Quote
zeebrook
Wall (p28) makes the following statement
After a careful examination of Thieme's teaching on the blood as it related to Christ's spiritual and physical deaths, one must conclude that he is definitely within the sphere of orthodox Christianity.
Wall (p30) makes the following concluding statement
...it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy.
Wall does, correctly, highlight a number of points where Thieme is vague, unclear, or where there is disagreement on his opinion. However, as may be seen by Wall's statements, Thieme sits within the sphere of orthodox Christianity. Hence we may need to shift focus off the Blood of Christ onto other areas.

To the Forum:

This would be laughable if it wasn't so sick: zeebrook quote "Wall does, correctly, highlight a number of points where Thieme is vague, unclear, or where there is disagreement on his opinion."

That's like saying while falling off a cliff the falling doesn't hurt, and leaving out the pesky negatve part about when someone would get hurt when they finally hit the ground.

I have dealt with thiemites (zeebrook included) trying to use Dr. Wall's generalized statement to claim that Thieme's cult is within "christian orthodoxy", many times before: [forum.culteducation.com] [forum.culteducation.com]

zeebrook tries to lead people right back into the booby trap pit of Thieme's evil by omitting the WHOLE truth in direct contradistinction to Dr. Wall's intent of trying to help christians GET OUT of Thieme's cult.

When Dr. Wall states (paraphrasing): that Thieme's teachings followed faithfully causes schizophrenia in members, that Thieme's destructive cult teachings on priorities in a church are the same as the destructive cult priorities of the commitments of the cult the Children of god, and that Thieme's false cult doctrine of reich pastor is the same as Diotrophes, one would have to believe that "christian orthodoxy" includes SCHIZOPHRENIA, MISGUIDED DESTRUCTIVE PRIORITIES, AND CULTS!

Search Dr. Wall's .pdf for each individually: schizophrenia , children of , diotrophes , untenable , to see more detail [withchrist.org]

As opposed to zeebrooks previous predjudiced selective cut and pastes, here's the full quote of Dr. Wall(both the positive and the negative):
Quote:
Conclusion Thieme's teaching that the spiritual death of Christ alone was sufficient to accomplish expiation and his interpretation of the term, blood of Christ is untenable. On the other hand, he is correct in rejecting a magical or mystical view of blood. Nevertheless, it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy.
Quote:
...Two measuring rods will be employed in this dissertation.
First are the fundamentals to which adherence was required by The World's Christian Fundamentals Association, which was begun in 1919 as a reaction to the growing modernism in the early twentieth century:...
Second, the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is
a concise statement of Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology, will be used as a broader basis for determining orthodoxy.14
14 A copy of the Dallas Seminary Doctrinal statement is included in the appendix.

Clearly the second measuring rod Dr. Wall is using is not accurate, as defined as: the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a concise statement of Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology: "...We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3)..." [www.dts.edu]

Dr. Wall either did not read or chose not use Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's own theologically concise and precise definition of a cult.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110 Quote:
Quote:
As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely,What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?

It is obvious zeebrook is trying to distract the conversation from Blood of Jesus, would that be because zeebrook cannot deal with I Corinthians 15:17? Because none of zeebrooks mentors deal with it either? Even though I Corinthians 15:17 sheds direct light on Jesus' Work.

I respect Dr. Wall, Dr. Wall is a man of G-d, therefore, very careful what he says, perhaps too careful.

Truthtesty



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2011 05:06AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

As I stated before the Hebrew mind clearly believed the literal shed blood was the actual life thereof. They are one in the same to the Hebrew mind. Simple - the blood is shed with the life and the body dies. So? the life is in the blood because that is what came out of the body as the body died. So? Now where does that life go? The blood goes into the hereafter - The afterlife. Blood is seen as literal blood and life - one in the same - and it is alive and the blood speaks and goes into the afterlife. Don't eat the blood because it is a life. That was probably Hebrew advanced science/belief at the time.

"For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11, also see Leviticus 17:12, 14; Hebrews 9:22; Genesis 9:4, etc...

The sacrifice for sin was not complete on the Cross as the Apostle Paul clearly states in I Corinthians 15:17 "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." If Jesus had only died that was not enough. Since the "Blood of Christ" purifies/cleanses against sin (I John 1:7, etc ...) then the Blood of Christ clearly is not representative analogy of "death" alone, as so many such as Stibbs, Morris, nazi Behm etc... claim. see Blood of Abel speaking from the ground, see Blood of Jesus speaketh better things than Abel Hebrews 12:24, Genesis 4:10, etc...

Therefore I Corinthians 15:17 proves CONCLUSIVELY the Blood of Jesus as the Ressurected Life of Jesus continues after the Death on the Cross, because only the Blood of Jesus can purify against sin AND IF sin would have continued after the Death of Jesus if Jesus had only died without Ressurection, THEN clearly the Ressurected life/Blood of Jesus was necessary to cleanse against sin after the Death of Jesus on the Cross.
[interlinearbible.org]

As a matter of fact I have not seen any theological scholars ie Morris, Stibbs, Walvoord etc... (in the documents pertaining to this thread), address I Corinthians 15:17.

Also, it is worth noting that Biblos internlinear Bible translates "euramenos" in Hebrews 9:12, as "having found" not "having obtained". The overwhelming usages of the root word "heuriskó" is "find"/"found".
[interlinearbible.org]

Hebrews 9:12 and Hebrews 9:28 are spoken with foreknowledge of the success of the Ressurection, and Paul clearly qualifies the Atonement in Corinthians 15:17 if Jesus is not raised from His Death, then ye are yet in your sins.

From the Biblical theology of the Hebrew mind/view, the literal Shed Blood of Jesus, which is the Life of thereof Jesus was Shed to make Atonement for your souls. And in Ressurection the Blood of Jesus which was the life thereof Jesus came alive from Death of Jesus to rise THROUGH the Holy Spirit into the presence of G-d for us. Hebrews 9:13–14. “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

So how does one explain I Corinthians 15:17 in relation to Hebrews?
I would say the Blood of Jesus is eternal, therefore His offering of Himself is eternal, but the sin is gone when Jesus returns again. If it were just the death on the Cross without the Ressurection offering by Jesus into the presence of G-d for us, the whole offering would have been insufficient. I Corinthians 15:17. The foreknown Ressurection is part of the process of the "once for all" Atonement, which is in contrast to the "many yearly atonements" of Old Testament High Priests.

Also, Walvoord does also state in the same Wall citing: "The problem is exceedingly complicated, but a number of facts help to demonstrate that Christ never offered His blood in heaven, the sacrifice being complete on the cross. The high priest of the Old Testament must be regarded as having completed the sacrifice on the altar, the entrance with the blood being merely an application of the sacrifice . . . It was a means of entrance rather than a completion of the sacrifice itself . . . While the blood was brought into the holy of holies, it was not in a sacrificial sense . . . The high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies on the ground of a completed sin offering on the altar . .. ." [withchrist.org]

With all due respect to Dr. Wall and Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Walvoord is mistaken here. Let us not just talk of any High Priest, but specifically Aaron, whose brothers died before Aaron. See the entire chapter Leviticus 16. Now Aaron is learning specifically how to do G-d's will in the Holy of Holies without dying like his brothers did. Also see specifically see Leviticus 16:27: "The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement , must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up."

When Leviticus 16:27 says whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement , I think that most sane people would agree that the blood from that sin offering was sacrificial blood and it was presented in a "sacrifical sense" in the Holy of Holies, to make Atonement, not just as Dr. Walvoord suggests as a "means of entrance"/"allowed to enter".

The sacrificial blood was brought into the presence of G-d "to make Atonement".

And the one eternal offering of the Blood of Jesus continues today.

Truthtesty



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2011 05:36AM by Truthtesty.

Hi

I'm a wife and mother of three, in CT. My family attended a church pastored by followers of Bob Thieme. These pastors grew up in Bob Thieme's church. I left this CT church about six months ago. My husband and sons still attend this"Thieme-type" church, and give unquestioning loyalty to it's pastor. My marraige is ruined, and my three young adult sons have no idea how to treat a woman as an equal. I was labeled "unsubmissive to the authority of the pastor" a number of times, because I questioned (in e-mail form), the material that was taught from the pulpit.
I was labeled an "unsubmissive" wife, because I objected to being treated as a child by my husband, and objected to verbal abuse.
I have e-mails to and from these pastors, spanning about 5-7 years, clearly demonstrating their demand for unquestioning authority, and their unfair attitudes and handling of issues surrounding mistreatment of wives.
I am sorry I attended this church, because of the great cost to my family. (Years ago, my husband insisted on attending this church and taking our young children.)
I pray that God will help my sons to understand that this church is on the edge of being a cult, and will look for God's truth in their understanding of the Bible.

Hello TouchSmart:

You might find this interesting from Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson :"...When it comes to Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, we have two distinct translation decisions at work in most English Bibles:

The first is that English translations take the idea of submission from the verb in 5:21 and create an imperative form of the verb in 5:22, which has no verb.

The second is that English translations tend to treat 5:21 and 5:22 as separate units, with no real connection to each other.
The separation of 5:21 and 5:22 into separate units demonstrates the sometimes misleading consequences of dividing Biblical books into chapters and verses. In the earliest Greek manuscripts, there were no spaces between words and no punctuation at all. This means that there were no separate sentences and paragraphs.
All of the punctuation, and the division in sentences, verses, and chapters were added over time. Sometimes, the divisions into sentences, chapters, and verses make logical sense. Other times, these divisions separate what were clearly intended to be whole units.
The division of Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 is one of the most dramatic examples of dividing what was clearly intended to be a whole thought. 5:22 is a phrase without a verb. The idea of submission comes from 5:21, in which submission is "to one another."
It is simply irresponsible and misleading to take the idea of submission from 5:21, turn it into an imperative addressed only to women in 5:22, and then disconnect the idea from 5:21. Yet, this is exactly what many English translations do..."
[ezinearticles.com]
[biblos.com]

All the information necessary to debunk Thieme's myths is on this website. You'll need to dig and sift for gems, but they are here.
Other than the input and experiences of others commenting, I would say two key sources are: 1) The critiques and summaries of Dr. Wall"s doctoral dissertation [withchrist.org] and 2) the collected information by mostly orange on 4share [www.4shared.com]

We all here were through some experience similar to yours some worse some better. Some say Berachah is just a destructive church. I know better. It is a cult. If these "thiemite" teachers are teaching Thieme's false cult doctrine of "Right pastor", then they are following Thieme's cult doctrine because The false doctrine of "Reich pastor" is what defines Thieme as a cult. All christians are to submit one unto another and that includes pastors, teachers, and everyone. Eph. 5:21 Jesus the Head of the Church, would be considered the highest theological expert, yet Jesus was subject to all "Luke 22:27 "For whether is greater he that sitteth at meat or he that serveth is not he that sitteth at meat but I am among you as he that serveth" [biblos.com] I highly suggest searching Dr. Wall's .pdf dissertation above for "right pastor".

Here is an example of Dr. Wall's dissertation: "...At no time does Scripture exhort the believer to single out one particular teacher as his final doctrinal authority. On the contrary, there is precedence for diversity of teachers. At Antioch the thriving, missionary church was ministered to by five prophets and teachers (Acts 13: 1). Ephesus had both the personal and epistolary ministries of both Paul and John, and also had the ministry of Apollos and of the elders of Ephesus (Acts 18:24-28; 20:17-35). In 3 John, the apostle condemns Diotrophes for attempting to lord it over the flock, forcing division between his followers and other teachers in the body of Christ..."

Thieme's false myth of reich pastor was a false identification with corrupt Gentile (US military Ellington Air Force Authority) authority of a corrupt creature, when the true identification should always be Holy Spirit inspired in faith with the view being the perfect authority of the Jesus in your "old man's" co-death with Jesus and the new "co-life" resurrection with Jesus. Some say the Holy Spirit repetitively and gradually in time removing the "old man" and "putting on the new" is spiritual growing. Test it for yourself.

In one respect you are lucky because years of study have already taken place to debunk Thieme. The first thing I suggest is to do what is necessary to get yourself in order. You can deal with others much more effectively if you go through successful changes for yourself first. Ultimately no one can make anyone elses mind up for anyone else. You can lead with truth though.

I think 1st one exercise is to ask your family to explain the meaning of the "Blood of Jesus" as it relates to 1 Cor. 15:17. If (as the Apostle hypothetically states) Christians were still in their sins after the death of Jesus(if He had not been raised then death alone did not resolve sin), then obviously since the "Blood of Jesus" purifies against sin then the "Blood of Jesus" continued AFTER His Death on the Cross. This is simple and quick. Ask them to compare that simple verse 1 Cor. 15:17 and the "Blood of Jesus" with Thieme's myths about the "Blood of Jesus".

Regardless of what I or anyone says you should be like the Bereans and test.

Welcome,

Truthtesty Truthtesty@hotmail.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2011 10:24AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

Another "Decision Translation" shown before on this forum, is worth repeating with additions. [forum.culteducation.com]

Understanding God's Government By Paul W. Syltie quote: "All Authority Inserted into Titus 2:15: The KJV reads: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee". In English, it sounds like Paul is telling Titus that he has "all authority" over the brethren-as a king or dictator might. The Greek words for "all authority" are pas and epitage. The latter word is used five other times in the New Testament (Rom 16:26, 1 Cor 7:6.24; 2Cor 8:8, 1Tim1:1, Tit1:3). In all these cases epitage is translated "commandement" and refers to a commandement of the Eternal. The incorrect use of "authority" makes it sound like Titus was the rebuking authority, not the Eternal commandments. Also, the Greek pas is translated "every" 117 out of 1.243 times. When pas is used with a word that trepresents a "class of items", pas refers to "every itme in the class." This verse would be much more consistently translated if it said "rebuke with every commandment". Titus was correct the brethren using every commandement of the Father and Christ. [books.google.com]


There are 7 verses in the New Testament which use epitage. In 6 cases epitage is traditionally translated "commandment", in reference to the commandment of G-d.

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting G-d, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Notice Pau's rhetorical nature. Does that sound like someone who speaks with "all authority"? Paul speaks with permission , in this case.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Again notice the rhetorical nature of Paul. Paul makes distinction between "my judgment" and "commandment of the Lord". Also, notice that when Paul says he gives his judgment it is done so by having obtained the mercy of the Lord to be faithful. Not deceitful for an extremist political agenda, but faithful.

2Co 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

Again notice the rhetorical nature of Paul making distinction between Paul's "words", and the commandment of G-d.

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of G-d our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

Tit 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of G-d our Saviour;

Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.

In all these cases epitage is used of the "commandment of G-d" If you notice the entire chapter of Titus 2, it is a list of commandments not of Paul, but of Jesus. So it appears Syltie the logic is sound and consistent with other Biblical directions. Syltie does make the error of saying " The latter word is used five other times in the New Testament (Rom 16:26, 1 Cor 7:6.24; 2Cor 8:8, 1Tim1:1, Tit1:3).", but you can see 6 other verses are listed in the same sentence, instead of 5. And it is 1 Cor 7:25, not 1 Cor 7:24.

Also, pas after "every item in a list" can be translated "every".

I think, Titus 2:15 with "pas epigate" should read: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with every commandment (of G-d )". In this case, Paul doesn't say speak with all permission (Suggnome [bible.crosswalk.com]), Nor does Paul say speak using "judgment" Gnome [bible.crosswalk.com] , but speak, exhort, and rebuke (to the sheep you are equipping) with every commandment of G-d. These are commandments of G-d, not Paul, in the prior list in Titus.

With all of Thieme's "corrected translations", rewordings of the Bible, and "greek training", shouldn't Thieme have noticed this? Shouldn't have Thieme mentioned this? Not if "it fits your agenda".

Who has "all authority" in any case? Is that not G-d? Does not satan "an angel of light" and his false teachers seek "all authority" and dominion? through the Bible and any other means?

2 Corinthians 1:24 King James Bible "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

I have more proofs on Thieme's myth of Reich Pastor later...

Don't trust me. Test me.


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2011 10:56AM by Truthtesty.

TouchSmart:

I'm so sorry for your very negative and destructive experience with the Thieme ministry. I personally know how difficult it is to counter the fallacies in Thieme's theology with his followers, even when your logic is flawless. But Jesus said in Matt. 7:15, 16:

"Beware of false prophets... Ye shall know them by their fruits."

He didn't say you would know them by analyzing their doctrines. Instead we should look at their lives and the results that are manifested. That's why I recommend reading the biography entitled "Robert B. Thieme Jr., His Ancestry, His Life" by C.G. Hunt.

Of particular interest to you because of your 3 young adult sons would be the fact that Thieme's only son, Bobby, has been married and divorced 3 times, and is currently unmarried. The book definitely sets the record straight with regard to Thieme's stories of his childhood, upbringing, and achievements. Once a person sees the "fruit" they are able to thoughtfully consider what is contrary to the truth in Thieme's teachings.

Also please go online and find some of the great teachers who are teaching new revelation about the grace and love of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Remember "The goodness of God leads men to repentance."

Best Wishes,
helper1

I was raised by a parent who considered RBT the perfect role model for parenting skills and the vision of an ideal man. As a result, physical affection, sentimentality and verbal expressions of affection were absent from my childhood.

As a teenager I balked. If I were to pinpoint the root cause, I would say it was the virulent misogyny present in almost every tape I ever heard. I couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea that my gender meant I was nothing more than a responder with an empty head. I imagined a married life groveling at the feet of my right man and decided if that was what God had in store for me then I wanted no part of it. So I dumped my faith and spent the next 20 years trying to understand why I was such an angry person.

Fortunately God is merciful. He did not abandon me and I eventually found my way back to Him. These days I consider the Bible my instruction manual for living. I wish had had spent my youth reading it instead of listening to and regurgitating the thoughts of someone else who was reading it. I don’t know why it never occurred to me that the Holy Spirit would make it possible for me to comprehend it.

After reading all the posts in this forum I now understand a few things I didn’t before and I am also left with numerous things to think about.

I know that I spent too many of my formative years under RBT to ever fully expunge the vocabulary from my head. But God can and will heal emotional pain.

As a Christian whose upbringing was affected by the influence of RBT I try to keep these verses in mind at all times.


Ephesians 4:1-3
Unity of the Spirit
1Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4:29-32
29Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
32Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.[/size]

I too grew up in this same church. Olds Toronados, Brown theater seats. Overhead projector, the cross and two circles...home bible classes...curious as to who you are. I would love to chat.

Growing up in this church setting there was little or no mention of Christ. Non-Christocentric preaching. A re-inventing of terminology. Why? POWER.

Thieme was no Calvin, Luther, Knox, Boston, Edwards, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Sproul, Piper. But boy howdy, Thieme was elevated to a status that was higher than no other. He was a feared man to say the least.

Never any mention of Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, and those blessings we receive because of what Christ has done for us.

The first 18 years of my life in this scheme. Stifling. Strange. Much time spent looking for the Anti-Christ. Must be behind this tree or that. Much guilt, shame.

I know these people well.

Months ago I spoke with the pastor at the Thieme offshoot church, about the concept of Christian submission. The long and short of it is that, although there was agreement that a husband should submit to Christ, and therefore demonstrate humility in his behavior toward his wife, this is NOT the same submission that a wife is to have toward her husband. In fact, the pastor used the word "obey" and told me that I must "obey my husband in everything." Also, if my husband chooses to abuse his authority, again, I must submit to the abuse, I Peter 3:1, unless there is actual physical abuse. Anything short of actual physical abuse must be tolerated by the wife, as unto the Lord. As a consequence of this teaching, I am treated as a child...ordered about, and threatened at times. My husband has placed himself in control of every area of our household. He doesn't see the need to discuss decision making with me, and certainly doesn't see the need for my approval, in any area. When I protest, argue or become angry, I am told that I am "a rebellious wife". This, in spite of the fact that I am a professional, more highly paid, and with more education than my husband. When the pastor was consulted on this, I was reminded that I must submit to all of this. My husband was not reprimanded and no counseling was suggested.
At this point, I am almost ashamed to be a Christian wife. I live in a nice home, which I helped purchase, but no-one is ever invited inside, because of the disarray and confusion inside. I have no friends, and my sons have difficulty respecting me.
After leaving the Thieme offshoot church, I did reach out to find Christain counseling, and am working with a biblical counselor. Please pray for me.