I had some serious and exact questions but didn't get exact answers.

In 2001, I was still attending meetings.  As explained in the letter, I was having discussions with my friend about religion.  I was so embarrassed because I couldn’t answer any of her questions.  Thus, I wrote this letter. 

I wrote it to a worker in our field when I was young.  I trusted this worker would give me an honest truthful answer.  I think she answered with a whole heart and the best she could. I still respect and have very fond memories of this worker.

At the time, I was excited to get a response.  I had some serious and exact questions.  But I did not get exact answers.  I got what you will read here.  And here is the most shocking thing…I took these answers and didn’t question them.  I didn’t notice that some were half answers.  I didn’t notice some were vague answers.  I didn’t notice some of my questions weren’t answered.  What she answered was enough to keep me believing in the way.

See, I was a good follower.  I was so good that I never saw the “bad” or the “control” that was happening.  I just accepted it and was glad to.  The truth is that I had no basis for refuting what the responses were.  I was so biblically dumb, I didn’t know any better.  I just accepted the answers and moved forward.

Looking at all this now is a real revelation.  I can read the letter and realize I had asked some tough questions.  I did not ask them to prove anything.  I wanted honest answers.  I also realize now, the lack of answers or the half answers I got.
The following is the letter. 

Again, I don’t want to embarrass anyone so I have removed names.

Here are the links to a copy in the Gallery of the original letter of questions sent to the sister worker.......the handwriting belongs to the sister worker:

• Page ONE

• Page TWO

• Page THREE

---

ADMIN NOTE:

• The letter text is BLACK.

• The worker's responses to the questions are numbered and they are in RED.

• The additional commentary by the author of this letter is in BLUE and defined by the order of the alphabet. 

See Gray's Comments at Bottom of Letter

---

June 26, 2001

Dear Mxxxxxxx,

It was nice to talk to you again. Well, I suppose I should get to the point. I trust that this will be just between you and I.  If you could maybe list some Bible references for some of the questions that I have, that would be great.  I don’t want this to sound wrong, but I would like you to read this letter more as a friend than a worker.

Growing up I always felt like I never fit in at meetings and conventions.  I always felt as if everyone looked at me a little different.  I don’t know if it was because my dad didn’t go to meetings or what.  I still feel that way. Also, I just accepted everything as it was.  I never really put much thought into exactly what I believe.  Well, since March I’ve been back in meetings and feel a lot better because of it.  But now, I find myself with questions that I don’t know the answers to.

A friend (Kelly) recently asked me why I believe that way I do.  Was it because I grew up that way or is it the way I actually believe? I couldn’t answer that question.  She is a Baptist and we’ve had discussions about our religions.  Most questions she asked me, I couldn’t answer simply because I didn’t know.  Some of the questions I have for you are from those conversations with her.

All along I’ve been told that our church has descended from Christ and his disciples.  After some research, I found some documents that claim our church began in Scotland in the late- 1800’s by a man named William Irvine .  Listed as some of Irvine’s followers were George Walker and Edward Cooney .  Irvine was eventually “kicked-out” for some unacceptable teachings. [1] I wish I could talk to Edgar Asplund about this because I think he knew those early workers.  Baptists believe that the Baptist religion began with John the Baptist. Of course, these same documents said that the Baptist religion started in Holland by John Smyth in 1605. Now, if they both were started by men some time ago, how different is our church from other churches? I don’t necessarily believe each story is true. What can you tell me about this? [2]

[1] WORKER RESPONSE: John 15 .  Every branch in the vine the Father cares for.  If no fruit He removes it.  Those who abide and bear fruit God continues to correct and chasten and cleanse so they bear more fruit.

• [A] Excommunicating someone is the same as deciding their eternity for them.  It appears that workers believe they can excommunicate people and say that it was God who removed the bad fruit.  This is the workers playing God and dangerously equates the workers with God. 

[2] WORKER RESPONSE: They left the simple teaching of Jesus to get people taken up with their own doctrine and own way.  A true preacher always points people to Jesus and to follow Him in all details – for ministers as well as saints. 

• [B] This answer was going good. “A true preacher always points to Jesus…” but then the worker adds the rest, “…and to follow Him in all details – for ministers as well as saints.”  By adding the last few words, the gospel is transformed from “Jesus only” to a “Jesus plus” gospel.  Following Jesus in all details is impossible.

The subject of being saved also came up. I suppose Baptists' believe you can’t lose your salvation.  I may have totally missed the mark here, but it seems to me that we don’t need to be saved until we die and baptism and accepting Jesus as our Saviour is a preparation for that time.  When are we saved? [3]  After we accept Jesus and are born again through baptism? [4] Can we lose our salvation?

• [C] This question did not get answered.

[3] WORKER RESPONSE: We must be saved from fleshly lusts, from false doctrine, from the world and its influence.  Read I John 2:15-17 .  If we love the world, we are an enemy of God!

• [D] This did not answer my question of when are we saved.  Of course, from scripture we know that salvation can come immediately after accepting the gift of salvation by grace through faith and repentance.  The thief hanging with Jesus was saved and entered Paradise the same day (without baptism I might add).  Acts 2:41-47 talks about many souls were added that day.

[4] WORKER RESPONSE: Luke 15 . When Prodigal was away from his father’s house he was lost and dead. V.32. He was doing his own will going his own way which leads to death and destruction.

• [E] The Prodigal Son story is popular among workers.  It is an easy message to relate to either being at home (in meetings or the father’s house) or own your own (outside the truth).  Thus, the point is missed.  That point is repentance.  The previous two parables in Luke end with “rejoicing over one who repents”.  Luke 15:18-19 shows the son repented for his sins against heaven and before his father.  This happened before he even left to go home.  The point is repentance not “coming home”.  Then the story ends with the other son upset because he had always been good.  This ending parallels Luke 18:9-14 the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

Do you remember Ben Xxxxx? I don’t know if you were still in Oklahoma at the time or not.  Well, I’m not sure if he was dating Kxxxxx (his wife) or if they had just gotten married, but it was around that time that Ben wanted to be baptized.  I think it was Carl Hamilton or LaRon Branson that said he couldn’t or that they wouldn’t baptize him because he was involved with an unprofessing woman.  This was a big discouragement even to me.  It just didn’t seem right.  I don’t have a clue why that happened.  I think since then Ben has been baptized.  Can you explain this situation to me? In I Corinthians 7:12 it says, “But the rest speak I not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” Just as in Ben’s case, it seems like it is forbidden to marry someone who doesn’t go to our church.  Is it forbidden? [5] I agree that it may be more difficult, such as in my mother’s case, but why was Ben refused baptism at the time, then later allowed to be baptized? [6] Isn’t baptism between the individual and God? [7]

[5] WORKER RESPONSE: [I Corinthians 7:12 was] written to people who were married when they heard the gospel. 

• [F] This is a correct statement, but it really didn’t answer the question.

[6] WORKER RESPONSE: John the Baptist didn’t baptize people who had no fruit of repentance and taking own way. 

• [G] Many baptism in the N.T. occurred the same day they heard the gospel.  They workers seem to want you to wait at least a year.  No one had time to “produce the fruit of repentance”.

[7] WORKER RESPONSE: To be baptized by one not sent by God, like Jesus sent His apostles wouldn’t bring us into what is of Christ.

• [H] This is a very weighty statement.  The answer is to talk about baptism, but the focus of the answer is to define who is of God.  The answer claims that you have to spread the Gospel like the apostles in order to be sent by God.  The biggest problem here is that the workers don’t go just as the apostles did in the N.T.  The workers follow Matthew 10.  After preaching to the children of Israel ONLY, the instruction were different throughout the remainder of the N.T.  This is conveniently ignored.  Why?  William Irvine set it up based on Matthew 10. 

Seems like some of the friends and workers have different views on divorce and getting remarried.  I’ve read some in Matthew and I Corinthians, but I would like to know what you think. [8]

[8] WORKER RESPONSE: Each case is different and dealt with accordingly.

• [I] This is a quick, simple, evasive answer.  I really asked her what she personally thought, and I didn’t even get that.

It also talks about getting divorced in Deuteronomy.  Now, since Jesus came, are all of the laws in the Old Testament done away with?  Can we choose to follow any of the Old Testament if it doesn’t contradict what Jesus taught?  Or is the OT given to us just for history and all of our guidance comes for the NT? [9]

[9] WORKER RESPONSE: Jesus didn’t destroy the law but fulfilled it.  If we follow His teaching the law cannot condemn us.

Kelly went with me to a Sunday meeting when I was home last.  She asked why we didn’t have a preacher?  Romans 10:14 says, “...and how shall they hear without a preacher?”. I explained to her about the workers and that I thought it was not necessary for them to be in every meeting.  When we needed understanding, we could go to the workers for it. [10] Kelly also asked why we didn’t take up a collection.  I responded that we give as we are able to the workers in secret (or not in meetings) as it is needed.  I believe this is what is mentioned in the first part of Matthew 6 . [11] Please add to these two points.

[10] WORKER RESPONSE: Those who receive life in Christ are brought into fellowship with God; they know Him and are taught by Him.

• [J] This answer was confusing, but I have to ask, “If we are taught by Him, why do we need the counsel of the workers?”

[11] WORKER RESPONSE: God knows what we do, also our secret motive.  No one else needs to see.  If [we do it] to be seen, [then] no reward from our Father.

I’ve never been to another church service.  I would like to go once just to see.  Kelly and I have come to the conclusion that we believe basically the same things and the same principals.  We both believe that baptism is a necessity, preachers (workers) are a necessity, giving money is a necessity, and that our other basic beliefs are very similar. The differences (preachers/workers, when we are actually saved) seem to not involve the way we approach our daily service.  Is one of us right and the other wrong? [12]

[12] WORKER RESPONSE: Jesus is God’s standard for righteousness – what is outside of His example and teaching can only be wrong and unsafe to follow or trust in.

• [K] Again, the answer attempts to define that “the way” is right and everything else is wrong.  The answer really didn’t answer my question. WORKER RESPONSE: Those who baptize like John to Baptist, are responsible to God.  Scribes and Pharisees had no repentance, weren’t learning of Jesus – No fruit of new life.  Matthew 3:7 etc.

The Bible talks of false religions.  Growing up, I always thought that any church other than ours was wrong. I am really not to sure anymore.  Seems to me that a false religion as mentioned in the Bible would be any religion other than Christianity.  Of course, there were no “Named” religions back then either.  I know that my basic beliefs that Christ is my personal saviour and the need for baptism, to be born again, are intact.  I know that Jesus intercedes for me when I pray to God.  I know that God listens and is present in my life because of things that happen around me and to me.  I know that God’s spirit gives me guidance on how I am supposed to live each day.  It’s hard for me to believe that another person like me who has the same beliefs, principals, God's spirit, and good heart (I think I have a good one) but goes to a different church could be wrong.  How am I different than him in the way I live my life?  Why would God be pleased with me and not him? [13]

[13] WORKER RESPONSE: What isn’t according to teaching of [the] New Testament - What we learned from Christ – is wrong.  We can be wrong in a right way, but can’t be right in a wrong way.

• [L] Let us look at the N.T.  Christ did not set up the “meeting in the home”.  The early church met in public places until it became too dangerous which resulted in a more private setting.  So, since Christ didn’t preach “meeting in the home”, how can that be right (according to this answer).

In I Corinthians 14 , it talks about speaking in tongues. Can you explain to me about speaking in tongues? [14]

[14] WORKER RESPONSE: Languages

In I Corinthians 11 , it talks about a woman having long hair.  The 16th verse of that chapter says, “But if any be contentious, we have no such custom [15], neither the churches of God.”  What does this mean? [16]

[15] WORKER RESPONSE: [We have so such customs] as cutting [our hair].

• [M] The word “such” here would refer to what was previously mentioned.  The previous 15 verses were not about cutting at all.

[16] WORKER RESPONSE: If it is her glory, why cut it off?!

• [N] Let’s not go all the way to cutting it off.  What’s wrong with a neat trim? The “hair” in these verses are referred to as a covering or veil.  In this case, shouldn’t it be worn “down”.

In I Timothy 2 , it talks about a woman being silent and not to teach. How are we able to have sister workers? [17] How are the women able to take part in meetings? [18]

[17] WORKER RESPONSE: When 70 sent, it doesn’t say they were all men.  Women helped Paul in the gospel work.  Philippians 4:3 .  We are in subjection to brothers – wives to be [in subjection] to husbands.

[18] WORKER RESPONSE: 1 Corinthians 7 women did pray and speak in meeting.  Ask husbands I Corinthians 14:34 keep silence – don’t raise questions in meeting.  Workers don’t have husbands.

This is not really a question of belief, but it troubles me.  Growing up, I understood that the women wore dresses, didn’t wear make-up, and didn’t cut their hair.  We didn’t have television, not necessarily because it was bad, but because it could take up our time and introduce needless things.  Most of the time you see this still today.  But when you begin to explain it to others, it is hard because some of the women wear jeans, some wear make-up, a lot cut their hair.  Some of the friends have televisions.  So how can I explain our “traditions or customs” when they seem to be different among the friends?  Is it a sin (or wrong) to wear jeans, make-up or cut your hair somewhat short? [19]  And believe me, some of the women need make-up.  (A poor attempt at humor). I agree that a woman, or man for that matter, shouldn’t try to impress others with their appearance, but if a little make-up can make someone feel better about themselves, I can’t see the wrong in it.  Are our “traditions or customs” changing with the times?  I have also heard of a situation where meeting was taken out of the home of one of the friends because they had a TV.  Is the mere presence of a television that bad?  Then, what about radios, newspapers, and magazines?  Just as Baptist differ from Free Will Baptist and Southern Baptist, do we differ from regions of the country where our ‘traditions or customs” may be viewed differently?  Is it only because we are not a “named” religion that we don’t have a ‘named” split?  I know that we all (the friends) have the same spirit in God despite our differences.  We have differences yet we believe the same. This brings me back to the differences between our religion and others.  There are differences in them, but is it not possible for other people to have that same spirit as we do?

[19] WORKER RESPONSE: No woman wore jeans 60 yrs ago.  World thought it [was] wrong too!  Fashions change.  Modesty, humility of spirit tempers what we wear – Not everyone is wholehearted.  Some stay on the border – an easy catch for the enemy.  Deuteronomy 25:17-19 .

[O] I would hate to think my faith and my love for God was so shallow that putting on a pair of jeans or glancing at a television could make me fall headlong after the enemy.  Actually the jeans (being mens clothing) comes from the O.T.  I don’t think it is mentioned in the N.T.  There are far worse things on the internet than television, but somehow, the internet is acceptable. 

Do you remember Jxxxx and Exxxxx Mxxxxxxx?  I think that she doesn’t take part in meeting at all.  I remember asking my mom about it, and she said because Eileen had been married before.  Is Eileen not allowed to take part?  Why?  Does she not take part voluntarily? 

Considering the situation with Bxxx. Exxxxxx, the family with the TV, and others not mentioned, I know that the workers who made these decisions meant well.  But, it does give the appearance that some of them rather manipulate the friends.  Or, use them as examples [20] to discourage others from doing similar things, which troubles me greatly.  It may appear to others that these acts are similar to those used by other religions (sects, cults) to keep their followers.  If I married a woman who did not go to meetings with me, and we had a TV, how should that situation be viewed by the workers and/or other friends? [21] Yes, I know it would be difficult at times, but if I did it with total peace in my heart and continue to serve as I should, I can’t see that as wrong.

[20] WORKER RESPONSE: All responsible for our influence and example.

[P] This sounds like a benign answer, but look at it close. The answer puts all blame on the “friend” and holds the worker above it all, no matter what the worker does.  The answer says, “No matter how controlling the action of the worker may be, it is the ‘friends’ fault because he is responsible for his influence and example.”

[21] WORKER RESPONSE: Bible teaches not to marry into other nations in O.T. – “only in the Lord” (Paul) I Corinthians

Is it necessary for someone to take part in every meeting?  What if I really feel like I have nothing to share? [22]

[22] WORKER RESPONSE: Sometimes when we feel we have nothing – we feed others most.  That is if we have tried to feed our own hearts every day.

• [Q] How long each day do we have to feed our own hearts?  What if we miss a day? Should we still take part.  The “way” really demands everyone take part in every meeting without fail (no matter if you’ve fed your own heart or not).

When Peter was talking in Acts 3:22-23 .  “For Moses truly said unto the fathers.  A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you and your brethren unto me, him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.”  Do we know who this prophet was?  Was it John the Baptist? Jesus? [23]

[23] WORKER RESPONSE: Jesus.  Also in Deuteronomy 18:13

Well, I know that this is probably way more than you expected.  I don’t mean to be overbearing.  If you could give me some references in the Bible to help me understand some things, that would be good.  But some things that I read I do not understand, and that is why I’m coming to you.  You have my address and phone number, so if you need some clarifications on some of my questions, please call.  It’s best to reach me in the evenings around 7:00 pm or so.  I know that some questions cannot be answered factually, so I am basically looking for your opinion.  Anything else you would want to add would be a real treat.  I know you are also busy with other things, just reply when you can.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxx

---

COMMENTS FROM GRAY:

The following comment is for your present information only -- what you wrote in the letter should not be changed at all -- in case you still believe that Baptists believe their church was founded by John the Baptist.

I have not attended a Baptist church with any regularity, but then I have attended many different churches over time. However, no Baptist I have spoken with ever mentioned anything to me about believing that John the Baptist founded the Baptist church -- but then I have not discussed the founding of any church (save the 2x2s) with that church's members. However, I am not denying that some Baptists indeed might claim John as their founder. I am just stating a fact that no Baptist has ever told me that. But I am referring here to my studies in church history. It is my understanding that the current Baptist churches came from the Anabaptist grouping of the Reformation period, as does the Mennonite church and others. The Anabaptists were a collection of reformers who strongly opposed any collaboration or association with secular governments, such as Calvinism (for one example) depended upon to bring about their desired reforms from Roman Catholicism in particular.

Anyway, that is my comment regarding any suggestion that the Baptist churches date back to John the Baptist -- the Baptist churches have as much connection to John the Baptist as you and I have -- to Adam and Eve. And that goes for the 2x2 Workers just the same. And the idea of 'roots' directly 'connecting' current day churches to the first century is ONLY important to people who think that salvation is found ONLY within some supposed "right church."

To those who meet the real Jesus Christ off the pages of God's word -- inside any church or outside any church --  there is and does not need to ever be any "right church" because salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. So even the Bible reading HERMIT who has never set foot inside a church of any kind can be saved.

What I sense from the questions in your letter to that Worker is that it indicates the time when YOU started noticing discrepancies between what your Bible says and what Workers preach. So even a 2x2 -- even a Worker --  who meets the real Jesus Christ off the pages of God's word can be saved. But unfortunately, the head Workers and the majority of their subordinate Workers would not long endure such a Worker preaching the REAL Jesus Christ, even if he/she dared to do so. In 1989 in Alaska, they (collectively) booted Truitt Oyler out based upon claimed "doctrinal concerns," which I later discovered had to do with Truitt preaching at least a form of Trinitarian doctrine. If Jesus saves people, people do not need the Workers -- and the Workers NEED those people to feed and house them. So, if they realize Biblical doctrines at all, SADLY, they have to choose between the real Jesus or free board and room. The majority will not allow both the real Jesus and free board and room. So, you got the typical 'answers' that are NOT answers to your questions.

---