am 100% positive that there are cases throughout
the NT where people has exactly the same experience as RCI/RCF
members.

> There is no instance in the Bible of any person
receiving every possible Spiritual gift, one counter example being
that nobody in history was ever both married and celibate simultaneously.

> >At a simple reading I cannot find the experiences
I have seen and heard in Toronto meetings. So who should we critique
more?

> Those who are more vocal in our local community,
of course. This includes "virtual communities" such
as Usenet. Those who are the most vocal are the most likely to
lead people astray.

> >When you look at Catholic and other mainstream
churches … heck the additions that have been made … where
to begin???? But again how much of it can you find in the Bible
literally?

> The worst lie is that which most closely resembles
the truth.

> However the problem IMO is not "additions"
in the sense of "we do this that is not mentioned in the
Bible" but additions in the sense if "you MUST do this
which the Bible alone does not require", which is a problem
with both RCI/RF doctrine and Roman Catholicism as practiced historically,
as well as just about every Christian, pseudo-Christian and para-Christian
organisation and person ever.

> >Chris, I applaud you for what you have contributed
in the past few years.

> Chris, I too applaud you. My life has been much
enriched by your presence on the newsgroup both directly and indirectly.
I apologise both personally and corporately for any personal attacks
which you have attracted on this newsgroup.

> >I can fully understand why you come and
go given the "interest" people have in attacking you
personally.

> And I understand why some perform said personal
attacks and why you (Chris) have gone for personal attacks too.

> May the Lord give us all humility and understanding.

> Cheers,

> Andrew Bromage

…..

From: (Andrew Bromage)

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Preaching the Gospel ?

Date: 30 May 1997

G’day all.

(Michael Kennedy) writes:

>Why can’t all Christians speak in Tongues?Do you have any
Biblical evidence of this?

*sigh* Here we go again, for the benefit of the audience.
This is from memory, so I may have left some stuff out.

Different people have different Spiritual gifts.
This is the main point of 1 Corinthians 12. Note especially Paul’s
use of the metaphor of parts of the body and v21 in particular.

Paul says explicitly in this chapter that not every
Christian speaks in tongues (v30, best seen in Greek, but the
NASB translates it particularly well).

In v28, Paul equates different jobs with different
gifts. If all Christians spoke in tongues, this would imply that
everyone was an apostle, everyone was a good administrator and
everyone was a good teacher, which is not the case. Especially
in the case of teachers and RCI/RF members on this newsgroup.
It would also imply that all Christians can interpret tongues
which is implied by 1 Cor 14:28.

If all Christians exercised all Spiritual gifts,
Paul would not need to "impart" a gift (Romans 1:11)
and we would not need to "earnestly desire" any gifts
(1 Cor 12:31).

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul describes marriage and celibacy
as gifts. Nobody in history has ever practised both simultaneously.
He goes on to say that "each man has his own gift from God;
one has this gift, another has that." (1 Cor 7:7, NIV)

In Romans 12, Paul explicitly says that "We
have different gifts, according to the grace given us" (Rom
12:6) and goes on to say "If it is serving, let him serve;
if it is teaching, let him teach" (NIV) and so on for many
gifts, "just as each of us has one body with many members,
and these members do not all have the same function" (v4).
Paul seemed to like that metaphor a lot.

And, most importantly, saying that all Christians
speak in tongues simply goes against the experience and thought
of pretty much every Christian ever, both those who speak in tongues
and those who do not.

I don’t know why I’m bothering. The burden of proof
should lie with those who hold the novel and unorthodox belief.

Now here’s a question for RCI/RF members: Do you
know of anyone who has joined an RCI/RF group _after_ speaking
in tongues. That is, have you ever known a convert who spoke in
tongues before coming into contact with your group?

>I have never seen someone who has been unable
to receive the gift.

I’ve noticed that RCI/RF members tend not to see
those who leave.

>Some AOG churches are full of christians who
ALL speak in tongues,

Now I’m not an AOG member and am not fully familiar
with their doctrine, but as I understand it, AOG churches teach
of a separate experience subsequent to conversion which is "way
cool" but unnecessary for salvation. (Would Patrick or David
or someone care to correct any mistakes?)

If they are Christians as you agree, and thus are
led by the Holy Spirit, why do they teach that tongues are not
necessary for salvation? And why does God bless such a ministry?

>I don’t Christian or myself, have ever said "you
must do it the same way", but yes, all receiving the same
experience from God, we have said.

You say that we all have to be baptised using a minimum
quantity of water to be applied in a certain manner, and that
those that do will all have identical an experience.

>Where is your proof God gives gifts to some Christians,
but not others.

No, God gives _one_particular_ gift to some Christians,
but not others, who receive some other gift or gifts.

>Where is your proof that Christians receive different
things from God.

1 Corinthians 7:7 and Romans 12:6.

>Where does the Bible say God plays favourites
with us.

Did God play favourites with your body parts? Is
the liver less worthy because it can’t see?

Paul goes to a LOT of trouble to explain in 1 Corinthians
12 that there are many gifts, but the SAME Spirit who gives them
all. The fact that one person has some gift and another person
has another does not make one person better or more favourite
than another, it simply means that they have a different job to
do.

>And Finally, forgetting RCI/RF for a moment,
lets look at a sample AOGchurch.

>If all it’s members speak in tongues, how do
you explain this? Are you saying only certain people are attracted
to these churches, or in other words only some are suitable to
be members of a AOG church.

I’m suggesting that different denominations carry
out different ministries, and so require a different distribution
of gifts to carry out that job. No, I have no Scriptural support
for the assertion that different denominations correspond to different
ministries, that is pure conjecture on my part. Scripture _does_
say that this happens on a personal level, that different people
have different ministries and so require different gifts to do
their different jobs. Any good engineer will tell you that different
tasks require different tools. You can’t make a wood cabinet with
just a hammer. Similarly, you can’t evangelise with administration
alone, and you can’t study Scripture thoroughly with tongues alone.

That’s why we all need each other.

Cheers,

Andrew Bromage

…..

Subject: China: persecution – another perspective


Date: Thu, 29 May 1997

As you have had a report about the arrest and death
sentence(s) of house church leaders in China, you might wish to
note these comments from the WEF Religious Liberty Commission
and the GEM State of Persecution list.

Originally from: <>


Originally dated: May 25, 1997

FOR: WEF Religious Liberty e-mail Conference

FROM: Brian O’Connell, Consultant for World Evangelical Fellowship

Dear Friends:

Many reports have be coming out of China regarding
the possible execution of several house church leaders. We are
still working on trying to confirm those reports. Still, I thought
it appropriate for you to see the original report and one response
by Justin Long of GEM. I think Justin’s remarks are worth our
strong consideration When the original reports are confirmed we
will notify of this, but the information is provided for your
attention and prayers.

=====

RE: Death Sentence in China

FROM: Justin Long, GEM

There have been numerous recent reports that the
9 house church leaders recently arrested by the Chinese government
have been

sentenced to death, and perhaps already executed.
These reports have been distributed widely via the Internet.

THESE REPORTS ARE UNCONFIRMED. A DEATH SENTENCE AND
AN ACTUAL EXECUTION IS CONSIDERED UNLIKELY BY A NUMBER OF CHINA
MINISTRIES, SOME WITH CONTACTS CLOSE TO THE SITUATION.

China observers familiar with the whole of the situation
tell us that a source now living in Taiwan came out of China and
reported he had heard that Peter Xu had been sentenced to death.
No further details were given and this report remains unconfirmed
by any source in mainland China.

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THOSE ARRESTED HAVE IN FACT BEEN
SENTENCED. On this issue we simply do not know. The only thing
that can and should be said is that they have been arrested and
that their case is a sensitive one.

It is not likely they would actually be executed.
If it were, it would be the first time since the Cultural Revolution
that the

government had arrested and tried a Christian and
sentenced him or her to death on the basis of their religious
beliefs/activities. Such an action would be foolhardy on the part
of the Chinese government, since it would almost certainly arouse
world opinion against China and in the USA could doom their renewal
of Most Favored Nation trade status. It would represent a destabilizing
action which would harm China far more than it would benefit.

The Church in China does desperately need our prayers.
It also needs our concerted action. However, our efforts can not
and must not be limited to the issue of persecution.

A recent appeal, entitled "An Appeal to our
Brothers and Sisters who are Concerned about China," circulated
among mission agencies interested in Asia, highlights this need.
Signed by several Christian leaders including the head of the
Moody Bible Institute and the head of International Students Inc.,
as well as the Asian directors of several missions agencies with
vested interests in China, it calls for Christians to move beyond
addressing just the issue of persecution and seek out ways to
SERVE the church in China.

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: new to this group

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997

Violetta Lee wrote:

> Hi! I’ve been reading with great interest for
the last couple of days.

Welcome to the group, Violetta. If possible, please
stay with us: we need some of your refreshing honesty!

<>

> I find myself very disillusioned with churches
at the moment. I want to bring my children up in a Christian lifestyle
involving church but I don’t like what I am seeing in some places.
I just hope I don’t get turned off all together. I will still
look around, and hopefully I will find one that suits me.

Where do you live and what kind of church are you
looking for?

> Just remember that God wants us to accept His
Gospel with simplicity, not to dissect it till we can not recognize
what it is anymore.

Provided it’s simplicity the other side of complexity
rather than this side! I e. we shouldn’t be afraid of the tough
questions, but shouldn’t lurk around in them forever…

> Sometimes I don’t know what is man’s interpretation,
and what is true, so I would rather just believe that God loves
me, and try to live my life according to His will. If a man believes
that he is saved, it is not our job to prove him right or wrong,
God will direct his path.

A good point. We should all do what the Bereans did,
and search the Scriptures for ourselves: and these days if it’s
tongues, baptism, whether the flood covered Everest or whatever,
let’s do our homework and study the Bible intelligently…

> I would like to know, if a christian attacks
another christian because of what he believes, is he really a
christian after all.

A question I have to face as a church consultant
every week. Briefly: we are all encouraged to ‘exhort’ one another;
this should be done in love; _prophets_ have a special commission
to exhort the church and nation. If the ‘exhortation’ becomes
a personal attack, refer to the text in my .sig file below. If
we are ‘contending for the truth/faith’ it should be possible
to wisely disengage the issue from the person who holds it…
Who’s a Christian or not – well God will be able to sort that
out, probably without our help 🙂

> As a Revivalist I thought all other religions
were wrong. I wasn’t taught this, but I was constantly being told
what the other churches were doing wrong.

Which, if I can say it gently, is the mark of a sect.
There are 26,000 Christi an denominations in the world: it’s highly
improbable that God only belongs to one of these (and vice versa)!

> If I met a person who went to the A.O.G. and
he greeted me as a sister I felt uncomfortable because I didn’t
feel that he was truly my brother. It has taken a long time for
me to get over that feeling. I hope that you are all happy with
your lives and that you have peace with God,and if not, that you
find that peace.

> May God bless you all

And may God bless you too, Vi…

> Vi

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

…..

From: Rowland Croucher <>


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Remember Christ’s Words…

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997

A friend handed me this poem at the church door recently…

REMEMBER CHRIST’S WORDS

by IAN HALL

This land was once one of great equality,

Where, no matter class, race, or creed,

All had an equal opportunity.

But economic and social change

Now paint a picture harsh and bleak.

Now many poor, aged, and demented,

Live hopeless on the street.

But many Christians avert their eyes, saying,

‘It’s too bad – they don’t try – they are to blame.’

Who then, their conscience eased,

Refuse them the charity and aid their claim.

O pious fools, who blame the poor for their own poverty,

Remember Christ’s words in fearful clarity:

‘What ye do to the least of these, ye do it unto
me.’

Shalom! Rowland Croucher