________________________________________
From: John Reisinger [mailto:jreisinger24@...] 
Sent: Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:54 PM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: [soundofgrace] Bruce and insurance

	 In over fifty years of discussing, debating and dialoguing with
Christians of all stripes, I have never known anyone as sharp as Bruce.
Bruce is beyond question the best wordsmith I have ever encountered. He
could sell a milking machine to a framer with one cow and take the cow for a
down payment. I am sure he won every one of the arguments with the
government officials that he challenged. His last post describes some of
those encounters and his ability to make the people look stupid.
	I do not question Bruce's right to live without insurance. I am not
even arguing over his wisdom in doing so.  

[Jeff comments]
That is consistent to what I was trying to tell him. A guy like that hardly
needs insurance. He would be able to talk himself out of any problem and
have the resources to get others to meet his needs. I have seen lots of
people 'living by faith' doing just that.

In just plain ordinary living I have noted that those who can do certain
things and do them instinctively and intuitively do not realise how
difficult it is for others to do likewise.

Leaders like Hybels and Warren can do all sorts of great organizational and
think that others should be able to do them too but it is not always that
easy. As someone pointed out to me that when we ordinary mortals try to copy
these guys we often don't realise just what it is they are doing. And we
don't realise that these guys have the resources to cover their mistakes
when they make them. 


[JGR again]
I simply do not believe his reasons for not having insurance are Biblical.
The Scriptures that he used in his ten-point defense do not at all prove his
position. To make Proverbs, chapter 1, mean that insurance companies "run to
do evil" and "make haste to shed innocent blood" is nonsense. To liken
Israel going down to Egypt for help to taking out an insurance policy isn't
exegesis. To insist I am becoming surety to pay the debts of all kinds of
people because I have insurance is simply ridiculous.
	The charge that Bruce binds people's conscience does not hinge on
whether or not he specifically insists that all Christians follow his
example and get rid of all insurance. He insists that God led him to this
understanding through the Scriptures. Either God led him to do what he did
or God is not leading me, and others, to keep our insurance. God is not the
author of confusion.  In I Cor. when Paul discusses Christian liberty, he
speaks of our actions "embolding" weak brothers to eat against their
conscience. Any person who gets close to Bruce, especially in a local
assembly situation, will have three choices.  One, he can keep his insurance
and defend his position. With Bruce, he will lose every discussion. Two, he
can, in order to remain in "good standing" in the fellowship, get rid of all
his insurance. He may do this out of true conviction or he may do it to
receive acceptance with the people he loves and respects. Three, he can keep
his insurance and have a guilty conscience. I am sure there is no formal
written rule in their group that you may not have insurance, but I am just
as sure there is an unwritten rule that says, "Godly Christians do not
refuse to trust God by buying insurance." I am also sure Bruce will have an
answer to all three of these but they are still true regardless of how he
spins them.
	My real concern is the reputation of the Gospel. Bruce's encounters
with the various government officials is not done as "Bruce, Canadian
Citizen," they are done as "Bruce, Bible Believing Christian Canadian
Citizen." Bruce is claiming to represent the teaching of the Word of God.
Whether the saints in Woodstock, Ontario (and I personally know some of
them) like it or not, their life and testimony in the city is impacted by
Bruce's actions. Bruce, in his actions and claims, is saying, "God led me to
do this. This is part of what it means to believe the Bible and trust God."
He does not hesitate to say that the message of the Bible left him no
alternative but to get rid of all insurance. God gets all the credit for
what Bruce did! How do Christians say, "Yes, he is a true and sincere
Christian, he just has a few wacky ideas." How do they respond when the
world ask, "Is that guy for real? Does the Bible really condemn having
insurance?"  Would you be willing to try to explain how insurance companies
"run to do evil" and "make haste to shed innocent blood?"
	I may be wrong, but I do not believe our Lord, or the Apostle Paul,
would have gone to one government office after another in order to argue
about what the word "income" means, and then say, "I cannot sign an income
tax form until you tell me what the word 'income' means." Bruce sincerely
feels his actions and confrontation with the government leaves behind a good
testimony for the truth. I think it gives government one more excuse to
treat Christians as people with no brains.
	Lastly, I hear people say, "But Bruce is really sincere." I do not
question that in the least. However, we all know that sincerity is not a
test of truth. Bruce would be the first to agree with that. Scripture alone
is the only test of truth. Unfortunately, the more sincere a person is when
he is wrong, the more dangerous he is. It has been well stated that a zealot
with a machine is gun is an extremely dangerous person. A professing
Christian with a distorted doctrine of a Christian's duty is also a very
dangerous person. 
	I said my piece. I have no idea how most people on the chat room
feel.    

[Jeff comments]
Dear brother John I can assure you that I deeply appreciate your wisdom on
this forum.

[Carlo wrote] 
I had a discussion with someone who knew a person who said she spoke in
tongues.  This person asked the tongue speaking person if she was really
faking it.  It took her a little while but she finally admitted that she was
faking it.  He asked her why all this time she was faking it, and she said,
she didn't want people in her congregation to think she didn't "have the
Holy Spirit."  This is your choice two, and believe me it happens in
evangelical churches around the world in different type situations.  
 
People get burdened in their consciences either by living a lie and being
hypocritical (which is sin) or they on doing what they are doing anyway,
with a terrible guilty conscience.  Satan of course loves that and I'm sure
at times assist consciences of believers to think, "You're guilty, you're
guilty, you're guilty."  

[Jeff comments]
I think that you are on to something here too, brother Carlo.

God bless,
Jeff