Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Brother Andrew is praying for you to be persecuted.

Thread: Purgatory: Brother Andrew is praying for you to be persecuted. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001009

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

I read a quote from the famous "Brother Andrew", who appears to have smuggled Bibles (but not food or money) to Christians in various countries in a publication. It read as follows:

quote:
Do you think persecution is going to come to Europe and America?

Yes, and we need it. Sometimes I think, "God, hasten the day."

Source: Open Doors publication January 2006, back page, interview with "Brother Andrew"

I for one was concerned albeit unsurprised by this.

By the looks of it, the Chinese Church are praying for the same thing!

Here are two articles about it:

Click >here< and >here<

Should Brother Andrew's prayer be granted? Should he be praying this kind of thing?

Exactly what is the point of prayer?

Thoughts? Comments?

[ 14. February 2006, 03:41: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:

Should Brother Andrew's prayer be granted? Should he be praying this kind of thing?

Exactly what is the point of prayer?

Thoughts? Comments? [/QB]

Should his prayer be granted? It would seem presumptuous to give an answer, but I hope not.

I don't see that we should be praying for this kind of thing. It would seem to me to be better to pray for peace...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I don't think we could hack it. This is a country where people in influential postitions actually claim that the fact the President sent out a holiday-neutral greeting card this year reflects persecution. We (the American Church) have had so many things built into our culture that we assume we are entitled to that we'd collapse under any real persecution.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
"Brother Andrew", who appears to have smuggled Bibles (but not food or money)

Your point being?

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

This alleged 'prayer' seems blasphemous to me.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

My point being that Brother Andrew is an evil hypocrite.

And of course, that prayer is as farcical in theory as it is effective in practise.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Remind me, the definition of hypocrite is having two standards, one for yourself and one for everyone else, is it not? So which two standards are these, that Brother Andrew employs? And how does smuggling bibles to Eastern Bloc countries make him evil?

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Praying for others to suffer while preaching a message allegedly of love and grace is both hypocritical and evil.

Distributing bibles but not food or money in a country so poor that their own troops were fed dog food is both hypocritical and evil.

And if you don't think they are, I would suggest you have your head too far up your own library...

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Praying for others to suffer while preaching a message allegedly of love and grace is both hypocritical and evil.

Well I'm not sure about hypocritical, but that or self-deluded. I expect if you asked him, Brother Andrew would claim he wouldn't mind a bit of persecution himself, as he seems to see it as a "blessing". I do think this kind of reasoning could be defined as evil though.

I don't think I could critize him for not taking money and food into China though, unless I'd done that myself.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Distributing bibles but not food or money in a country so poor that their own troops were fed dog food is both hypocritical and evil.

Please tell me, which two standards is he employing here? How many times do I have to ask? And why is distributing bibles evil? Were you sending food to Russia at that time? If not, are you evil? Should we not send any bibles at all, as we're so busy sending food?

quote:
And if you don't think they are, I would suggest you have your head too far up your own library...

Come on, it's your first day, it's 7 posts into the thread, I've just asked you a question, and you're already insulting me?

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

quote:
I do think this kind of reasoning could be defined as evil though.

I do too.

quote:
I don't think I could critize him for not taking money and food into China though, unless I'd done that myself.

I can: he spends a good deal of the rest of the article criticising others for not doing precisely that. So, if he's going to attack others for not doing what he claims he's doing, then he's fair game in my book.

That's legally the case too, by the way ;o)

quote:
Please tell me, which two standards is he employing here? How many times do I have to ask? And why is distributing bibles evil? Were you sending food to Russia at that time? If not, are you evil? Should we not send any bibles at all, as we're so busy sending food?

The standards of actually caring about people as opposed to being sanctimonious.

Distributing bibles when food is needed is not exactly ideal!!

By your standards, it would be immoral for me to criticise a deathcamp kommandant, on the grounds that i didn't liberate a deathcamp myself.

That is clearly false, as is your logic or lack thereof.

On another thread, you said you were four in 1990... I find myself unsurprised at this, but I would suggest personal insults are inappropriate.

I was pointing out that you are failing to see the obvious humanitarian hypocrisy, which I have already detailed. If you disagree, that's your issue.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I can: he spends a good deal of the rest of the article criticising others for not doing precisely that. So, if he's going to attack others for not doing what he claims he's doing, then he's fair game in my book.

So would the article you mention here, be the "Open Doors" January 2006 publication, rather than either of the two articles you linked to in your OP? If it's true that he makes that criticism, then that would appear to be hypocritical.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

Wow. Okay, mister. Take a DEEP breath and settle down. Yikes.

If people need food, and you give them a Bible, you're insulting them. Who gives a man a stone or a snake when he needs bread? It's irresponsible and somewat pretentious.

HOWEVER, it is not hypocritical. He hasn't said, "people should give food instead of Bibles" and then proceeded to give Bibles instead of food. Watch the words you use, and if someone calls you on a mistake, just admit it. We'll get along better that way, trust me.

What IS with the personal insults, though?

In response to the point of the OP, I don't presume to know if this prayer should be answered. It's probably not the sort of prayer we should pray for publicly--it's meant to generate controversy (point for Brother Andrew here) and is thus suspect. It's true that religions flourish in Truth when they experience persecution, for the most part. (Not a scientific statement but more of a feeling I get over my studies.) But it will come when it needs to come.

But this one pretentious prayer makes prayer itself "of course, as farcical in theory as it is effective in practise"??? [Confused]

That's quite a jump and seems to be rooted in an immensely emotional bias. What happened, Mister? PM me if you'd like.

Nice to meet you and hope you cool down and get acquainted with the Ship. [Smile]

[ 31. December 2005, 20:42: Message edited by: professorkirke ]

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Of course I wasn't basing my criticism of prayer on the basis of "Brother" Andrew. There's plenty of evidence - personal, anecdotal and research based e.g. the famous MANTRA study which showed that prayer had absolutely no effect on patients' recovery.

I agree with you that he was being insulting.

However, I also disagree with you: Brother Andrew WAS being hypocritical.

He's preaching a message of love, or so it would seem, and yet wishing suffering on us.

I say that is two faced and sado-masochistic: it is a very common theme running through Christian teaching and experience, not only my own, but of many, many people I have encountered.

I believe that if you love someone, you don't inflict suffering on them, and therefore it would be completely unreasonable to wish God to inflict it on them.

It is a moral hypocrisy.

It isn't a case of some sterile syllogism that has been disproven: it is simply obvious that any man that wishes harm is not loving.

Words fail me, that I should have to explain this!!

As for the links, they were about the Chinese church. The quote I posted was from a separate publication, Open Doors' own periodical; unfortunately I only have the paper version and am unsure if there is an online version of the article, which is why I posted which month and year it comes from.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks he's wrong - there seem to be a few now on this thread that think he's out of order. ;o)

[ 31. December 2005, 20:54: Message edited by: mrmister ]

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

By the way, I like your tagline:

quote:
The good news of the Gospel is not "God loves you so much
that God is going to have to kill you if you don't shape up."

Reminds me of a bumper sticker - "Christians aren't perfect; they just want you to be."

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I agree with you that he was being insulting.

However, I also disagree with you: Brother Andrew WAS being hypocritical.

He's preaching a message of love, or so it would seem, and yet wishing suffering on us.

Yes, but you said earlier, "Distributing bibles but not food or money in a country so poor that their own troops were fed dog food is both hypocritical and evil," which is what dinghysailor disputed you on. It may be a poor decision, it may even be evil. But it isn't hypocritical. In his mind, he probably believed it was most loving to give them the "words of truth" found in the Bible. Whether or not we disagree with him does not make him a hypocrite (for that one specific offense).

quote:
I believe that if you love someone, you don't inflict suffering on them, and therefore it would be completely unreasonable to wish God to inflict it on them.

It is a moral hypocrisy.

It isn't a case of some sterile syllogism that has been disproven: it is simply obvious that any man that wishes harm is not loving.

Words fail me, that I should have to explain this!!

Alas, it's not that simple. (Nothing ever is, it seems.) If you love someone, you don't inflict suffering on them. What would you do if someone's foot became lodged in the cracks of a burning house and could not be budged? Would you leave the person to die a fiery death, or would you pull hard enough to yank their arm out of their socket, dislocate their leg, and eventually (if need be) chop the leg clean off the body in order to pull them to safety?

If you have children, do you clean their cuts with peroxide even if they scream in pain? Do you then place a bandage over the wound, knowing that when you pull it off a day later the child will wince in the pain this causes?

Of course we inflict suffering on those we love. It's a matter of the purpose for the suffering and the good it does the person. And if you believe that some persecution will strengthen us and make us better people, then it is hardly evil to wish this outcome upon us all.

-Digory

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

If you have children, do you clean their cuts with peroxide even if they scream in pain? Do you then place a bandage over the wound, knowing that when you pull it off a day later the child will wince in the pain this causes?

Of course we inflict suffering on those we love. It's a matter of the purpose for the suffering and the good it does the person. And if you believe that some persecution will strengthen us and make us better people, then it is hardly evil to wish this outcome upon us all.

I'm not so sure. If I had the choice of cleaning my children's cuts with a disinfectant that hurt or a disinfectant that didn't hurt I would choose the disinfectant that didn't hurt every time. Though I know some people who would always choose the one that did hurt, thinking that it has to hurt to do the most good. I think that line of reasoning is perverted.

I also think that it would be terribly arrogant of me to decide to make someone else suffer 'for their own good'.

If the issue at stake for Brother Andrew is that he thinks the Western church is not passionate enough, or something like that, then personally I think he ought to pray for God to make it more passionate, and leave the means God uses up to him.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister
By your standards, it would be immoral for me to criticise a deathcamp kommandant, on the grounds that i didn't liberate a deathcamp myself.

Err, no it wouldn't.

The death camp kommandant is actively killing people, and I hope you're not suggesting that Brother Andrew was actively killing people on his trips east. So he therefore gave as much help or harm to the humanitarian cause as you did: zilch either way. So, remind me why giving out bibles was hypocritical?

Since I doubt you're ever going to give a proper answer to that one, and just carry on making random accusations because he doesn't fit with your agenda, I'll move on to your actual premise.

Mrmister's premise: that Brother Andrew should have been distributing food and money to people in the East, not bibles.

Well, for a start, let's remember that he was doing this in a car (he started off with a VW Beetle, and eventually graduated to a station wagon) and crossing rather a lot of guarded borders. He could fit several hundred mini bibles in a car, but would you just take a second to think how much food you could fit unnoticed in a car? If a mini bible is a similar size to a tin of sardines, then you couldn't really get that much food across.

Also, from what I remember in God's Smuggler (his book), the countries generally weren't the poorest places in the world. Am I wrong? They formed, maybe, the 'second world', not as rich as say the US, but certainly not everybody-starving sort of places.

If my memory still serves me correctly, he started smuggling bibles not too long after the war. I somehow doubt that 1950s Holland was the sort of place that could muster much significant aid for even some really poor countries, like Tanzania or wherever. Let alone Soviet controlled areas.

f my memory continues to function well, then the people he gave bibles to tended to be rather grateful for this. As would I be, if someone had left a much safer country than mine to transport something which I value immensely, and which I believe has immense power to transform people's lives, and bring them eternal happiness knowing Jesus. You wouldn't have wanted Christianity to die out in the Soviet Bloc or China, would you? Because the authoritarian ruling powers certainly did. I wonder why they thought it was worth surpressing? Because it's a powerful thing?

And tell me, do you believe the bible is totally worthless? If it has worth, then that's a reason to smuggle it in. To quote the bible itself, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[e] the greater gifts." (1 Cor 12)
So you see, it will fall to some people to do the important work of supplying food to people who need it (though I have my doubts about the countries that Brother Andrew could get to in his car). To others will fall the also important task of getting bibles to those who need and desire such things. Do you think they either wanted or needed them? If so, where else were they to get them from?

One final thing. I did a Ctrl+F on both of the articles you linked to, for "andrew", and didn't get anything. Did they mention Brother Andrew in some way that fooled my browser? I'm remembering things chiefly from God's Smuggler which is fairly old. My info may be out of date.

Oh, and what's my comment about being four in 1990 got to do with anything? I was merely pointing out that rather a lot of people can't remember the eighties. Not meant to be insulting or anything. Did you think it was?

[cross posted with a whole lot of people, I may post an update when I've read them.]

[ 31. December 2005, 21:22: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Okay well, there's a whole raft of stuff that I now want to comment on, but I'm missing the best of Live 8 on telly.

quote:
"Christians aren't perfect; they just want you to be."

I'm a Christian, and I freely admit I'm not perfect. I could start with a list of ways I've not been perfect today, if you like, but that would be too embarrassing. However, I don't just want you to be. I want me to be as well. And I believe that through God, we (or at least some of we) eventually will be. Is it wrong to want something better? I suspect you'd like me to be better in your eyes. Maybe I should make myself better by giving up some of my crazy beliefs? Or would you rather I believed even crazier things?

As for the 'famous' MANTRA study, it can't be that famous because I haven't heard of it. Could you provide a link, please?

And what Digory said. My parents love me, but have totally of choice inflicted suffering on me, by smacking me, or banishing me to my room, or stopping my pocket money, or whatever. (obviously this was a long time ago) I have no problem believing they loved me all the way through that and still do. And as Digory also said, I took you up on your specific bible smuggling line. Nothing else. What I think on the 'praying for persecution' subject is an entirely separate issue.

Finally, in response to the 'famous' study again, I believe CS Lewis said something about "praying more for God to change my mind than to change God's mind" or something like that. That's something I'll go by. By his name, I suspect Digory will be able to provide the precise quote?

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Premises. Tsk. You still don't get it.

Hubris of youth I s'pose. In time...

The man is preaching love but wishing suffering on people. He is praying for God to bring persecution on us, as is the Chinese church. That is sadomasochistic and delusional in my opinion.

So what if he thinks the Bible's worth something? There are those who think the Qu'ran is similarly important.

Just because someone believes something does NOT make it true.

Yer says the tagline, yer wins the prize.

I couldn't care less what he drove. Distributing bibles is not what poverty stricken people need.

So what if I don't go over there myself? I'm not the famous "Brother" Andrew, marketing myself slickly as a veritable saint. He is. He should worry about more pressing moral issues than pushing his own dogmatic beliefs on a vulnerable, needy audience.

If prayer works, he's wishing the entire western world to suffer.

The man is not alright.

And yes, you are wrong: the Soviets were poverty stricken. I remember the bread lines and the troubles only too well.

But then, you are young... as is clear from your postings.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

If you have children, do you clean their cuts with peroxide even if they scream in pain? Do you then place a bandage over the wound, knowing that when you pull it off a day later the child will wince in the pain this causes?

Of course we inflict suffering on those we love. It's a matter of the purpose for the suffering and the good it does the person. And if you believe that some persecution will strengthen us and make us better people, then it is hardly evil to wish this outcome upon us all.

1) I'm not so sure. If I had the choice of cleaning my children's cuts with a disinfectant that hurt or a disinfectant that didn't hurt I would choose the disinfectant that didn't hurt every time. Though I know some people who would always choose the one that did hurt, thinking that it has to hurt to do the most good. I think that line of reasoning is perverted.

2) I also think that it would be terribly arrogant of me to decide to make someone else suffer 'for their own good'.

3) If the issue at stake for Brother Andrew is that he thinks the Western church is not passionate enough, or something like that, then personally I think he ought to pray for God to make it more passionate, and leave the means God uses up to him.

1) Unless, of course, the disinfectant that hurts does work better, right? Perhaps it is the pain that does the working. Perhaps that is how we are built.

2) Are any of us arrogant enough to wish God to do our bidding, in our prayers, even if it is against his will? The answer is probably yes, sadly. But if you think of prayer as a request, then is it arrogant to ask for something you think will do good and trust that God will only do it if this good is in fact the case? And if this IS arrogant, then is it not arrogant to pray for ANYTHING for anyone else unless they have specifically asked us for it? How are we to know that So-and-So's great aunt wants to wake up from her coma?

3) I see your point here. To him, however, an argument could be made that he sees this as the means God prescribes, and is simply praying for it as his experience leads him to. As I've said before, I think the publicity it's received is negative because it serves no good stirring up controversy as it does, but the prayer itself isn't inherently evil or wrong or misguided, IMO.

-Digory

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

You might want me to be perfect.

But frankly, it's none of your business whether or not I am!

God's forgiven me, washed me clean etc etc in Christian theology.

So who are you to judge whether or not I measure up to "perfection"?

As for the MANTRA study, it's very famous.

Had you done a google search for MANTRA, a trivial result would have been a BBC news article on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

Mister, your incisive tone is only hurting your argument. Leave age out of it, please.

You've never admitted that distributing Bibles isn't hypocrisy, as I've shown and dinghy has argued. This fact will construct a wall between the two of you and neither of you will gain much from the argument at all.

-Digory

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

That's because I don't agree with you.

YOU may be convinced it isn't hypocrisy, but *I* remain unconvinced.

So of course I'm not going to say he isn't hypocritical, because as I see it (and in fairness I'm not the only one here to see it that way!) he WAS being hypocritical.

Best to agree to differ on that one methinks, but you won't convert me, sorry to disappoint

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

1) Unless, of course, the disinfectant that hurts does work better, right? Perhaps it is the pain that does the working. Perhaps that is how we are built.

2) Are any of us arrogant enough to wish God to do our bidding, in our prayers, even if it is against his will? The answer is probably yes, sadly. But if you think of prayer as a request, then is it arrogant to ask for something you think will do good and trust that God will only do it if this good is in fact the case? And if this IS arrogant, then is it not arrogant to pray for ANYTHING for anyone else unless they have specifically asked us for it? How are we to know that So-and-So's great aunt wants to wake up from her coma?

3) I see your point here. To him, however, an argument could be made that he sees this as the means God prescribes, and is simply praying for it as his experience leads him to. As I've said before, I think the publicity it's received is negative because it serves no good stirring up controversy as it does, but the prayer itself isn't inherently evil or wrong or misguided, IMO.

-Digory

1) If I actually had some proof of that then yes of course - as in your extreme examples earlier on of having to amputate a limb to save a life. If I just feel that someone has to suffer to get better, then I still think that is misguided and possibly evil. Though, here it probably depends on people's definition of evil.

2) I think that what is arrogant above all, isn't so much what Brother Andrew is praying, after all what people pray in private is between them and God, but more telling everyone he has the inner track on what they really need to make them more holy.

3) I still prefer the kind of prayer Paul recommended to Timothy, "for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior."

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Well said! [Smile]

[ 31. December 2005, 22:05: Message edited by: mrmister ]

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
That's because I don't agree with you.

YOU may be convinced it isn't hypocrisy, but *I* remain unconvinced.

So of course I'm not going to say he isn't hypocritical, because as I see it (and in fairness I'm not the only one here to see it that way!) he WAS being hypocritical.

Best to agree to differ on that one methinks, but you won't convert me, sorry to disappoint

Then explain to us how handing out Bibles, specifically, is hypocritical. It's a simple task that you've been asked to demonstrate.

If you can't explain it, drop it. If you can, we'd love to hear.

-Digory

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

1) Unless, of course, the disinfectant that hurts does work better, right? Perhaps it is the pain that does the working. Perhaps that is how we are built.

2) Are any of us arrogant enough to wish God to do our bidding, in our prayers, even if it is against his will? The answer is probably yes, sadly. But if you think of prayer as a request, then is it arrogant to ask for something you think will do good and trust that God will only do it if this good is in fact the case? And if this IS arrogant, then is it not arrogant to pray for ANYTHING for anyone else unless they have specifically asked us for it? How are we to know that So-and-So's great aunt wants to wake up from her coma?

3) I see your point here. To him, however, an argument could be made that he sees this as the means God prescribes, and is simply praying for it as his experience leads him to. As I've said before, I think the publicity it's received is negative because it serves no good stirring up controversy as it does, but the prayer itself isn't inherently evil or wrong or misguided, IMO.

-Digory
1) If I actually had some proof of that then yes of course - as in your extreme examples earlier on of having to amputate a limb to save a life. If I just feel that someone has to suffer to get better, then I still think that is misguided and possibly evil. Though, here it probably depends on people's definition of evil.

2) I think that what is arrogant above all, isn't so much what Brother Andrew is praying, after all what people pray in private is between them and God, but more telling everyone he has the inner track on what they really need to make them more holy.

3) I still prefer the kind of prayer Paul recommended to Timothy, "for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior."

1) It's not about proof. It's about the fact that sometimes inflicting suffering on those we love is good. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If that has been established, then that's my whole point.

2) Here we may be in agreement. As I've said several times now, there is no need to publicly broadcast your prayer's contents to the world. Especially when they involve controversial elements. Again, however, the prayer itself is not inherently evil, wrong, or misguided.

3) Is this the only prayer you yourself pray, out of curiousity?

-Digory

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Parading himself as "God's smuggler", distributing the word of God to people who don't have them, while simultaneously being so hard hearted himself is hypocritical because he is teaching people to be loving while being anything but himself.

He is hypocritical, in that he teaches love but practises cruelty.

Now, you can keep arguing and arguing, but one day, you'll be on the receiving end of someone like that, and you'll look back and think, Oh yeah, I see what he's saying now.

The man is not OK.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

And just in case you're still not clear,

wishing suffering on people is cruel.

Also, criticising people for not helping people while simultaneously not helping them in any practical way (such as giving out food or money) while handing out the bibles is VERY hypocritical.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

and as I already mentioned, I don't know an online link to the article - I only have the paper copy, which is why I posted which issue it is in and where (it's on the back cover).

It's an interview with Brother Andrew.

The two online links I provided were detailing the Chinese church following suit by praying for us to undergo persecution.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Parading himself as "God's smuggler", distributing the word of God to people who don't have them, while simultaneously being so hard hearted himself is hypocritical because he is teaching people to be loving while being anything but himself.

He is hypocritical, in that he teaches love but practises cruelty.

Now, you can keep arguing and arguing, but one day, you'll be on the receiving end of someone like that, and you'll look back and think, Oh yeah, I see what he's saying now.

The man is not OK.

That is the first time you have linked giving bibles to any definition of hypocrisy. Thank you.

I pray and pray with all of my might that when I die, I meet God alone, and not God with MrMister sitting beside him as co-judge, as you are setting yourself up to be throughout this thread.

-Digory

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Well excu-u-uuse me for taking offence at the HYPOCRITE brother andrew parading himself as a martyr amid the people who are really suffering, while praying with all of HIS might for God to smite us in the West!!

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Br Andrew was providing bibles for people who wanted them. What's the problem with that?

My eastern european relatives were not as active as he was, but the occasional bible was brought over by them to christians who both wanted and needed bibles. My relatives wouldn't even call themselves christian, but they recognised people's needs.

Br Andrew also understands what it's like to have very little food and safety. He's not trying to impose something he hasn't experienced on other people. He may not be correct in what he suggests, but he's not being hypocritical.

"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church."

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

So if he's happy to suffer himself, that gives him the right to wish and pray for it to fall on others, does it?

Sadomasochism. Pure and simple.

He can keep his Bibles away from me

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I did not say he was "happy to suffer".

As to whether anyone is appropriately "happy to suffer" as opposed to S&M, many of those of us who have given birth to our children have managed to cope with it and have had great joy in the long run.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

While I certainly understand (and admire) the idea of redemptive suffering/suffering in solidarity with suffering others, and while I also understand the impulse to want to reform and energize what one perceives as a complacent, phoning-it-in Christian community, and while I can understand an individual praying that s/he might be a good and faithful witness to the faith "even unto death" following the example of the Church's martyrs through the ages, I don't think it's a particularly good or noble thing to wish persecution and martyrdom on others ; rather the opposite.

But -- sheesh -- does this conversation need to be this heated? Take a deep breath and regroup, Mrmister. Yes; I agree with you that Brother Andrew screwed up here. But we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Give the man a break.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

mrmister, I know some people believe the Quran to be God's word. I however, believe them to be wrong. So does Br Andrew, I presume. See the computer monitor in front of you? Well, like you believe that the monitor's actually there, not just an illusion, he believes the bible is God's word, something that people in the world today need to hear. And that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Like you believe that anyone who thinks the monitor isn't there is wrong. How hard is this to grasp?

And as I stated, and daisymay repeated, Br Andrew was providing people with bibles, who wanted them. And as I stated, the bible says that different people are called to do different things. Many priests do excellent work for God, that is much needed, and many Oxfam workers ditto. They are very different roles, though, and unlikely to be combined. I don't know right now which I'll do, or if I'll do either of them. Br Andrew I'm sure was thankful for people trying to improve the physical condition of the poverty stricken, but felt that he was being called to another role.

And in accusing him of "Sadomasochism. Pure and simple." you're completely ignoring Digory's point that people may wish suffering on others because they see it as a necessary precursor to something even better than their current state. Therefore, Br A is being quite the opposite of sadistic, by wishing for better things for people. It's just that to get to that (very desirable) place, they have to go through some pain first.

And the point about him coming from a Nazi-occupied background was that he knew what these people were going through, because he'd been there himself, and so was more able than I presume you are to make value judgements on what was needed at the time.

The point about the car is blindingly simple. He simply did not have the means to smuggle any meaningful quantity of food across hostile borders. In fact, in a VW Beetle, he wouldn't even have been able to store enough food to feed himself for more than maybe a week. So on the food front, he would have been completely useless, had he tried. But he could smuggle an awful lot of bibles successfully.

By the way, whether you are perfect is my business. I need to share a planet with you. Being perfect means you don't do any deeds which hurt yourself and/or others. I'm no sadist so I don't want anyone to hurt themselves, and those "others" include me and people I care for (and so,apparently do you if you keep harping on about food aid to people), so I don't want me or them to be hurt either. Perhaps Br Andrew believes that if we all followed the teachings of the bible more closely, the world would be a better place, with less of people hurting other people? Maybe that's why he was so keen to distribute them?

And about my age, shut up. Sneering at 20 year olds is doing nothing for your cause of feeding the poor or dissing Br Andrew by any means possible, whichever of those is your actual purpose.

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Of course we inflict suffering on those we love.

Mom? Is that you?

Regarding the OP, I'm not God, I don't think God actually posts on this board, so until God signs up, I don't think anyone here has any way to say, "Yes, this prayer will be granted, no, this one won't."

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Mom? Is that you?

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

No, it's Pop!
Now siddown and eat your vegetables! [Frown]

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
So if he's happy to suffer himself, that gives him the right to wish and pray for it to fall on others, does it?

Sadomasochism. Pure and simple.

He can keep his Bibles away from me

mrmister, you might want to take some of the advice being offered here by shipmates who've been around a little longer. Take a breath and stop with the personal attacks.

As for the accusation of hypocrisy, it's false. I think you misunderstand both him and the organisation he works with. Open Doors exists to highlight the places in the world where Christians are under persecution, and campaigns for their liberty and release.

So why did he make such a comment? Well, this is something of a guess, but one based on experience of the missions atmoshphere that he works in. He was responding to a question about whether he thought that persecution is coming to the church in the west. He, having studied this, said he thought it was, and knowing the effect of persecution on the church (not necessarily on the individual) in some ways he can see how it would strengthen and authenticate the western church.

This is neither sadomasochism, nor a conflict between his understanding of the gospel and his actions.

As for the suggestion that he shouldn't have distributed bibles to those who were officially unable to have access to them - if not him, then who?

M

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

1) It's not about proof. It's about the fact that sometimes inflicting suffering on those we love is good. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If that has been established, then that's my whole point.

2) Here we may be in agreement. As I've said several times now, there is no need to publicly broadcast your prayer's contents to the world. Especially when they involve controversial elements. Again, however, the prayer itself is not inherently evil, wrong, or misguided.

3) Is this the only prayer you yourself pray, out of curiousity?

-Digory

1) And my point is that we, as humans, can be mistaken about what suffering is going to have a positive outcome and what suffering isn't. I don't think that suffering is in and of itself good, though I believe that in the suffering God can bring about good. Which isn't the same thing, but people often confuse these two things. Which can lead to the kind of arrogance that prescribes suffering for other people.

2) Well, I can't see anything good or right about it.

3) Why do you want to know?

To add to all this, I think that Brother Andrew's basic premise that persecution always leads to revival and growth is misguided. One case in point, is the persecution of the Hugenots in France - they were completely decimated, and those that survived fled the country.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Neil Anderson of "The Bondage Breaker" fame, previously castigated on this forum by me, explains in the aforementioned book that "bad" prayers may get sort of misdirected to the Devil and used by the latter.

He also explains that the reason you sometimes wake up feeling oppressed at 3am is because that's when all the Satanists are up praying against christians.

I wonder if he realises it's actually due to all the Chinese christians having their quiet times, praying for persecution to strike the West? [Paranoid]

Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Also, criticising people for not helping people while simultaneously not helping them in any practical way (such as giving out food or money) while handing out the bibles is VERY hypocritical.

Didn't some famous religious bloke say something like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"?

Jesus. Tsk. Bloody hyopocrite. [Disappointed]

Corpus

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Too right.

As for whatsisname going on about being 20... the Bible has absolutely no respect for young people, children, or babies for that matter!

"Happy is he who dashes the little ones against the rocks" the psalmist writes.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hypocrisy is such a serious accusation. Do you know Br Andrew's values and convictions so clearly, mrmister, that you can accuse him of that. Or is it just that you do not like his theology or his priorities? Maybe, as Corpus Cani has posted, he is just following a rather authoritative lead? He's certainly been doing it for long enough.

I heard recently that the old boy has been trying to make friends with terrorists (including the late Yasser Arafat). Apparently he shares his faith with them and challenges them over hatred of others. Naive? Certainly many would say so. But I suppose the guy simply has more practice at putting himself "in harms way" than most of us do.

I think the quote in the OP was unwise - but I suspect it was truthful. There is something disarming about "sometimes I think". If you've spent a lot of time in the company of the persecuted (and Br Andrew has spent a lot more time in their company than, I suspect, anybody on this thread) maybe you identify with both their suffering and their spiritual refinement on pretty deep levels. If we are to be charged with hypocrisy for thinking thoughts, we are all hypocrites. Without exception.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Too right.

As for whatsisname going on about being 20... the Bible has absolutely no respect for young people, children, or babies for that matter!

"Happy is he who dashes the little ones against the rocks" the psalmist writes.

Aah, I'm so ickle
[Projectile]

Look, how about you stop insulting people, stop throwing random, wrong insults at people you don't know, and start answering some of the questions that have been put to you? For a start:
Do you see any value in what the bible says?
If Br Andrew didn't distribute it, who else should distribute it?

To which I'll add another:
If the answer to the first question is "No", then how much of the bible have you actually read?

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Oh, and since you've started proof texting, I'll add one of my own:
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18v3)

I doubt he was talking about people officially recognised as adults under law, though. Seems I'm still worthless [Mad]

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

"You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment..."

The hubris of youth.

As for the Bible, I don't see it as being a moral document, no.

It is, to me, not unlike an extremely bad liar that keeps changing his story.

It drips with blood, vengeance, murder, and scaremongering.

I do not need to worship the book to believe in Jesus.

And no, I don't think distributing the Bible is a particularly humanitarian thing to do. I believe it furthers particular religious and social agendas, but I don't think it improves the human condition any.

God does not need a book in someone's hand in order to be in control of the universe.

Therefore I do not feel Brother Andrew, or anyone else for that matter, should be making it their life's work to distribute that book, certainly not setting themselves up as a martyr for it, and definitely not criticising others for not doing the same, which he did in that article, which you haven't read.

And as for his wishing suffering on people? He's a hypocrite. You might disagree with that - you are entitled to your own opinion - but I've seen nothing in what you have posted that even slightly makes me change my mind.

"Brother" Andrew is a hypocrite in that he preaches love and kindness but wishes suffering on people. He might get the cat'o'nine tails out for himself, figuratively speaking, running the gauntlet to distribute bibles, but he should refrain from wishing suffering on others.

Each must carry his own cross, Jesus said...

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Didn't some famous religious bloke say something like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"?

Yes. I take this to mean that in order to live we need bread and every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, the latter not being a substitute for the former. It's the word alone that makes me think this.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

mrmister,
are you trying to achieve shipmate status before you end up in hell or sinking deep into the ocean?

And since, IYO, Br Andrew is hypocritical for providing bibles to people who needed and wanted them, but wasn't providing chips and burgers, are you managing to provide essential meals for those with malnutrition? Of course, there would be a difficulty in providing real evidence.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Didn't some famous religious bloke say something like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"?

Yes. I take this to mean that in order to live we need bread and every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, the latter not being a substitute for the former. It's the word alone that makes me think this.

Absolutely: that's why we use our differently created talents and gifts to work in various ways to help each other.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

I don't criticise people for not being martyrs.

"Brother" Andrew does!

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
And just in case you're still not clear,

wishing suffering on people is cruel.

Also, criticising people for not helping people while simultaneously not helping them in any practical way (such as giving out food or money) while handing out the bibles is VERY hypocritical.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

I can understand Mrmr's antipathy to people who smuggle Bibles. I always find it a risky and rather pointless activity. Risky for the smuggler and the smuggled to.

I know people who do it and they really believe it has value and is important. They are certainly not hypocrites!

As Christians surely we are not supposed to judge other people's motives as we haven't a clue what they are. We make assumptions and they are very often wrong. The fact that we all fall into this trap doesn't make it right.

Let's rather remain agnostic on Br Andrew's motives.

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
"You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment..."

The hubris of youth.

I don't know what you're on abut here. But please stop trying to brag authority for yourself by pouring scorn on others. How old are you, anyway? Whatever your age, it doesn't excuse you from answering direct questions.

quote:
As for the Bible, I don't see it as being a moral document, no.

It is, to me, not unlike an extremely bad liar that keeps changing his story.

It drips with blood, vengeance, murder, and scaremongering.

I do not need to worship the book to believe in Jesus.

A simple "Yes, because..." or "No, because..." would be nice?

quote:
And no, I don't think distributing the Bible is a particularly humanitarian thing to do. I believe it furthers particular religious and social agendas, but I don't think it improves the human condition any.

Agendas such as "Love your neighbour as yourself"?

quote:
God does not need a book in someone's hand in order to be in control of the universe.

[/quote]
No, but since we're living in that universe, a lot of people are kinda grateful when they're able to find out what the guy runnng the show's like?

quote:
[qb]Therefore I do not feel Brother Andrew, or anyone else for that matter, should be making it their life's work to distribute that book, certainly not setting themselves up as a martyr for it, and definitely not criticising others for not doing the same, which he did in that article, which you haven't read.

Okay, two things:
1) Stop sounding condescending because I haven't read an article which you haven't provided. That's your problem, not mine.
2)You have repeatedly called him a hypocrite because of this issue. This now seems to be because you disagree with him distributing the bible. However, to be a hypocrite, he'd have to think that people needed food far more than bibles, and that he was the man to distribute food, but distribute bibles not food anyway. If he thinks that people genuinely need bibles, and you don't, then you simply think that he is WRONG, not a HYPOCRITE. Is this clear?

quote:
"Brother" Andrew is a hypocrite in that he preaches love and kindness but wishes suffering on people.

Examples have repeatedly been given of non-hypocritical people wishing suffering on those they love. The parent smacks the child because they see it as the only way that the child is going to grow up with good qualities such as honesty, that will serve them well all their lives. Brother Andrew presumably sees persecution as the only thing which will cause the church to get its act together and, presumably, convert lots more people. The benefits of conversion, I'm sure he believes to be worth some persecution. Eternal life for starters. Now if you disagree with the benefits of conversion bit, you again think he is WRONG, not a HYPOCRITE. Before you call him a hypocrite again, please tell me exactly which sentence here you disagree with.

quote:
Each must carry his own cross, Jesus said...

You're quoting this completely out of context.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

Examples have repeatedly been given of non-hypocritical people wishing suffering on those they love. The parent smacks the child because they see it as the only way that the child is going to grow up with good qualities such as honesty, that will serve them well all their lives. Brother Andrew presumably sees persecution as the only thing which will cause the church to get its act together and, presumably, convert lots more people. The benefits of conversion, I'm sure he believes to be worth some persecution...

dinghy sailor,

I'm not sure that a parent smacking a child could be described as "wishing suffering" them, but in any case I don't think your illustration is a valid one as a parent has authority and responsibility for their child. What Brother Andrew is reported to have said, is more a like an abusive parent saying to a child "Well you haven't done anything naughty recently but I'm going to give you six of the best to keep you in line." That's the kind of memory it evokes for me anyway. I don't think a loving parent behaves in that way, even if they protest that they are a loving parent.

And to repeat what I said earlier, I really don't think it's up to Brother Andrew to decide what it would take for the western church to get it's act together. It seems to me he would be better of praying quite simply that God would help the church get its act together, and leave it up to God to choose the means.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Well said! [Smile]

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

I agree with your second paragraph. Quite how you say that a parent smacking their child is not wishing suffering them, I'm not sure, though. They are wilfully inflicting a painful experience on them, out of their own choice.

My point was merely that he's (Brother Andrew's)_ not necessarily just wishing pain on people, he's wishing joy and happiness on them, but he sees that as only being possible through specific sorts of pain first. HE sees only one possible means to that, which is where you and I would take issue that.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

"Brother" Andrew thinks his unshakeable belief in what he sees as the truth justifies his, as he sees it, efficacious means of prayer for suffering.

It's dysfunctional.

And nobody minds, because it's dressed up as religion.

But what kind of person wishes others to suffer?

Remove religion from it for a moment and consider.

To my mind, that's cruel.

There are PLENTY of Christians around that do NOT just see suffering as a means to an end, but an end in itself.

I know plenty of Christians like that.

So do plenty of other people - consider Opus Dei, for example.

While the point can indeed be pseudointellectualised, the experience of such in my view dysfunctional people is rather less entertaining, and in my view to be avoided.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
I agree with your second paragraph. Quite how you say that a parent smacking their child is not wishing suffering them, I'm not sure, though. They are wilfully inflicting a painful experience on them, out of their own choice.

My point was merely that he's (Brother Andrew's)_ not necessarily just wishing pain on people, he's wishing joy and happiness on them, but he sees that as only being possible through specific sorts of pain first. HE sees only one possible means to that, which is where you and I would take issue that.

Well it's not wishing suffering, in that it's actually causing suffering. I would say that if it's administered correctly, the amount of suffering is measured, which is a far cry from wishing indiscriminate persecution on thousands and thousands of people.

The fact that he sees persecution as a necessary precursor to blessing, and chooses to express that publically as a "prayer" seems so wrong to me. Many persecutions in church history just haven't resulted in blessing.

Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on :

quote:
The fact that he sees persecution as a necessary precursor to blessing, and chooses to express that publically as a "prayer" seems so wrong to me.

I am of the opinion that we should not ask for persecution as Christians but we should expect it.

Gracie, some questions:
Is what you see as wrong his belief alone (persecution as a necessary precursor to blessing) AND his public expression of this OR the fact that these two are combined?
I have to confess that I don't think any Christian can escape at least some suffering for Christ's sake and I also believe (however unpopular it might be, esp on the Ship!) that the cross must precede the crown.

quote:
Many persecutions in church history just haven't resulted in blessing.

An example, perhaps? How are you defining blessing here? Blessing for whom? How are you squaring this with Matt 5:10 "Blessed are the persecuted"?

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
I am of the opinion that we should not ask for persecution as Christians but we should expect it.

For starters, I don't have any problem with this. Expect persecution, yes, Jesus himself tells us to do that, but pray for it for other Christians, no, and all the more so not publicly.

quote:

Gracie, some questions:
Is what you see as wrong his belief alone (persecution as a necessary precursor to blessing) AND his public expression of this OR the fact that these two are combined?

I think all of the above. Though more specifically, Brother Andrew is talking about revival, not general blessing.

quote:

quote:
Many persecutions in church history just haven't resulted in blessing.
An example, perhaps? How are you defining blessing here? Blessing for whom? How are you squaring this with Matt 5:10 "Blessed are the persecuted"?

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between "blessedness" as in "blessed are..." and "blessing". In this context, I was thinking of the more specific "blessing" of revival as defined by Brother Andrew. And I have already mentioned the Huguenots in this post .

The Matthew 5:10 reference suggests blessing in heaven to me, not revival just round the corner. I just can't see myself praying for another St. Bartholomew's Day massacre.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

[hostly maple-lead tuque on]

So far as we know, Brother Andrew does not post on this bulletin board.

Fairly clearly, he's human, and from what I've read, intensely aware that he has fallen short of the glory of God, just like the rest of us. Including, I suppose, Mrmister.

Mrminister has made abundantly clear that he really really doesn't like Brother Andrew, and is not willing to grant Brother Andrew the same grace I hope he grants the sinners he meets day by day to be imperfect and to be different from what he, Mrmister, would like them to be.

But Brother Andrew can't answer. And none of the rest of us can answer.

So this is looking a lot like a crusade which would be a breach of Commandment 8, and from time to time has resembled a personal attack, which would be a breach of Commandment 3.

Any more and there will be a Hostly reprimand.

Talke about any number of things that might be implied by the OP, but no personal attacks, and no crusading.

John Holding
Purgatory Host

[Hostly maple-lead tuque off}

[ 01. January 2006, 18:28: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Well this is true, he's not around to reply.

But then neither is Mrs Thatcher.

Or, in fact, Jesus Christ...

but point taken.

By the way what's a maple tuque!?

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :

Jesus Christ isn't arount to reply?

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

One sec.

Hello, Jesus? Jesus, are you there? We'd quite like you to contribute to this thread if you would?

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

Sorry, I've got here a bit late.

mrmister, presumably you have already sold all you have, given the proceeds to the poor and are living a life of poverty and selfless service to the poor.

Given that you are spending a lot of time on this internet site, I'm guessing that it is safe to assume that you are not.

Therefore you have made a decision why you have not given yourself 100% to feeding the hungry in the most obvious and basic way. That might include that you think that God does not necessarily ask each of us to do the same stuff. Someone might be called to smuggle bread. Some might be called to stay at home and do other stuff (insert your own occupation here).

Surely using the same logic some people might be called to take the bible to those living in repressive regimes who do not have access to it.

People do different stuff. It seems a tad bizarre to castigate someone for something he isn't actually doing. If you don't like him why not just ignore him? He's only a glorified encylopedia salesman anyhow (according to your description)..

Certainly not a hypocrite by any definition I recognise.

Returning to the OP, therefore,

I *think* I'd agree that it is a strange thing to be praying for bad stuff to happen to someone else. On the other hand, having visited christian communities living in hard circumstances, I'd say that it is undoubtably true that they have something that we I have never experienced in the west.

IME they are a bit more ready to take a few risks, go out on a limb to try new things, much more generous with their time and finances. After some considerable thought, I conclude that this is because they have nothing to lose.

If we in our wealthy complacity could obtain a small percentage of their commitment, I think we could do the impossible.

Disclaimer: these comments only reflect the poor people I know. Of course, I recognise that there are Christians in all kinds of trouble and that there is no automatic dignity in poverty.

C

Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on :

quote:
And I have already mentioned the Huguenots in this post .

My apologies.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Mrmister --

that should have been maple- leaf [Hot and Hormonal]

The maple leaf is a symbol of Canada. Canada is a cold country and we wear tuques in the winter. You may have noticed my location in, ah, Canada. Unlike a certain Hellhost who flaunts his red maple leaf avatar everywhere while living next door instead (leaving aside a week or so last month), I only flaunt my maple leaf when I'm doing the hostly thing.

John

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

quote:
Mrmister wittered
There are PLENTY of Christians around that do NOT just see suffering as a means to an end, but an end in itself.

I know plenty of Christians like that.

So do plenty of other people - consider Opus Dei, for example.

The extent to which Opus Dei practice mortification of the flesh is a moot point, and it's certainly not a practice that I see any point in, but they certainly don't do it as an end in itself. To the extent that they do it at all, they do it as a way of getting closer to God.

If you deign to reply, can you provide non-conspiracy theorist evidence (e.g. not mentioning the Da Vinci Code...) for the extent to which Opus Dei do practice mortification of the flesh and, more importantly, evidence that they do so purely as an end in itself?

Spong

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

I like maple syrup.

It's so intimate [Razz]

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

ADMIN WARNING

When you registered to use these boards, mrmister, you agreed to abide by the Ship's 10 Commandments. Commandment 6 requires that you respect the hosts, who are here to keep these boards functioning smoothly.

You can tell when a host is posting as a host because he will normally state so explicitly. By tradition, the hosts often use some sort of unique "hostly headgear."

If you disagree with a host, you may start a thread in the Styx to discuss the matter. If you ignore official hostly directives, you are very likely to find your posting privileges suspended.

Scot
Member Admin

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

quote:
If you disagree with a host, you may start a thread in the Styx to discuss the matter. If you ignore official hostly directives, you are very likely to find your posting privileges suspended.

How did I ignore an "official hostly directive"?

I'm unclear as to what you find objectionable?

I just said I liked maple syrup.

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

You didn't quite, yet. You can tell because you are still able to post here. You did ignore my instruction to take any argument to the Styx.

If it helps, you can consider my comments general and applicable to all of the threads where hosts have warned you.

Scot
Member Admin

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

Righto. 'Nuff said.

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

This was meant to justify your comment that Opus Dei see 'suffering' as an end in itself and not a means to an end.

The page you reference lists 6 types of corporal mortification as practised by Opus Dei numeraries - the equivalent of monks/nuns. It's a site that is clearly and unambiguously anti-Opus Dei, but I agree it is not a conspiracy theorist site.

Of the six, two are not really 'mortification' at all. One is nighttime silence, which is standard monastic practice, and another is a rather weird morning ritual, but it's not much more than a dedication of oneself to God (and a way of not falling asleep again when there is no snooze button to hit).

Another two are scarcely worth a raised eyebrow - the sort of mealtime practice that we all might practice for Lent or as a New Year resolution, and that mens sana ritual that used to be so beloved of public schools, the cold shower.

That leaves the cilice and the 'discipline'. Quite apart from the fact that there are several regular posters on this board who would explain how much fun things like that can be, and that Opus Dei numeraries are just don't make the grade as submissives, these really don't amount to 'suffering'. Discomfort, yes, and they certainly don't float my boat, but they're not 'suffering'.

So you fail to answer the first criticism I raised. You don't even try to deal with the second (that this is an end in itself) but the page you reference has the following which makes it clear that it is NOT an end in itself, it is a means to an end:

quote:
Yet human diligence, with mortification, the cilice, disciplines and fasting are all worthless without you, my God."

Spong

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
That leaves the cilice and the 'discipline'. Quite apart from the fact that there are several regular posters on this board who would explain how much fun things like that can be

"Thanks for the discipline, it's very nice, but do they come in leather?"

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I read a quote from the famous "Brother Andrew", who appears to have smuggled Bibles (but not food or money) to Christians in various countries in a publication. It read as follows:

quote:
Do you think persecution is going to come to Europe and America?

Yes, and we need it. Sometimes I think, "God, hasten the day."
Source: Open Doors publication January 2006, back page, interview with "Brother Andrew"

I for one was concerned albeit unsurprised by this.

By the looks of it, the Chinese Church are praying for the same thing!

Here are two articles about it:

Click >here< and >here<

Should Brother Andrew's prayer be granted? Should he be praying this kind of thing?

Exactly what is the point of prayer?

Thoughts? Comments?

Getting back to the OP...my 2 cents...

The point of prayer is:
1) to glorify God
2) to engage in a dialogue with God
3) to ask/seek things from God

Should his (Brother Andrew's) request be granted?
I don't know. I do agree we Americans could use a wake-up call on what real persecution is. Kelly Alves's post hit the nail on the head about that. We (general population included myself in this) make comfort an idol (especially in Silicon Valley where dial-up is considered roughing it). Real life censorship of Christians in China is horrible to read about. The things that go on (just read stuff on the web, especially taken from VOM.

How God decides to move His church into our hearts is up to him. I would hope instead of telling God how to do his job (make us suffer as much as the Chinese people do when persecuted), he would pray for God to give us the passion and conviction to share the Good News to others on fire for God like many in China do (and I do personally know a couple in China from my church that do albeit they are being treated very well right now by the Chinese gov't interestly enough).

KLOVE has said that many in China thanked them for their free internet broadcast of their music (heard this on the air during a pledge drive). No KLOVE would exist here in America if we were persecuted like they are in China.

It is hard to read about and painful to watch. I have a hard time even thinking about it. And I do pray for them when I do remember to for God to spare them and help China to become more like Albania is...a free place to share religion that used to be oppessive.

I think the motivation behind the prayer is an interesting thing to contemplate. Prayer for America to have more and more Christians stepping up to the plate would be a wonderful thing. But I personally already realise God has blessed my country, warts and all, with freedom to practice my religion and share the Gospel wherever I choose, even in jail. And that is precious to me.

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :

Don't know whether this is useful in contemplating what Brother Andrew's motives may be. (Though I don't know, I have never really met or read anything by him).

I have a friend who has a serious gambling problem. He is not all that wealthy - though his family were. He had managed to run up £100,000 of debt and was showing no signs of admitting his problem..

I found myself praying that he would be made bankrupt for his own good.

That was a few years ago, now his debt is nearer £250,000 and his family have lent him significant amounts too.

Now it looks likely he will go bankrupt shortly as his credit runs out. But now, there may also be counts of fraud to answer.

I felt awful praying for his downfall years ago, but it would have been so much better for him had it happened then.

[ 02. January 2006, 08:58: Message edited by: Evo1 ]

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

Thanks Evo1, I think your friend's story shows a good perspective on the issue at hand.

I can't see the point in praying for persecution; it sounds rather like praying that I will lose my job so that God will teach me something. If the church acts as it should, and stands as a sanctified example to the world, it will be persecuted as a matter of course. How God chooses to use that persecution to bless the church is up to him. Also for individuals, holiness often leads to persecution, even from within the church. Praying for godly churches, and that those who do happen to be persecuted will bear up in an honourable, not vindictive, fashion and have their faith refined by the process, are much better things to pray for.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

But folks,

It sounds as though some of you are saying that Evo1 should have prayed for his friend to simply receive a check for £100,000 so he'd be out of debt.

But I think we'd all agree how detrimental this could have been for the person--to avoid all consequences of his decisions and never learn about debt.

Bankruptcy, though tough, may have been the best possible lesson for the person to learn for future decision-making. If that's the case, then Evo's prayer was perfect for the situation. And if that is what God was wanting for the person, who are we to trust or know if Evo was simply aligning his prayers to what God wanted?

In the same way, Br. Andrew may have in fact been aligning himself with what God wants for his people. How are we to know?

I say, let him pray for what he wants to pray for. I trust my God enough to know he'll only give me what I need, regardless of Br. Andrew's prayers.

-Digory

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

I say, let him pray for what he wants to pray for. I trust my God enough to know he'll only give me what I need, regardless of Br. Andrew's prayers.

As I've said before, anyone is free to pray whatever they like in private. When someone makes known publicly what they are praying they are doing more than praying in my opinion.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that Evo1 should have prayed for his friend to receive a huge sum of money to get rid of his debt.

Earlier on, you asked me if I only ever prayed a certain prayer. I asked you why you wanted to know before giving an answer, but you didn't answer my question so I didn't take it any further.

This latest exchange has reminded me of that and of someone I knew who died from an alcohol-induced coma and who wasn't found for at least a couple of weeks. I remember praying for this person, that God would intervene to deliver him from his alcohol problem. I would never have presumed to pray for his death, but frankly I found the turn of events very scary.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

I say, let him pray for what he wants to pray for. I trust my God enough to know he'll only give me what I need, regardless of Br. Andrew's prayers.

As I've said before, anyone is free to pray whatever they like in private. When someone makes known publicly what they are praying they are doing more than praying in my opinion.

We're agreed on this. Most people on the thread are talking about the wrongness of praying the prayer at all, not just the public-ness of the prayer.

quote:
Earlier on, you asked me if I only ever prayed a certain prayer. I asked you why you wanted to know before giving an answer, but you didn't answer my question so I didn't take it any further.

It was in response to you saying it would be better to simply pray that one prayer. But assuming that you don't only pray that prayer, then obviously there are times when other prayers are called for/appropriate. It's probably up to the individual who is praying to make that decision as to the appropriateness of the prayer. (But like we've said several times, we agree that the public nature of the controversial prayer was probably uncalled for.)

quote:
This latest exchange has reminded me of that and of someone I knew who died from an alcohol-induced coma and who wasn't found for at least a couple of weeks. I remember praying for this person, that God would intervene to deliver him from his alcohol problem. I would never have presumed to pray for his death, but frankly I found the turn of events very scary.

Well, no. Death has no rehabilitative quality. But praying that someone with an alcohol problem would receive a DUI and be mandated to treatment may not be out of the question for some desperate family members/friends. (I work for a drug/alcohol treatment center and have seen this very behavior many times, in fact.)

-Digory

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Well, no. Death has no rehabilitative quality.

Unless you believe that death is the ultimate rehabilitation! And you think that is the only way out for them! That is a problem I have with the substance of Brother Andrew's prayer, as persecution usually leads to the death of some. cf. also my comments on the Huguenots...

[ 02. January 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: Gracie ]

Posted by mrmister (# 10850) on :

"Off with his head!" cried the Judge. "That'll learn him"

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

A couple of points:-

1. As others have pointed out, the countries to which Brother Andrew has smuggled Bibles, whilst not exactly being the aflluent West, were by and large not exactly starving either, and I'm therefore not sure what the point is re him not bringing food or money to those who already had both. To my mind, there's not a lot of point in smuggling food to people who aren't starving and there is quite a large point in smuggling Bibles to those who aren't able to have access to them.

And, no, the citizens of the former eastern bloc were not starving. I don't know whether I qualify as young, old or middle-aged as far as MrMr is concerned but I've been there on several occasions and can attest to this. My first wife was Russian and on the first couple of times I visited her family I did bring Bibles with me...er...because they didn't have any nor were they particularly available. I didn't bring food - because they not only had that but in fact also fed me whilst I was there with no difficulty. I didn't bring money either - because they had a sufficiency of that too and also the currencies were not then convertible so there was no point.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite then.

2. Persecution - yes, an unfortunate choice of words by Brother Andrew if he indeed prayed that. But I think I can see what he meant and, if so, his motives were honourable; I would be inclined to put it down to a bit of 'Duke of Edinburgh-itis'

But then again I'm a generous bloke - as well as a hypocrite - apparently.

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

I've just read the quote again and it doesn't actually say the Brother Andrew 'prays for persecution' just that he honestly admits that 'sometimes' (ie not ALL the time) he 'thinks' (not prays) 'hasten the day'.

And no, I don't think that thinking something whilst God is 'in earshot' is the same as actually asking for something in prayer... (after all, He is there all the time eh what?)
sounds more like on occasions Brother Andrew gets frustrated, as we all do, at having to be patient to see progress -so he's thinking -hurry up and give us lazy Christians a kick up the backside to get us practicing what we preach instead of dwindling and dying of apathy.

Kind of a feisty religious 'bring it on!'

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
I've just read the quote again and it doesn't actually say the Brother Andrew 'prays for persecution' just that he honestly admits that 'sometimes' (ie not ALL the time) he 'thinks' (not prays) 'hasten the day'.

Actually what he says he thinks, is not "hasten the day, but "God, hasten the day" which sound pretty much like prayer from my perspective.

Posted by religious kittens (# 9927) on :

Not sure if this post is still really active but here's my pennysworth.

Isn't there a difference between intercessory prayer (i.e. please God make this happen) and what I might call conversation prayer.

Example: I've had a very stressful day at work and I can't stand my colleague. If I pray:

"God I can't stand my workmate. Sometimes I wish she'd just drop dead."

then i wouldn't class this as intercessory prayer. Nor am I claiming this is an example of deep holy prayer but I suspect most of us have felt something similar at some point.

Bringing this bk to Brother Andrew therefore it doesn't read as if he's praying in an intercessory way

"God bring persecution"
but rather by way of conversation

"God it frustrates me the way the WEstern church behaves. Sometimes I wish you'd bring persecution to give it a short sharp shock."

See the difference?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Well, yes, of course. And I suppose, God forgive me, that I do sometimes wish terrible things on people. I was cut up on the road by a driver, once, and to make matters worse the guy had an Ichthus fish on his boot! I horrified myself by blurting out "I hope your piles open!!!"

It didn't show me at my best... [Hot and Hormonal]

And I would have been appalled if it had happened. [Two face]

No, really, God forgive me [Help]

You're right. It wasn't a prayer. But there is the point that I moved on immediately to feeling bad about having thought it, and knowing of an absolute certainty that I wouldn't want it to happen.

That, I think, would be the only way in which a Christian should pray for the Church in the West to be persecuted. As a fugitive thought you instantly know is unworthy.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Because of passages like Timothy 1:18-20, I never have thought it a problem to wish -- to pray -- that someone "see the light". Even if it means they'll suffer a bit to make it happen.

'Course I always hope they'll get the picture before their piles open.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Janine:

quote:
'Course I always hope they'll get the picture before their piles open.

And yet there's Ps. 78: 66:

quote:
And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach.

And I Sam 5: 9:

quote:
[9]... and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.

Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :

I dont know if we should be persecuted or not but you would not believe the number of times I have heard people say we *are* perseucted. I have heard evangelicals and fundamentalists whine about being persecuted when the real truth is that they have to share Jesus with us liberals and have to give up running the show. I don't have a problem with evangelicals but I have to draw the line when I hear things like this-Christians are *not* persecuted here in America in the least. It might be difficult sometimes, but since when has being a Christian been easy? I don't know.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Brother Andrew is a pompous dork.

I consider the source and have a good laugh.

Go ahead, Bro, knock yourself out.

FF

Posted by molitva (# 7859) on :

The second link in the OP (the first was broken) gives a thoughtful and interesting commentary on the Chinese Christian remark about praying for persecution. It explicitly rejects the logic of Brother Andrew's position, at least as imputed in parts of this thread. Among other things, the article says:

quote:
So, if persecution has been good for Christianity, does this mean we should cultivate martyrdom? Not at all. It was good that Rome finally legalized Christianity (though this would have unintended bad consequences). Today we should work to promote religious freedom around the world, including China. And we should resist—while we can—the assaults on that freedom in our own country. Nor should individual Christians try to turn themselves into "martyrs" through obnoxious or illegal behavior.

The Reformers made it clear that "self-chosen" suffering—as in asceticism, self-flagellation, and purposefully getting in trouble—has no spiritual value and can contribute to works righteousness and hypocrisy. But suffering that we do not want, enduring trials and tribulations out of our control, can be a refining fire, forcing us to depend ever more on Christ.

(emphasis added)

Thanks for providing this thought-provoking link, MrMister.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
I dont know if we should be persecuted or not but you would not believe the number of times I have heard people say we *are* perseucted. I have heard evangelicals and fundamentalists whine about being persecuted when the real truth is that they have to share Jesus with us liberals and have to give up running the show. I don't have a problem with evangelicals but I have to draw the line when I hear things like this-Christians are *not* persecuted here in America in the least. It might be difficult sometimes, but since when has being a Christian been easy? I don't know.

Frankly, I think a lot of US evangelicals are happy as pie with the little inconveniences the strict secularists or PC police put them through. I mean, having to listen to "Happy Holidays" from strangers for the last two months! [Eek!]

The anti-Christ is on the move fur shure- get those evangelical stormtroopers on the street corners; got to beat the race to Armaggedon!

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Of course, Jesus, in the Lord's Prayer no less, would have us pray not to be led into testing...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0