[Forgive the length: this is for the lurkers from GC*.]
I searched the forum for "Proverbs", which turned-up these topics: I simply list any that has the word "proverbs" somewhere in the topic:
http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/leadership-elders-and-apostles/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/people-and-places-of-gc/whatever-happened-to/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/totally-committed/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/jim-mccotter-gc-history/how-very-sad/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/off-topic/excellent-inaugural-prayer-by-rick-warren/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/hellos-and-testimonies/solid-rock-etc-columbus-1980-87/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/parenting-at-gcc-churches/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/jim-mccotter-gc-history/marching-to-zion-available-online!/
http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/gender-roles-marriage-dating-and-courtship/walking-wombs/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/gender-roles-marriage-dating-and-courtship/women-and-gc/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/the-healing-forum/temporary-setback-or-permanant-damage/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/people-and-places-of-gc/do-you-know-anything-about-these-colleges/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/leaving/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/hostile-takeovers/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/outside-the-movement/catholicism/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/jim-mccotter-gc-history/ex-gci-dude/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/jim-mccotter-gc-history/knowing-jim-mccotter-1973-1975-ames-iowa/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/jim-mccotter-gc-history/every-nation-this-generation/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/any-spiritual-danger/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/hellos-and-testimonies/solid-rock-columbus-1977-78/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/im-pretty-sure-gcm-doesnt-want-to-change/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/gender-roles-marriage-dating-and-courtship/shepherding-arranged-marriage/http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/general-discussion/is-my-mind-sick-and-twisted/The Book of Proverbs is an interesting one.
It is a collection of sayings and maxims: it is a book that even challenges, perhaps in a sense evades, in numerous ways, some of the things people often think about in regards Scripture's inspiration or authority. Not that it's not inspired (although there's evidence it contains pagan and collected proverbs), but that they are principles, not promises as so many think of them.
We've talked about this: and how it is that genre can affect interpretation and handling of Scripture; I want to add it's a factor easily abused, also: and it's not uncommon to assert a genre where it's not (genesis 1 & 2 according to a scrupulous teacher I read has several registers of formal didacticism, that is, it's not just one kind of formal writing, but has mixed elements, though overall this is telling: it's mean to be didactic, not merely poetic, not to be taken as allegory, even though that's common, but just paying attention to its genre, it's author meant that it be taken seriously).
Proverbs is especially interesting also, because it hints at being full of dark sayings: it is full of the words of the wise. People read problems like pre-digested information readily adopted and employed by any willing reader: the intent of them seems to be for mocking simpletons (just read throughout), evading their understanding, being cryptic, etc.. One notices that wise, consise, ultra-high context writing does this: it captures the essence of something, but evades simple grasping or understanding: like ultra-crisp/succinct, rigorous, theological treatises or writing: through being exacting it evades simple comprehension.
I stress this so much because of how slovenly these aphorisms are being handled by so many, particularly GC: it doesn't seem to even be realized that even how they're typically translated is often missing the point, or one or so aspects, but not necessarily the translation, of these. It doesn't seem to be realized that "Trust in the lord with all your heart" does not mean "heart" as in English usage, or as mentioned above, how in a way these things are "sinister", as Proverbs puts it, "the words of the wise and their DARK sayings". The "dark" there does not mean "evil" or "wicked", but that they are not writing for easy digestion, but to force grueling, painful, un-pragmatic, toiling work to even get at the meaning and sense. I even wonder if out of all the Biblical books it is proverbs that might demand learning Hebrew most.
Of course I do not wish to over-stress this, either, and so qualify here: there is of course much there that one may readily accept, apply, etc.. It's not often as thought, however. Proverbs 31's context depicts a woman's virtue, but "virtuous woman" is a bad translation: at least for the word translated: it wouldn't make an awful heading, but it's not a good translation. One of the better translations I've seen of that first-remembered line is "a woman of valour who can find?".
This is from Short:
We all need wisdom to live life according to God's truth rather than follow the wisdom of the world in which we live. There is one book given in the Bible whose very purpose was to instill wisdom in us. This is the book of Proverbs. It is filled with warnings, principles, axioms and promises that, if you follow them, will lead you on a course of successful living. It even has detailed instruction in what a young man should look for in a potential wife - and what he should be sure to avoid.
Notice the "promises" part. How about the promises of long life. Do those apply to Christians who are promised in the NT to be martyred? What of the prophets who fit those promises and yet were slaughtered even in their youth. The promises of wealth, success, happiness: while Christians are promised sorrow, grieve, persecution, etc. (and joy in the Lord in all of it). Oftentimes Proverbs isn't necessarily spiritualizing: it's talking of "worldly happiness", as shocking as that may seem to people: it shouldn't be shocking, but I think to many it would be to say that to them.
Then there are places it is not, "O the happiness", or "How happy", or "happy"... "is the man that walks not in the counsel of sinners, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful" (note here that "Blessed" there is traditional jibberish with the elevation of "Blessed" at certain passages as a sort of idol unto itself, when it is not a best translation), "but his delight is in the law of the Lord" (GC's eyes glaze over that portion: if they won't even stand for God's omnisciences against their rank wolves, they definitely haven't the acumen or practice to reconcile law and gospel, as well as see their differences, and how either applies or does not apply to the Christian: or understand what Paul is saying when He says "we establish the law") "and in his law he meditates day and night".
From Short's quote I'm distressed: knowing how GC* misuses these proverbs, and has perhaps built or pillared not a few idolatrous doctrines of its own, essential to GC (which would change things severely if knocked-over). Of course, I know, to drop (hopefully repent of and fully, publicly, recant) the "promises" teaching would be to "divide" against those "band of brothers" who went before them in their own foolish, darkened, "faithfulness" ("not our understanding, so you can't challenge us by Scripture...it's okay if you leave "brother"), teaching, etc.. GC just doesn't get that imposing its authority over the sheep while themselves refusing the authority of Scripture, rejecting their Scrutiny by Scripture, is to reject God. Jesus said His own sheep would
keep His words, and His Father's, not reject them. Claiming ignorance or deferring judgment of others by the sad and pathetic "not our understanding" cop-out isn't going to cut it: the Mormons will probably try, I'm sure. It's not altogether different from those denoms in total defiance of the word which claim "well, tradition", or the big example: the variants of Catholicism which set "tradition" equal to Scripture (of course picking and choosing even when claiming it's all infallible).
I say this no-holds-barred because those in such rebellion need hear it, examine themselves accoding to 1 John, and get-the-heck-out of GC* and that state put into a contrite, humble, state, and to be washed by Christ, and sanctified by the Father's truth, His word (John 17). To take hold. People might accuse me of "bibliolatry", as the hard-hearted often accuse the faithful of these days, but it's still Christ that gives one of the identifying marks of His sheep as being those who hold to His words. And it's sad that it's even necessary to say this, but by that more is meant than mere form or sound or written form, but the substance behind them.
"Many will say to me...".
GC* can have its false unity, pretense, delusion, violence done to sheep, etc.: I just hope with all hope the sheep get out of their, don't get sucked into a worse state and siphoned-off by the wolves and even well-meaning but themselves deceived (it is the word that depicts certain false teachers as themselves not only deceiving, but being deceived: it should soberly make us examine ourselves by the word), and start getting fed their due, rather than this poisonous skubalon, this wisdom of the world clothed in biblish, false humility, practiced "gentleness" (usually obvious when men have learned on stage and in conversation to effeminate their voice, not that I'm saying all men should have deep, gruff, buff voices: that little added wisp of air and talking-like-the-rest, though, is a good indicator of "uh oh"). It is utter hypocrisy for such an organization on the one hand to assert "absolute truth" against the world, and on the other fully hold tightly to refusing to "divide" over truth simply by calling utterly incompatible and contradictory "ideas" (hey you, GC* leaders: if you're idea-men, and you like it, be silent and become as a fool so you may be made wise! The Church does not need your idea, you are not its head you imposters!) as if its bludgeoning the world with "I testify there's absolute truth" should be applied to itself first. Okay, so the "absolute truth is Jesus", great, so what does that entail? Okay, so he's salvation, why? My what mechanism/means? (It keeps going: and yes, Scripture does explicitly state this stuff, and no, GC* is neither consistent, nor faithful, with this stuff; and too many of its idea men like their own philosophies, and even attack, what Scripture says even explicitly).
For you GCers that come along to read, just so you know: this is no accosting without reason, nor mere thing written in hope to get anyone angry; it is hoped by being direct, confrontational, etc., that it'll wake someone from their daze. GC* says "be Berean" on the one hand, "BUT DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION YOUR LEADERS" (I can substitute various pastors' names for "leaders" and that will become a quote of numerous sermons delivered by various GC leaders). Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? It is no small slip of a poor humble, nice, loving, gentle, helpful, good leader: it is a demon's doctrine (that's biblical verbiage there, not just fire-brimstone over-serious fundy-ness!). I thought things were fine, great, dandy: even knew of this site, the Wikipedia entry, and other things, but didn't think much of it, until I started being Berean, until I started looking at the teachers GC* was following, like Warren "we ride the waves as they come", to which I thought, "wait, waves are driven by [every] wind..." though that's perhaps one of the least of the errors that man is promoting, until I started to ever question or try to talk with "my" "leaders". Then this site became public enough in GC they had to distribute the weakness statement, and then I realize a bunch of "GC" teaching/stuff was near-verbatim copies from popular books, but infused heavily with authoritarianism...
