posted
Could not find this topic so am placing it here. Is it not leaders who make history, past and future? Also this forum seems sadly underused. Is there any human activity where those mostly in the Spirit can be seen so different from those mostly in the world, as the practice of leadership? More to the point of this site, I believe there is no subject on which the future of the in house church will more depend. Case in point, the crazy cult in the news was mentioned at men's discussion Saturday. Someone made a good observation, I think it was me, that " If you find you are following one man, right away you know you're in trouble." Christians, we know, intend to only follow Christ. But how can this work in practice? How can this practice be used by church in house? I should first state clearly I am convinced that church in house is the form, the means and the method most agreeable to the Spirit's treatment of the ills of the body of Christ. That does not mean the we, as the Spirit's partner, won't blow it. It takes a special relationship with the Spirit to even be concerned about this matter, so God bless you for that. For now I would like to end this post with a simple description, formula if you will, to consider. I think it helps me keep the goal of christian leadership in mind: one leader , in all, expressed thru each. No. not a bible quote, but I hope an fair expression of faith. Rich 1
posted
"One leader, in all, expressed through each." Excellent Rich! I think you've nailed it quite well.
Practically speaking, there are few, from what I've seen, who walk in the Spirit at any depth in our time. In a house church setting there are often no men to truly set an example. Where are the disciples? Leadership in the Spirit is rare. I'm speaking apart from natural leadership. This is endemic in the church as a whole. If we don't want to be religious and act holy during the meetings...rather than just being our carnal selves... we must then be holy at all times. When someone moves in this direction he is usually seen as a leader and somewhat idealized. As in...wow I wish I loved God that much! If we all look to Christ shouldn't we be ashamed of our continued carnality in the face of such grace as we are given through Christ? How can we establish holiness in the church as a norm in this day and age? To me, that is the principle behind leadership. Those who go before us are our leaders, and this culminating in Christ. If we just moved the self aside and let Christ reign in our mortal bodies, then the maxim at the top of this page would finally bear fruit in truth. We need a revival of holiness. Just a few thoughts.
quote:Rich 1 said: I think it helps me keep the goal of Christian leadership in mind: one [L]eader , in all, expressed thru each. No. not a bible quote, but I hope a fair expression of faith.
Not a quote Rich 1, but perfectly Biblical!!!
Ephesians 4: 1)Then I am beside calling you. (I, the bound one in The Master.) You are worthy of the calling of which you are called to walk; 2)with every humility and meekness, with patience, tolerating one another in love. 3)Be diligent to keep the oneness of The Spirit in the together bond of peace, 4)one Body and one Spirit (according as you were called) in one expectation of the calling you have; 5)one Master, one belief, one baptism, 6)one God and Father of all, The One over all, and through all, and in all.
From the Greek Interlinear,
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Great stuff guys- in all the threads you have been chatting on. I haven't had time to add much, but much of what has been said has given me much to meditate on as I go about my day .
I am more and more convinced of the importance of believers- both individualy and corporately- grasping and LIVING OUT this truth- "one leader expressed thru each". As Mathew quoted from the GI- God is IN us!!!! We need to allow him to be over us, and opperate through us!!!! As spoken of earlier in the quoted passage, this is what will bring real unity! We have got to stop relying on what is easier, more comfortable and more attractive to our flesh- relying on ourselves, and/or other humans for leadership! This is the all too easy trap that the "religous" (incluing each of us if we aren't careful) community falls into.
I also liked your statement from another thread, Rich (your just quite the one liner these days ), where you said that when it comes to reigion/ritual, sometimes bitterness is good. It can lead us to surrender to the Lord- and then eventually to change!!! It reminded me of verses from the gospels where it says that Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but a sword- separating even relatives. Where does this fit in with Jesus, the prince of peace; and the idea of christian love and unity?
quote:Rich 1 asked: "Is there any human activity where those mostly in the Spirit can be seen so different from those mostly in the world, as the practice of leadership?"
I am sad to say I have only known two "servant leaders" in my almost 35 years of going to church. I am happy to say that I consider both of these men my friends, although we have not seen each other in years.
What about you JeanneH? And you as well Rich 1? Have you all seen a great difference in the home fellowship realm? Anyone else?
Matthew
Oh, and one more thing... my "rendition" from the Interlinear is an attempt to "de-Yoda" the text. Harder to understand it is, in its Interlinear form. Confusing it can be! Yes, He he!
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Quick reply; Most hopeful signs I've seen have been right here the past 2 weeks! MY point; How do we MODEL FOR OTHERS WHAT WE HAVE ONLY READ ABOUT, NOT HAVING SEEN SUCH LEADERSHIP OURSELVES? It is this structure which gives us the opportunity. How do we break the cycle of monkey see, monkey do? I am optimistic, I do believe in THE MISSION (my term for reform, actually resurrection of THE BODY) We know what needs to go- do we have a vision of how church will look in the future? I KNOW WE ARE A WORK IN PROGRESS. I guess what I'm asking is are we looking forward instead of back where we came from?
In one post Jeanne said a good guide would be do the opposite of whatever "THEY" do. I agee! Could we make that a little more specific?
I found in the Rank in the Church topic a proposed top ten list(my term)for house churches.(by Jeff,I think) could we consider that? Rich
posted
Ummm, where have I seen something like....I thought Jeanne told you to simplify! But seriously, sort of, I do believe those do qualify under our Big Church/do opposite guidelines. And there may be some biblical basis. So what I'm thinking about is your number 3.
Let me give a recent example. I noticed that some older posts had some conflicts, shall we say, over scripture. This made me think of what would also be a 3 step approach:
1) Say what you think, 2) I say what I think, 3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 as needed
Then I thought hey, that's the system we are tryimg to practice here! Then I thought about communications between house churches, but that's another subject. Would you check out: JeffL 2-10-2008 09:06 (if posts had reference #s-,are you reading David?) I'd like your reaction to the list. Rich 1
The greatest 2 commandments are a great place to start I think! They are one of the 7 commands of Christ that Laurie Ann wrote in this forum one time. I liked them so much as a basic guide that I printed them out. I have them here in front of me, but I don't really want to re-type them- and I am not sure what thread they are in- Lauie Ann can you help out here?
The idea behind them is attempting to follow what Jesus told us to do before his assention- making disciples, and teaching them all Jesus had commanded.
Another thing that I have run accross recently (I think it may have been from the Dawn Ministries website) is the idea that the Church has done a fairly good job of holding to Apostolic doctrine since the early church. Not always of course, but in general, the gospel message as preached in the early church has been maintained. They have not, however, held to apostolic tradition nearly as well. There are many places that Paul tells the churchs to imitate him- to do things the way they had seen them done. I think there is something to this- looking at:
1. What are the commands that Christ told us to teach others, and
2. How did the apostles and the early church model doing this?
For example, Christ clearly commanded us to take communion- the appostles and early church moldeled how to take it.
Another example, Christ commanded us to make disciples- the apostles and early church modeled achieving this through small, participatory meetings where the Holy Spirit gifts and uses each believer to build up the others toward spiritual maturity and works of service.
BTW- I think my statement about doing things oppositely from the traditional church may have come accross a bit harsh. I meant that worldly wisdom is in direct opposition to Godly wisdom, and that the IC does follow worldly wisdom sometimes and in some ways (of course this varies greatly from church to church). An example here is how the early church taught and modeled the priesthood of all believers- an idea which then got turned on it's head- but then came back around (at least in part) during the reformation. So, the idea isn't- what does the IC do and how can we do it oppositely- but, what do we see modeled in the early church and how is that similar, or different from what we have previously experienced in the IC?
posted
One more quick thought- I think what John 2 wrot in this thread is HUGE!!! We need to EACH become leaders- not in the worldly sense of good looks, talent, intelligence, and charisma- but in the sense that John spoke of. We need to be WILLNG to SURRENDER ourselves completely to Him- that we might learn how to rely not on ourselves but on Him, each moment of every day! Gosh, what would happen then?
quote:JeffL said, in another time and another place: 1) We must never feel that we only have the truth and others do not 2) We must never feel that we have learned all there is to learn 3) We must never exercise anathema simply because someone doesn't agree exactly with our beliefs 4) The home must become the property of the "church" 5) We must never exercise privilege based on home ownership 6) We must accept anyone who comes to learn 7) We must never strive to build our numbers for the sake of numbers alone 8) We must never come to the place where we are afraid to speak the truth but we must never, never come to the place where we will not hear the truth 9) We must never allow emotions and feelings to rule the day so that we waffle between like and dis-like of others depending on whether they please us or not 10) Once committed the home must become a sanctuary for all; so a spirit of tranquility and peace must always prevail.
I brought them them here. Maybe that will help.
So, I'll take a few moments to address each one. You may not like what you see. 1 and 2: simplistic logic. 3: if one and two are true, then why have number three? 4: not a chance! 5: define "privilege". 6: add "and grow". 7: stop at "We must never strive". 8: excluded by 1 & 2! ...besides, who's "truth" should we go by? 9: Should not even be an issue... and 10: see number 4.
Be blessed, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
quote:JeanneH asked: We need to be WILLNG to SURRENDER ourselves completely to Him- that we might learn how to rely not on ourselves but on Him, each moment of every day! Gosh, what would happen then?
Hey JeanneH, I'm sorry to say, but I tried that ...and it almost killed me. I think the problem was: 1.) I wasn't hearing correctly. 2.) God allows things to happen in our lives that WILL destroy us. 3.) I wasn't hearing correctly. 4.) God's idea of fun is watching us suffer. 5.) I wasn't hearing correctly. 6.) God is abusive. 7.) I wasn't hearing correctly. 8.)Nothing is ever good enough for God. 9.) I wasn't hearing correctly. Or, number 10.) I wasn't hearing correctly.
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Ah, the glorious vastness of the Kingdom. You make such good clear points, Jeanne.(bit of a one liner,yourself) In my words,I feel you are making a great point about scriture that we hardly, if ever, hear; THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF SCRIPTURE TO TEACH ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS. Didn't mean to make it capitals, but will let it stand. You might say Jesus gives the objectives, apostles show us methods. Agree the clear gap is at the apostolic level. Christian churches do SAY christian things at some time or other,along with a lot of other stuff. As far as I can tell, that's where we all got our basic training, for good or bad, and then God can make all things work for good.
However, does not the truth of John's/your part2post show the churches core failure to make HIS WORDS LIVE,past the apostolic period: that you and I and each and everyone Can do this. Are to do this. That His story is an ACTION adventure, and so shall our stories be. No longer audience, now ACT-ors The 2 weaknesses, or flaws may be linked, cause and effect.
Thank God His word endures. We have a chance to make it come alive once again. Rich 1
I like your points about Jeffs points for the most part, accept I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jeffs points 4 and 10. What is the temple in the new t. era- where does God reside? In believers! Where do christians live? Mostly in homes! So in that way the home is the property of the church, and a sanctuary (a refuge- a safe place for believers to gather). Peace, especially in the absence of tranquility, is a mark of Gods presence I think .
I don't know what happened in your life to turn you off of the idea of surrendering your life to God and learning to rely on him daily. You mentioned not hearing His voice correctly- but since I have known you I have seen you hear and respond to Gods voice correctly quite often! Your clarity in understanding Gods word, and helping us all to discern His voice from it has been such a blessing to me!!!! I have heard Gods voice to me through you on more than one occasion!!!!
posted
I agree with the spirit of Jeff's list. Point #4 should have the proviso that a man's family must come before the church. I didn't say before the Lord Himself. I have a duty to my own family that I do not have towards others. Otherwise confusion sets in and there's the devil to pay, so to speak. I made this mistake and paid dearly for it. It is Christ's church and no one can shepherd it as well as He. Nor should anyone try to take His place. Otherwise I agree with the other points in principle.
I like your points about Jeff's points for the most part, accept I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jeff's points 4 and 10.
There are so very few "Christians" I would want in my home, that's all. I'm sorry to say that, but it has been my experience that there are almost no Christians that act anything like The Lord does. For instance, since my wife was not raised in church, she is just now getting the crash course in the "Christian behavior" of we-acted-like-your-friend- but-if-you-don't-come-to-our-group, have-a-nice-life.
quote:You mentioned not hearing His voice correctly- but since I have known you I have seen you hear and respond to Gods voice correctly quite often! Your clarity in understanding Gods word, and helping us all to discern His voice from it has been such a blessing to me!!!! I have heard Gods voice to me through you on more than one occasion!!!!
Well, thank you very much! What a blessing to know that!!! However, you did not know me before. I was much less concerned with what The Bible said, and much more concerned with what I thought I was hearing The Lord say to me in the moment (His "Word"). I have a pretty good grasp on Scripture, but His "Word" can be very hard to hear.
Even the King James folks knew the difference between Scripture and "The Word of God." I have not studied this out, but I understand there is a great difference. The Scriptures are there for us to read, but His Word is spoken to us both directly and through others (kinda like you say I'm doing at times). This is where I so missed it. I'm just afraid to miss it again, that's all! I feel this is a great wisdom ...not to be casual with the things of God, or "thus saith The Lord".
Be blessed, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
Just a quick word about "the list." The principle behind the list, and especially numbers 4,5, and 9, is that once we have decided to dedicate (read open) our home to become a place of worship (read fellowship of saints for purpose of honoring the Lord) it no longer belongs to us (except legally). Though we still own it with respect to human law we no longer own it with respect to what transpires there in the Lord's name. If we exert our rights (read privilege) as legal owners to expel someone who disagrees with our program or our beliefs then suddenly we are no better than the IC. We are now taking to ourselves the prerogative of God who alone governs His body. As a matter of fact, even if we give the impression that we would exercise such privilege we have stepped over the limits. Does this make any sense to you?
The problem is how do we regulate who and what invades our homes without becoming lord over the body? If we exercise our prerogatives as legal owner then we establish the right of the IC to do the same thing. And, how would you terminate such an agreement? The only method I can think of, in both cases, is to have the body govern itself. There should be agreement among the body. What if they agree to dis-fellowship you but keep the home? Would you consent? Now you have a real problem.
I guess at the heart of my thoughts is this question. What if a person who held what you considered false doctrines were to come to fellowship with you in your home? What if they were forthright with their beliefs? What if they stood their ground and refused to adopt the doctrines of the body in general? Would this person be viewed as an heretic and expelled? Does that then make us judges of the Word of God? This is a very touchy subject because we have so many staunch views of truth. It seems we all act as leaders though we shy away from the title.
Just a few words about surrender. It is a miserable person who tries to be Christian but refuses to surrender to God. Unless you "die" you cannot truly live. A strange teaching indeed, but true.
quote:JeffL said: Just a quick word about "the list." The principle behind the list, and especially numbers 4,5, and 9, is that once we have decided to dedicate (read open) our home to become a place of worship (read fellowship of saints for purpose of honoring the Lord) it no longer belongs to us (except legally).
This was never done. We have no example of this. I think fellowshipping from house to house solves this problem in its entirety! If a person falls into sin, we simply "no not so much as to eat" with them. We stop going to there home. End of problem.
quote:I guess at the heart of my thoughts is this question. What if a person who held what you considered false doctrines were to come to fellowship with you in your home? What if they were forthright with their beliefs? What if they stood their ground and refused to adopt the doctrines of the body in general? Would this person be viewed as an heretic and expelled?
Again this entire problem is solved by going from house to house to fellowship, and then not just to have traditional church in someone's house. Why waste my time driving all over the place, when I can walk across the street and waste my time in an IC?
quote:Just a few words about surrender. It is a miserable person who tries to be Christian but refuses to surrender to God. Unless you "die" you cannot truly live. A strange teaching indeed, but true.
True. However, there is a big difference between "suffering for The Lord" and being sadomasochistic.
May The Lord bless you JeffL, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
Anyway, I think the point we need to focus on is just because we hate the structure of BIG CHURCH(I keep changing what I call it just to keep you on your toes)should we do away with structure? Matthew has every right to call his flexible, moving gatherings church, assuming there is some connection to Christ. IF inhouse is indeed the better way to do "gatherings" then I am thinking of the expanded meaning of that word. WE are using it as "WE GET TOGETHER AGAIN. How about "Its time for the harvest boys!"
What I am thinking of is some structure which can be interactive with the world. A key concept I think is invitational. We are talking about FIRST THURSDAY OF THE MONTH IS OPEN HOUSE. What do you think? Rich
I used my initials for a long time but it seemed everyone was using a first name--which seems less formal and more friendly. So I changed mine. Don't worry. All my posts also changed. And, though I don't mind if you folks know who I am and where I live it would probably be wise to remain somewhat anonymous to the casual browser or "trouble-maker."
posted
Jeff, I see you have a really good heart, as you struggle to make sense of expectations of fellowship, within the context of your experience, and your hopes. It is also true that I continue to work within the carcass,(had to look it up, never used that word before) and its not a pretty sight. I know nobody asks, but this is how we operate. If you say Jesus is my Superior and Protector but I don't.....well, we have a basis to talk about anything and everything. Ok,not too weird, but what I don't see is any basis for a time limit.I only see things like: a day is like a thousand years, or no, 70 times 7.
It is only if a person insists "That christguy is just bull," that there is simply no basis to go further with them, at that time. That's when it is up to God to wack 'em with a spiritual 2 by 4. If Christ has only one unforgivable sin, not sure exactly how we get to have more than one.
Final point, any record of, or anyone know of any means of winning someone over after they are "expelled?" Final final point: consider the witness power of winning over the doubting Thomas. Rich
Hi Jeff! Yes, church discipline in a house church- that is a difficult one! It isn't an issue I have encountered yet, but I guess for the most part I agree with what I think I hear Rich saying, and what I think I heard from your 10 poits- to commit to loving one another and being open to what the Spirit might be saying to us through others differing understandings of the word. Now if we find that someone seems to be blatently off base on the gospel message and intent on pushing that agenda on others, or flaunting their obviously sinful behavior and claiming "freedom" as their excuse (2 situations I have read of in the new testament) than it is a different story. And I have no idea how I would deal with either to tell you the truth. I guess we as a church would pray and then deal with it at that time. Which brings me to the other subject at hand- structure.
I think this subject is more timely for where our church fellowship is at right now. How much, and what sort of structure is best? Which goes back to what we were talking about before when I brought up apostolic tradition. Basicaly, what can we glean from the way "church" was done in the early church? What sort of structure, or lack there of do we see back then? I think that is why Mathew has been a bit discouraged by his house church experience- because the house church he has gone to structures themselves somewhat like a small IC in someones home (is this right Mathew?). I have no problem with the "house to house" mentality, but I think the early church opperated out of specific peoples homes as well (greet the house that meets in___ house). I would love to hear what anyone has seen as they have read the word in reguards to how the early church opperated and structured themeselves. Here is a couple of things I would put on such a list:
1. Participatory- each bringing something to the meeting- each having and using thier spiritual gifts.
2. Non-heirarchical- see "it's rank in the church" thread .
3. order within the sharing of spiritual gifts is common curtesy- ex. one should speak at a time.
quote:JeanneH said: I think that is why Mathew has been a bit discouraged by his house church experience- because the house church he has gone to structures themselves somewhat like a small IC in someones home (is this right Mathew?).
This is a very fair assessment of the facts. However, there is also "something else" wrong that I'm trying to understand.
quote: I have no problem with the "house to house" mentality, but I think the early church operated out of specific peoples homes as well (greet the house that meets in___ house).
My only comment here is that you are correct, there is later mention of the church meeting in specific homes. However, there is also specific mention of problems that were already arising [speculation warning] possibly because of this. The Church in early Acts was: active, growing exponentially, and constantly in motion. The questions are; What happened? When did it happen?
My question is simple. Is there any mention of The Church being as healthy after (the commissioners and learners) began to try to organize things ...as it was before they began doing that? I have yet been able to find an example. Do you know of one?
Be blessed, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
Brian H. talked last week about how the "haves" of the early church had to start selling off their stuff to support people who were "living on the dole" in Jerusalem.
They had experienced something wonderful, and didn't want to leave. Understandable... God raised up persecution to scatter them.
While those who were generous ought to be honored, Paul later addressed this limitation with his wise words, "If a man won't work, he won't eat." The early church was not supposed to be "communistic", because communism doesn't work. Sharing during a crisis is completely different from rewarding sloth.
It was a problem that people got stuck, "sitting around enjoying one another" when there was a lost world to win.
Sometimes, we must remind ourselves that Acts is a record of what happened, not necessarily what "should" happen.
So, I think we should question whether "the church that meets" was a fixed group, or simply a base of operation that could serve as a communications point. Perhaps the "radio shack" concept (in the military sense, not the store). Paul's letters were to begin there and be disseminated to "the saints scattered" maybe?
-------------------- Posing as an Ordinary Housewife :)
posted
Very good points Laurie Ann! I'm presently reading a book that was a reading assignment for our children entitled "through the gates of splendor". Have you heard of it. It involves some missionaries to Ecuador; 4 of which gave their lives to spread the gospel. I'm soaking in the mentality that these people had back in the 50's about going out and spreading the gospel where no one had gone before. You're allusion to the military is very apropos I think. We are to advance the kingdom armed with our spiritual weapons. No one involved in this type of warfare gets tangled up with the affairs of this life. We are to make beachheads for the kingdom. The HC mentality needs to include the gaining of territory and people for the Lord. We're to reach out to the lost in the world. We are missionaries in this life. And the time is getting short.
quote:Laurie Ann said: Good speculations, Matthew!
Hey Laurie Ann, ...and therein lies the problem. As you have shown, the exact opposite speculation can be made. That was really cool, what a total flip! The truth is there is no statement of any definite nature to support any claim. I think that's good, because then we are free to do what The Lord directs, and no one can point to a place in Scripture where we are "right" or "wrong." Isn't it wonderful that the traditional [IC] church can be no more supported or condemned than the home church? It is obviously what is going on in them that is the important thing!
Be blessed, Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
Are you of the opinion that we are not in the last days? I know people have been saying that for a long time, now. But never have we been closer than today. The time is short, is a biblical idea anyway...as in redeem the time etc. Good to hear from you again.
No, I realize that the Bible tells us we are in the last days. But has it become a thing of spiritual correctness or so much religious rhetoric? Or, can we convict others Biblically? Why is Jesus our High Priest? What is the work of the High Priest? When and where does He work?
Just some thoughts. Don't intend to detour this topic.
I like to think of church discipline as a tool for convicting someone of their error and not punishment. We can do great harm by allowing someone captive to sin to remain in good standing. First, we are not truthful with them regarding their true condition which is not loving at all. Paul said to turn them over to the devil--or, let them know who is their commander. Second, others will tend to disregard sin as the killer it is if blatant sin is treated as "no big deal." The Wise Preacher wrote that men are emboldened to sin because punishment does not come swiftly.
Perhaps we are too often guided by a spirit of self-righteousness, which loves to find fault and condemn others, and this damages the effect of Biblical discipline. If our discipline were guided by love then we could approach the one in error with compassion yet firmness. A Proverb compares the kisses of an enemy to the correction of a friend. A true friend will love you enough to be honest, is my thinking. We tend to shun confrontation. But confrontation is often necessary.
Does choosing the easy path show we love self more than our so-called friend? Are we more willing that they suffer loss rather than risk loosing their friendship? Someone once said, "People don't care what you know unless they know that you care." I guess it would be good to have a relationship with the person first.
posted
Ummm. "Last days" and us "convicting others." Diversionary tactics of the institutional church,yes or no? They got a million of them. (Catholics have no monopoly) I would define them, if anybody cares, as anything which causes us to take our eye off the prize: the simple message of Christ. Yes, we love to try to figure it all out. Great,as long as we don't claim that we have. As far as convicting, please let me know if you see me make that claim. Why should we jump on one for something they do, but not for all they were told to do,and ignore? Easier to be critical of a s,scratch that, a disobedience that does not trouble ourselves at the moment? The old church way always needed enemies, do we? As for me, I only have one Enemy.
Read a post 3 weeks ago, said something in Revelation made some difference. Not to me. My operating principle: this could be my last day, so get out of the way. As for the plural, check with Father, I hear He is the only one who knows. As always, yours in Christ(I hope) Rich
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm sorry to say that, but it has been my experience that there are almost no Christians that act anything like The Lord does. For instance, since my wife was not raised in church, she is just now getting the crash course in the "Christian behavior" of we-acted-like-your-friend- but-if-you-don't-come-to-our-group, have-a-nice-life.
