Dear Mike:
Perhaps JT's
half smirk of contempt, in the spirit of which he
proposed to overthrow the necessary implications of the elements to
which he
continues so tenaciously to hold, escaped you as you read what he wrote
to
me. But it did not escape me. It was that attitude to which I was responding
in kind, without either 'insincerity or uncertainty'. I told you that
I am
open, or that at least I wish to be. I am not aware of anything wrong
about
what I believe, or about what I wrote to JT or anyone else about what
I
believe. In fact I am amazed that the things are not immediately obvious
to
anyone who has spent so much of his life paying attention to the Bible!
So
what is there for me to retract? In what am I wrong? If I have spoken
wrongly, then bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, then why do
you
strike me?
Let me tell
you another thing about JT. In 1983 he responded very
briefly but with enthusiasm to the Way implicit in the Scriptures,
the Way
discovered and demonstrated only by the ascription of 'spirituality',
which
is figuratively, to the Scriptures, whose corresponding 'spirituality'
of
meaning can be derived only by interpretation, a 'comparing of spiritual
things with spiritual' that characterizes the conversation and the
exchanging
of wisdom among the mature. In his enthusiasm he even referred to me
the
brother whose faithful partnership has been to me the foremost blessing
of my
life over the past sixteen years, Rob Machell. Very shortly thereafter,
however, he pulled away, apparently, for what appears to us to have
been the
praise of men and the place of honor in the local church, the place
one loses
by necessity if he embraces the doctrine of this Gospel within the
Gospel. As
far as I am concerned, as many antichrists had already come in the
apostles'
own times, so JT is not the only one whose treachery I have tasted
in the
course of my appointed ministry. He who ate my bread has lifted his
heel
against me. If it were an enemy who thus taunted me, then I could hide
from
him; but it is him, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend in 1983.
Rob
Machell has a lot more in finer detail about all of this, which he
has
promised to put in writing for me.
Anyone who speaks
a word against Neil Pendry will be forgiven. But
there is a Word with which I have been entrusted, the Spirit of which
will
not allow its authority to be despised. John Thomas welcomed it, and,
for the
sake of gain, turned to despise it. There are others, to whom I have
not even
been speaking, who by their trampling of my words underfoot and turning
to
attack me put on display just what sort of beasts they are. But true
interpretation is going to catch up with all of them; none of their
ratty
contrarieties will ever catch up with me. I know Him, without 'insincerity
or
uncertainty', through the allegorization and interpretation of Scripture
that
He teaches, and I am not so poor as to use entreaties. The rich answer
roughly. But I don't start with roughness. It is to roughneck traitors
that I
have spoken roughly.
Without either insincerity or
uncertainty,
Neil
===================================
From: "Michael Montoya" <montoya@integrityonline1.com>
Hi Neil, believe me when I say to you that I only caught portions of
what
you said. I know I am stupid but there are limits to my abilities.
I did get
something about JT agreeing with your current position awhile
ago and then
leaving it for glory in his church. This does not sound like
what JT would
do. I have known JT only through audio tape and email. He strikes me
as
someone who would not tolerate such behavior in himself or others.
He seems
upright to me.
As for your comment about interpretation catching up to those who disagree
with you.......Neil......can you see how any of us would be reminded
in 3 -D
of that man Stewart Traill, by your words. Do you remember his words
all of
those years......"You will be fascinated by your own death." "Shear
terror
to understand the message." " You will wake up one day and be
older and you
will have had it." It's this kind of boogy man language
and attitude which
makes me think that if you ever took Stewart's place as teacher and
pastor
of COBU , you would be a better and meaner Stewart.
Bear witness to the wrong? I need to first understand what you
are actually
saying. So hang on and let me read it again
mm
====================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
> From: Symmetor@aol.com
>
> Dear Mike:
>
Perhaps JT's half smirk of contempt, in the spirit of which he
> proposed to overthrow the necessary implications
of the elements to which he
> continues so tenaciously to hold,
Why does he sound so much like a lawyer? I can see him now, thrusting
out his chest, holding onto his suspenders.
> So
> what is there for me to retract? In what am
I wrong? If I have spoken
> wrongly, then bear witness of the wrong; but
if rightly, then why do you
> strike me?
I refer to my first post: He will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> the place one loses
> by necessity if he embraces the doctrine of
this Gospel within the Gospel.
No one's asked Neil yet, what is this G w/ G? Don't ask.
> As
> far as I am concerned, as many antichrists
had already come in the apostles'
> own times, so JT is not the only one whose
treachery I have tasted in the
> course of my appointed ministry. He who ate
my bread has lifted his heel
> against me. If it were an enemy who thus taunted
me, then I could hide from
> him; but it is him, my equal, my companion,
my familiar friend in 1983.
Remember, he's referring to John Thomas, the one who rightly confuted
ST in
1989, and recently, in a right spirit attempted discourse with (you
fill in...).
> Rob
> Machell has a lot more in finer detail about
all of this, which he has
> promised to put in writing for me.
Boy do they love putting stuff in writing. And talking about it,
and going over
it
and more lawyer talk, and more circles, and more $3 words, and more,
and
then God's law and on and on and on it goes and where it stops, nobody
knows.
> Anyone who speaks a word against Neil Pendry will be forgiven.
Do not fear approaching the high and mighty, he has a heart people.
> But
> there is a Word with which I have been entrusted,
the Spirit of which will
> not allow its authority to be despised. John
Thomas welcomed it, and, for the
> sake of gain, turned to despise it.
I think we should applaud JT's common sense which isn't so common any more.
> There are others, to whom I have not even
> been speaking, who by their trampling of my
words underfoot and turning to
> attack me put on display just what sort of
beasts they are.
To quote Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory (in the hospital laundry shaft): "Arf!"
> But true
> interpretation is going to catch up with all
of them; none of their ratty
> contrarieties will ever catch up with me.
What happens when true interp catches up with you?
> I know Him, without 'insincerity or
> uncertainty', through the allegorization and
interpretation of Scripture that
> He teaches, and I am not so poor as to use
entreaties. The rich answer
> roughly. But I don't start with roughness.
It is to roughneck traitors that I
> have spoken roughly.
If you give any credence to this Cretan look into Jesus' eyes.
The things of
what
he speaks do not exist - only in his head, thank God! I am offended
that any one
that would speak as brazenly ill about sincere brethren would say he
knows
anything about the spirit of Christ. And I'll tell you, like
at work, same here,
just listening to and allowing some in, I have to beware I don't become
like him
myself. I may be cutting, but in this case it's necessary.
Does anyone
entertain
any of this wild man's claims. Then again, you haven't read "Final
Christianity"
I sent an extensive copy of this to one brother who then realized the
enormity.
Also to a sister who is good with dealing with cults.
>
> Without either insincerity or
> uncertainty,
Sincere about what?
Maybe you (the readers) should glimpse "final Christianity". (appropriate
name...)
What this fellows used to do (I hope they no longer do it)
is go to a church, sit there, and then criticize the pastor's speech
in long
letters and then reappear the next Sunday and say we're the ones
who wrote the
letter
and we would like to fellowship with you and show you more
advanced interpretation and how yours is all wrong.
And they will debate, and they reprint the fiasco, blow by blow
as some
heavy spiritual battle is going on, and they wear the colors of
the home team.
Invariably, these "meek" pastors throw the guys out. Some
sooner than others.
So far, they haven't taken the hint. Or maybe they have.
That was over a year
ago.
But here we are, with more on and on. You should see the
past stuff. Page after
page after page of the same you read above. Ask Beth.
She probably won't want to get involved. Who does?
This is an example of ST's
fruit going off the deep end.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
====================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com
Neil Pendry again uses the Scripture wrongly. He puts his name
into Jesus's
words when he says "whoever speaks a word against Neil Pendry will
be
forgiven..."( this is Neil's take off of the "blasphemy of the Holy
Spirit"(Mat 12:32) verse). Just another example of a huge ego
with no
substance behind it. "Where words are many, transgression is not lacking".
JT
=======================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com
In a message dated 99-07-01 16:34:50 EDT, you
write:
Neil writes:
<< I know Him, without 'insincerity or
uncertainty', through the allegorization and
interpretation of Scripture
that
He teaches, >>
Jesus said to Peter: "Blessed are you Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood
has
not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven"(Mat 16:17).
I
encourage all to desire this revelation as opposed to Neil's man made
one.
Your Brother In Christ,
JT
===================================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
Hi Neil...I read you notes with fascination. You've obviously
been blessed
with a fine mind and have thought deeply about the things in which
you write.
As you know not only about us, but yourself as well, we
have experienced
much trauma and received wounds at the hands of COBU. I know
that what you
write about is extremely important to you and you feel your very life
rests
upon it. Yet, I feel you are so much like the rest of us in that
you need
the healing balm of Gilead as much as I and others do. I find
it hard to get
to know you through your very eloquent words. I host an online/chat
support
group for people who have emerged from cults and abusive religious
groups.
This is in a secular arena, but I have learned so many spiritual things
from
it. When people realize that it is the manipulations and cunnings
of men
they are more willing to re-evaluate where they are spiritually.
Our
experiences can cloud our view of God...it's very spiritual to be able
to
understand it with a view of not staying at that place but growing
beyond.
I'm not trying to silence you, probably telling
you not to talk about
your convictions is like trying to get New York City to stand still,
but I
feel you could be a huge help to the rest of us, and probably gain
a few
things yourself if you looked at the practical side of what happened
to all
of us with us. Jesus was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief...it
was
through that side that he so often related to people...he recognized
that
they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd.
I find that
his message was simple and he did not get into long winded debates.
In his
words, I don't see his emphasizing standing on the right doctrine and
making
sure that everyone succumbs. Instead, he seemed to go to where
people were
at and emphasized simple faith in his father. His words were
full of
compassion. Otherwise, how could he embrace the tax collectors
and
prostitutes above the religious folk of the day? He would have
had no end of
debates with the religious folk, that's for sure, but to the horrible
dirty
sinners he would celebrate their faith.
This is coming out harsher than I mean it too...I'm not
trying to call
anyone a pharisee, hypocrite, etc. I'm just trying to make what
I hope is a
valid point. It is an open list...and like I said you certainly
are an
eloquent communicator. However, I do ask that you consider what
I have to
say--I think that you have more good that you can contribute by considering
the deep wounds we experienced and how they need healing--Then from
there how
we can move on, learning from what we experienced and perhaps helping
others
who are trapped.. Some of us have had our faith made into scrambled
eggs,
others have fared better. No matter, we went through something
extremely
serious and hurtful together.
Maureen
==========================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Dear Mike:
I would have
nothing to do with taking anyone's place in any
'church' as 'pastor' or 'teacher'. That were sanctioning what I take
to be
one of Stewart's greater presumptions, that such offices actually exist
and
persist in any permanence except from moment to moment as the Holy
Spirit
appoints and distributes, or that 'churches' prostituting themselves
by tax
exemption enjoy any such real permanence of authority.
Neil
=====================================
Neil,
Some people actually go to college, etc and have training to be pastors.
They are the people I tend to be willing to listen to and give some level
of respect to their teachings, as opposed to a want a be!
Case in point, if you have a toothache,do you go to a Dentist who graduated form Dental School or do you call your friend who has read books about dental care? Its just a matter a logic my friend.
Never again will I be fooled by the ramblings of a "want a be."
Carol S
============================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Once again, the outburst of a dwarf from the close confines of Calvinism,
the
water life that he has preferred to the wind life of interpretation.
============================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Amen! To blazes with any artifices by which men would pretend to reveal
God,
including any of my own!
=========================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Dear Maureen:
Let's make a
distinction between the 'wounds' inflicted by a man
anxious for his own ambitions, which are negligible for the ease and
quickness with which Jesus heals them, (what poison might we
have drunk that
we should fear having been injured by it, or what serpent or scorpion
ought
we not to have picked up, for fear of its venom?), and the 'wounds'
inflicted
by the Spirit against the hope of the flesh, whose hope is in sin,
and whose
wounds would have been to death except that so many would nurse it
back to
its former lustiness. This interminable groaning for supposed wounds
and this
endless quest for 'healing' betray the whining and pining of the flesh
against the knowledge that has taken all the fun out of its designs.
As I see anyone
coming forward to hear more of the true
interpretation by which his ear and conscience have been first arrested,
I am
arrested myself with compassion for him, seeing how he is in his present
inadequate care helpless and harassed, as a sheep without a shepherd.
I say,
for this one I would gladly relinquish my place and my reputation in
church;
I would gladly endure the crushing weight of excommunication to separate
him
to the truth for which he pants.
Neil
========================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com
My, My. My name is being bandied about in a most vitriolic
manner.
I haven't seen my name and initials used that frequently in one place
since I
signed my mortgage papers. Perhaps this indicates an obsession (or
fixation)
on someone's part.
JT
===============================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
Neil: If there is anything I have learned from my COBU experience
it is that
one cannot put God in a box. Sometimes God does heal instantaneously
but
more often than not it seems that we have a road to walk down in our
journey
to wholeness. It reminds me of miracles...Sometimes a person
will be healed
right away, but most of the time it is going the normal route (i.e.
going to
see a doctor, taking medication, etc.) Yet, ultimately one can
see God in
one just as much as the other.
Unfortunately I am not perfect. It seems that
my lot in life has been to
experience healing through the regular route of doctors and walking
through
valleys first when it comes to emotional and spiritual wounds.
So, maybe
you're fortunate and you lot has been one that you experience constant
miracles and instantaneously healing from emotional wounds, but not
so with
me. Ultimately, though, I can't complain, because it is through
having dark
nights of the soul and having to wrestle with deep issues within myself
that
I have grown and matured and in me has sprung deep compassion for others
who
struggle too. Perhaps part of your problem in relating to the
rest of us is
that you haven't gone through having an emotional wound hurt for a
long
period of time and only after beseeching God for healing and searching
for
help from other human beings--reaching the point of thinking all was
hopeless--that it has been healed. I have experienced wounds
whose scars
still remain with me, but those scars are almost like medals of honor,
reminding me of how far I've come, and they also keep me humble and
able to
relate to others. It seems that there are more people in this
world who are
like me...who usually have to walk down some dark and confusing paths
before
the light shines through than there are people like you who can hurt
and be
healed quickly like it all was just a trifle. I envy that you
can get hurt
and be so quickly healed, but on the other hand, I feel bad for you
because
of the richness that you could experience.
Contrary to what we were taught in COBU, not everything
is always black
and white. Often we are confronted by the gray and need to learn
what it is
we are to do in a particular situation. In COBU we learned pat
answers to
everything. We know what the bible teaches on prostitution and
lying...yet,
Rehab, the harlot, who lied to boot, was named to the hall of faith.
There
is no indication of whether or not she ever turned from her harlotry.
It
doesn't mean that harlotry is okay or should be treated lightly, but
I think
it does show that God is bigger than any box we could try to fit him
in and
that Rahab had something valuable in her when it came to faith and
God that
the outwardly pure, but inwardly ???? did not have.
Then there was the woman caught in the act of adultery...being
a Jewish
woman, she full well knew what she was doing was wrong and with full
presence
of mind she went ahead and did it. Yet...look at how Jesus treated
her. He
was more severe toward the upright religious folks who stuck to their
letters
of the law and ready to thrown their stones than he was to her.
It is so easy to condemn the actions of others when we
have not walked in
their shoes. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as truth
or
standards or anything like that. It's just that we do not know
the point a
person could be at nor where they might be in the future. This
is where I
think we need to speak with grace and when someone's choices grieve
and
dismay us, have hope about the future in how the mercy and love of
God can
transcend anything. How would King David have been taken if he
were looked
at just in the one present reality of his adultery. He knew full
well that
what he was doing wrong, yet God did not give up on him and was certainly
more merciful than many of us would be. I often have thought
about if King
David lived today. I think about the newspaper articles, the
tabloids, the
talk shows, the jokes that would be told about him. I think about
how he
would be condemned and derided in places of worship. Jerry Falwell,
Pat
Robertson, James Dobson, every known preacher...all of them would be
talking
about how his poison was ruining family values for the people and that
his
actions would cause adultery to be condoned throughout the land.
He'd
probably be talked about like he was the devil incarnate...All because
people
would be looking at him in the present and not thinking about how God
may
have some special purpose for him and even use (but not cause of course)
that
he sinned for a purpose...Certainly, reading of David's soul searching
and
what he had to contend with within himself as a result of his sin is
something pretty awesome. There is a sense I think that by reading
about his
anguish that we are less motivated to imitate him in his sin. He had
a price
to pay, of course, but that price was not eternal condemnation, rather
it
seems that he reached conviction about his actions in the very way
that was
right for him. We can learn so much from that situation.
Maureen
P.S. I so often feel that your words and arguments are like this
big wall
that make it difficult to get to know you. Although I've read
your many
posts, I feel I have no more of a clue of who you are than I did from
before.
This was the point I was trying to make in my last post. As I
said in
another post, I think that your are a pretty sensitive and special
person
underneath it all, and I also feel we are being robbed of the precious
gift
of who you are as a person...not as a great debator...not someone who
can
minutely dissect sin, exhibit an extensive vocabulary, quote the Bible
forward and backward, etc., etc....but YOU. Kind of reminds me
of the verse
"Do not withhold good from whom it is due." I'm not trying to
give a bible
lesson or anything...just that I see these flash and glimpses in your
posts
of a real precious and special person and sometimes I'm sitting on
edge
hoping that perhaps, as I read on, you will emerge.
===========================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>
From: Owen
Dear Neil
You have to let us know what you're
responding to. Either mention it
or leave the original message intact at the bottom.
===========================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>
From: Owen
Dear Maureen
King David had a good reputation
before he sinned and he clearly
repented and made no excuses for it.
Rahab had no city to be a temple
prostitute in. In Matthew 1 we see
that she married Nahshon (or was it Salmon?) an ancestor of Christ.
================================================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
Owen...It is true that David had a good reputation...but in how he sinned
he
went about as low as anyone could go...including murder. Eventually
he did
repent, but not without doing things that would have qualified him
for
stoning. I still think my point is valid in how he would have
been treated
had he lived today.
I had forgotten about Rahab...though I had known that...thanks
for the
reminder.
I think that you understand my point...that is that we
can't just look at
the present in a person's life...even if they have done things that
are
grievously wrong. Many people sadly continue on destructive paths
in their
lives...but that does not mean everyone does. That's where acting
in grace
and hoping comes in.
Neil is talking about some specific things. I am not as good
as he is at
sword fighting things out. While he uses many scriptures and
eloquent words,
I feel uneasy inside agreeing with him...Since I'm not totally sure
why and
out of being fair, I'm trying to be careful not to just say he is wrong...I
have to leave that to others who can debate more eloquently than I
and
ultimately in God's hands...I no longer feel compelled to be God's
judgment
day judge. However, I do know a lot more about treating people
with dignity
and not falling into the trap of just looking into the short view,
and there
I have more confidence to speak.
==========================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com
In a message dated 99-07-03 22:17:25 EDT, you write:
<< While he uses many scriptures and eloquent
words,
I feel uneasy inside agreeing with him >>
Maureen don't be fooled, he doesn't use many Scriptures, just a lot
of
eloquent words. The Scriptures that he does use are usually misused.
As for
eloquence, read Herm's posts from Spurgeon, this is an example of true
eloquence for the words of Spurgeon create a euphony to the Glory of
God, in
Christ. The words that Neil uses are a mere vitriolic cacophony
that result
in destructive spiritual maiming (if taken seriously). Remember
Jesus's
words: "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God..."
Your Brother In Christ,
JT
===========================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Dear Maureen: You and I will share the secret of my bleeding soft heart;
there are ruffians present, with no such pity. You understand.
Neil
=====================================
Now Now Neil.... there you go again passing judgement.......
CJS
=====================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
> From: JThomas945@aol.com
>
> << While he uses many scriptures and
eloquent words,
> I feel uneasy inside agreeing with him
>>
> Maureen don't be fooled, he doesn't use many
Scriptures, just a lot of
> eloquent words. The words that Neil uses
are a mere vitriolic cacophony that
> result
> in destructive spiritual maiming (if taken
seriously).
This is the story as I remember it: A fellow went over to England
to see two
great
speakers. So on Sunday he went to see one and in the evening
he went to see
the other which was Charles Spurgeon. When asked to reflect on
what he saw
the fellow said that "in the morning the speaker was truly eloquent,
and a
wondreful
speaker. And in the evening after hearing the talk I thought,
what a great
Lord we have!"
After the rhetoric, there's a spirit and a focus.
The ear tests words as the palate tastes food.
Sometimes it's cold water to a thirsty soul.
Sometimes - you fill in the rest...
==================================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>
From: Owen
Dear John
You're not telling it right.
Two Americans were in England.
Their friends in America had heard
about two preachers, James Parker(?) and Charles Spurgeon. So
on Sunday
they went to see Parker in the morning. When they came out after
the
service one American said to the other "I do declare and it can't be
denied
that James Parker is the greatest preacher there ever was".
So in the evening they didn't
even want to bother hearing Spurgeon
but they decided that since they told their friends that they would
hear
them both they went and heard Charles Spurgeon. . When
they came out after
the service one American said to the other "I do declare and it can't
be
denied that Jesus Christ is the greatest saviour there ever was".
And by my Lord I'll get there
Owen Camp
Bronx NY dococ@prodigy.net
===========================================================
From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>
From: Owen
Dear Maureen
You SEEM to imply that the way
we carp on Clinton is how we would
treat King David if he were here today. I disagree! David
would be hounded
by the religous LEFT for being an extremist (what with meditating on
god's
law day & night). He would be treated better by Falwell &
co. than Clinton
was because Clinton lies, gives phony repentance, and really lame excuses.
Clinton never takes responsibility for anything. Quite different
from
David. (Besides David had a much lower body count.)
What's the difference between
King Solomon and Bill Clinton?
Solomon MARRIED 700 women.
And by my Lord I'll get there
Owen Camp
Bronx NY dococ@prodigy.net
=================================================================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
Neil...I try to be a good listener. Although I must preface that
with two
things...one is that I have found this list to be a source of comfort
and
healing...in that way our perspectives differ. I don't have a
problem with
that, just that in all fairness I felt that I should say it.
Also, while I
really do try to care about people as individuals, I keep that care
separate
from our individual take on things..particularly if there are differences.
I
believe that people are more cherished and loved in the sight of God
because
of who they are not because they have all their doctrinal ducks in
order.
(Again, as I've stated so often, I'm not trying to say that there is
not
truth or standards, but I think by now you understand where I come
from.) If
you feel you can accept this about me, I truly hope that we can have
some
meaningful "conversations." If you don't, I will feel sad, but
understand.
=========================================================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
Owen...I agree that David sure seemed different than Clinton.
However, I
wouldn't doubt that he would be hounded after sinning in the way he
did.
You're looking at it after everything went its full course, he repented,
etc., etc. I'm talking about right after he committed adultery
and
murder...I think that's why we're not seeing eye to eye...we're looking
at
two different points in time. Also, while I don't have great
opinions about
Clinton...I'm getting all my info second hand. If I really got
to know him
as a person, I might (and I emphasize the word might because I admit
I have
deep doubts) realize he has more redeeming qualities than I attribute
to him
now.
If I remember correctly, beside his 700 wives Solomon
also had numerous
concubines...to whom he wasn't married.
=============================================================
From: JThomas945@aol.com
In a message dated 99-07-04 17:43:09 EDT, you write:
<< From: Owen
Dear John
You're
not telling it right. >>
Owen,
This was Tom's post, but i was glad to be reminded of the account.
Spurgeon
was once asked how he prepared for his sermons and he said: I
choose a text
a make a bee-line to the cross".
JT
========================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Dear Sister Maureen:
Men seek respect.
Women seek love. We are this way for good reason.
We are all participants in this grand figurative scheme as long as
we are in
the body. I have a little of that transparent tenderness to offer,
especially
toward sisters, but not much. Like most men, I scrape and gouge myself
for
any trace of effeminacy. You understand.
I remain
Your Affectionate Brother in
Christ,
Neil
========================================================
From: MGriffo@aol.com
I do understand.
=================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>
> From: "Owen D Camp" <DOCOC@prodigy.net>
>
> From: Owen
>
Dear John
> You're
not telling it right.
>
Two Americans were in England. Their friends in America had heard
> about two preachers, James Parker(?) and Charles
Spurgeon. So on Sunday
> they went to see Parker in the morning.
When they came out after the
> service one American said to the other "I do
declare and it can't be denied
> that James Parker is the greatest preacher
there ever was".
>
So in the evening they didn't even want to bother hearing Spurgeon
> but they decided that since they told their
friends that they would hear
> them both they went and heard Charles Spurgeon.
. When they came out after
> the service one American said to the other
"I do declare and it can't be
> denied that Jesus Christ is the greatest saviour
there ever was".
It has been a long time since I read the account, but it was more descriptive
than
this "I do declare" one. I remembered the gist of it.
And now, for something completely different:
Two brothers were in England sharing a bottle of wine.
They were camping out. The had fallen asleep.
In the middle of the night the one woke up the other and said
"Look up and tell me what you see"
So his brother said "Astrolgically I see a multitude of stars which
indicate
many
possible planets. Theologically I see that God is huge
and we are so small.
Meteorologically I see that we should have a very fine day tomorrow.
What do you see when you look up?"
The brother returned:
"Someone has stolen our tent."
========================================================