|
Post by sofastarch on Aug 5, 2009 19:04:48 GMT -5
There's some talk about workers and friends in charge of accounts abusing money that's given to the workers.
It seems that we are talking about the POTENTIAL for there to be mismanagement of money or wasteful spending. It apparently must bother some people that they don't know for sure that there isn't money being abused. Maybe they'd like to see an extensive accounting of every penny spent in every part of the world, I don't know.
Lets just say that there are some things that you do that I'd think are wasteful, and that I do that you'd think are wasteful. We could argue about them a long time. They are not fraud or wildly wasteful.
There are other things that nearly everyone would agree are wasteful of fraudulent. Of this kind of activity, there MIGHT be a few rare cases where a worker or one of the friends has fallen and mishandled money, intentionally or unintentionally that we'd all agree was wrong. Those cases are so rare that some here are seeming to worry that the sky is falling, when really just an acorn has fallen here or there and hit someone on the head. Face it, if the men of God who are in charge of the money were spending it so frivilously on themselves, they'd have more than a new suit and a new suitcase to carry it in.
I can think of many, many ways that the workers spend money, but there aren't any of them that bother me. I'm happy if they spend some of it being normal people... not just frugal non personalities with no family or needy friends/acquaintes. If they took a family out to eat that never gets to go out to eat, I'd be happy. If they have regular dental checkups, I'm happy to pay for that. If they have a bypass surgery for $60,000, I'm happy to have my money go towards that. Maybe they'd like a plane ticket to fly to see their mother on her death bed or when she has surgery. I'm in favor of chipping in. The majority of progressive society with moderate amounts of money would not think this is wasteful or abusive spending.
Buying themselves boats or time shares, I'd have a problem with. Sorry I don't see it happening.
|
|
|
Post by caretoshare on Aug 5, 2009 19:09:16 GMT -5
There's some talk about workers and friends in charge of accounts abusing money that's given to the workers. It seems that we are talking about the POTENTIAL for there to be mismanagement of money or wasteful spending. It apparently must bother some people that they don't know for sure that there isn't money being abused. Maybe they'd like to see an extensive accounting of every penny spent in every part of the world, I don't know. Lets just say that there are some things that you do that I'd think are wasteful, and that I do that you'd think are wasteful. We could argue about them a long time. They are not fraud or wildly wasteful. There are other things that nearly everyone would agree are wasteful of fraudulent. Of this kind of activity, there MIGHT be a few rare cases where a worker or one of the friends has fallen and mishandled money, intentionally or unintentionally that we'd all agree was wrong. Those cases are so rare that some here are seeming to worry that the sky is falling, when really just an acorn has fallen here or there and hit someone on the head. Face it, if the men of God who are in charge of the money were spending it so frivilously on themselves, they'd have more than a new suit and a new suitcase to carry it in. I can think of many, many ways that the workers spend money, but there aren't any of them that bother me. I'm happy if they spend some of it being normal people... not just frugal non personalities with no family or needy friends/acquaintes. If they took a family out to eat that never gets to go out to eat, I'd be happy. If they have regular dental checkups, I'm happy to pay for that. If they have a bypass surgery for $60,000, I'm happy to have my money go towards that. Maybe they'd like a plane ticket to fly to see their mother on her death bed or when she has surgery. I'm in favor of chipping in. The majority of progressive society with moderate amounts of money would not think this is wasteful or abusive spending. Buying themselves boats or time shares, I'd have a problem with. Sorry I don't see it happening. Nicely put, sofastarch. k2s
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Aug 5, 2009 19:26:42 GMT -5
Buying themselves boats or time shares, I'd have a problem with. Sorry I don't see it happening. The apostles had a boat. fs
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 5, 2009 19:37:15 GMT -5
Buying themselves boats or time shares, I'd have a problem with. Sorry I don't see it happening. The apostles had a boat. fs didn't they have it before they joined Jesus? And we don't' see them being asked to sell it. It says they left it - which we can presume that they did not go off and sell it but kept it there. I am sure not many have a problem with the workers having bank accounts, what they have a problem with is preaching that they have nothing and are poor homeless preachers with no where to lay their heads, when they have bed and accommodation prepared for them before they go on their journey. Also that they sell all before they go into the work and have nothing. But it seems that they accumulate things after they go into the work. They are not the poor homeless, penniless preachers that they claim to be.
|
|
Pink
Senior Member
Posts: 411
|
Post by Pink on Aug 5, 2009 19:55:35 GMT -5
I didn't care when I gave money what they did with it. It was a gift and in good faith we gave. What they did with it and how they did with it will be left in their hands and the judgement will be for someone else to judge. What I can judge is dealings I have witnessed by overseers and elders concerning the handling of wills and estates of the elderly and those maybe not so elderly but impaired in their thinking skills.
modified to add:
And if you don't think this happens, you are just not "in the know".
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 5, 2009 23:09:20 GMT -5
There's some talk about workers and friends in charge of accounts abusing money that's given to the workers. It seems that we are talking about the POTENTIAL for there to be mismanagement of money or wasteful spending. It apparently must bother some people that they don't know for sure that there isn't money being abused. Maybe they'd like to see an extensive accounting of every penny spent in every part of the world, I don't know. Lets just say that there are some things that you do that I'd think are wasteful, and that I do that you'd think are wasteful. We could argue about them a long time. They are not fraud or wildly wasteful. There are other things that nearly everyone would agree are wasteful of fraudulent. Of this kind of activity, there MIGHT be a few rare cases where a worker or one of the friends has fallen and mishandled money, intentionally or unintentionally that we'd all agree was wrong. Those cases are so rare that some here are seeming to worry that the sky is falling, when really just an acorn has fallen here or there and hit someone on the head. Face it, if the men of God who are in charge of the money were spending it so frivilously on themselves, they'd have more than a new suit and a new suitcase to carry it in. I can think of many, many ways that the workers spend money, but there aren't any of them that bother me. I'm happy if they spend some of it being normal people... not just frugal non personalities with no family or needy friends/acquaintes. If they took a family out to eat that never gets to go out to eat, I'd be happy. If they have regular dental checkups, I'm happy to pay for that. If they have a bypass surgery for $60,000, I'm happy to have my money go towards that. Maybe they'd like a plane ticket to fly to see their mother on her death bed or when she has surgery. I'm in favor of chipping in. The majority of progressive society with moderate amounts of money would not think this is wasteful or abusive spending. Buying themselves boats or time shares, I'd have a problem with. Sorry I don't see it happening. BUT SOS! If this were pastors, ministers in other denominations, they'd be free to go and buy boats and/or times shares and no one would think a thing about it....so isn't what's good for the goose is good for the gander....yes, I know people want to think of the money given to the workers as still being the people's but it is given with the intent that the workers can meet their needs just like any other paid servant, it's just not taxed and etc. for the same things other preachers in other denominations get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 0:58:09 GMT -5
Wait a minute. With regard to worker overseer power over money, there is more than one way to abuse that power (over money) other than to just spend (or squander) it upon oneself by privileges not available to others. Denying use of it to those who need it is as much abuse of that substance as spending it upon themselves. This has occurred many many times even to the present day, fact.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 6, 2009 8:22:18 GMT -5
Wait a minute. With regard to worker overseer power over money, there is more than one way to abuse that power (over money) other than to just spend (or squander) it upon oneself by privileges not available to others. Denying use of it to those who need it is as much abuse of that substance as spending it upon themselves. This has occurred many many times even to the present day, fact. I've read in the Bible that Jesus even got a "hit" on that one! His answer, when the disciple with the bag complained about the value of the alabaster being used to wash Jesus feet could be better spent on the poor was: " For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mar 14:7 When I read that quote I get the impression that Jesus wasn't wanting to be an agent that collected substance from his followers for the purpose of distributing it out to the poor. He wanted his followers to do that individually themselves. In my case, more than once workers have mentioned a special need of some person or family, but more often it is an elder and/or elder's wife who is more observant of the needs of those they meet with regularly.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Aug 6, 2009 14:48:38 GMT -5
yes, I know people want to think of the money given to the workers as still being the people's but it is given with the intent that the workers can meet their needs just like any other paid servant, it's just not taxed and etc. for the same things other preachers in other denominations get. Paul's unpopular advice: II Thess3:7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 6, 2009 17:59:27 GMT -5
Wait a minute. With regard to worker overseer power over money, there is more than one way to abuse that power (over money) other than to just spend (or squander) it upon oneself by privileges not available to others. Denying use of it to those who need it is as much abuse of that substance as spending it upon themselves. This has occurred many many times even to the present day, fact. I've read in the Bible that Jesus even got a "hit" on that one! His answer, when the disciple with the bag complained about the value of the alabaster being used to wash Jesus feet could be better spent on the poor was: " For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mar 14:7 When I read that quote I get the impression that Jesus wasn't wanting to be an agent that collected substance from his followers for the purpose of distributing it out to the poor. He wanted his followers to do that individually themselves. In my case, more than once workers have mentioned a special need of some person or family, but more often it is an elder and/or elder's wife who is more observant of the needs of those they meet with regularly. Many people believe that the verses "freely as you have received, freely give" means just that. As these verses are about money it is generally accepted that it refers to giving money. The workers interpret it as giving the Gospel without money. Most people i thave talked to say it is as the apostles were given money freely from others then they were to give it freely to others.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 6, 2009 18:35:44 GMT -5
Many people believe that the verses "freely as you have received, freely give" means just that. As these verses are about money it is generally accepted that it refers to giving money. The workers interpret it as giving the Gospel without money. Most people i thave talked to say it is as the apostles were given money freely from others then they were to give it freely to others. Not everyone feels that the verses are referring to money. I have read quite a few different thoughts about these verses. Here is a pretty good study about those verses. www.sdbiblicalstudies.com/teachings/freely_ye_have_received.htmScott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 18:56:23 GMT -5
Many people believe that the verses "freely as you have received, freely give" means just that. As these verses are about money it is generally accepted that it refers to giving money. The workers interpret it as giving the Gospel without money. Most people i thave talked to say it is as the apostles were given money freely from others then they were to give it freely to others. Not everyone feels that the verses are referring to money. I have read quite a few different thoughts about these verses. Here is a pretty good study about those verses. www.sdbiblicalstudies.com/teachings/freely_ye_have_received.htmScott I agree that those verses may not be solely about money.....I don't think so myself. If it was about money it would have been written "free", not "freely". "Freely" means to me "without reservation" and "don't discriminate". That would also mean that you would not hold back if someone doesn't have money, a little like the emergency rooms of US hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 6, 2009 19:53:54 GMT -5
This is where English just doesn't do justice to the Greek. The phrase " freely you have received, freely give" is a rendering of the quite literal translation " as a gift you received, as a gift give". In other passages where similar constructions are found the emphasis is on money, or rather "no payment" as in "gift". Cf. Ro.3:24; 2Co.11:7; 2Th.3:8; Rev.21:6, 22:17. One of the standard lexical works, Louw-Nida, puts it: 57.85 δωρεάνa: (derivative of δωρέομαι ‘to give,’ 57.83) pertaining to being freely given—‘without cost, as a free gift, without paying.’ οὐδὲ δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν παρά τινος ‘we didn’t eat anyone’s bread without paying for it’ 2 Th 3.8. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains. The other standard reference, BAGD, puts it likewise: 1. as a gift, without payment, gratis, receive, give without payment Mt 10:8 (Sextus 242); cf. Rv 21:6; 22:17; δ. εὐαγγελίσασθαι 2 Cor 11:7. δικαιούμενοι δ. justified, declared upright, as a gift Ro 3:24. οὐδὲ δ. ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν παρά τινος we have not eaten bread with (or from) anyone without paying for it 2 Th 3:8. Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1996, c1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature It's interesting, it never occurred to me that some might read the phrase as "you the congregation have freely received the gospel and gifts from God through us the ministry, so freely give money towards us". But that would be a self-serving rendering! Jesus is clearly speaking to the apostles and telling them they received gifts from God without paying for them (a tautology to be sure), hence they should pass without charge to others ie. there shouldn't be an entrance fee to hear the gospel, and a healing should not be a reason to invoice the healed.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Aug 6, 2009 21:04:31 GMT -5
Thank you, Rob O. I really enjoyed that post.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 6, 2009 21:10:22 GMT -5
"That would also mean that you would not hold back if someone doesn't have money, a little like the emergency rooms of US hospitals."
Clearday, am I to understand you mean that US hospitals turn away people needing emergent care IF they have no funds nor insurance?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 6, 2009 21:25:25 GMT -5
I think he meant just the opposite of how you took it..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 6, 2009 21:38:54 GMT -5
Thank you, Rob O. I really enjoyed that post. ditto from me Rob! I like to hear the more literal translation meanings of some passages in the scriptures. They really put things in a better perspective don't they? Kind of like when Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him in the following verses: Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!" I have heard that Jesus was asking do you love me (agape love) and Peter was answering that he loved him (as a friend) and that is why Jesus kept asking until Peter answered with love (agape) Maybe Rob could expound on that a bit, as I am sure I am doing a poor job of explaining..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 6, 2009 22:01:22 GMT -5
] It's interesting, it never occurred to me that some might read the phrase as "you the congregation have freely received the gospel and gifts from God through us the ministry, so freely give money towards us". But that would be a self-serving rendering! Jesus is clearly speaking to the apostles and telling them they received gifts from God without paying for them (a tautology to be sure), hence they should pass without charge to others ie. there shouldn't be an entrance fee to hear the gospel, and a healing should not be a reason to invoice the healed. I too like this explanation. If I may ask, what would you consider to be an "entrance fee to hear the gospel"?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 6, 2009 22:08:45 GMT -5
Thank you, Rob O. I really enjoyed that post. ditto from me Rob! I like to hear the more literal translation meanings of some passages in the scriptures. They really put things in a better perspective don't they? Kind of like when Jesus was asking Peter if he loved him in the following verses: Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!" I have heard that Jesus was asking do you love me (agape love) and Peter was answering that he loved him (as a friend) and that is why Jesus kept asking until Peter answered with love (agape) Maybe Rob could expound on that a bit, as I am sure I am doing a poor job of explaining..... Scott Yes, I know... I'm not Rob, but... I believe one thing Jesus means here is "with the fullness that I (Jesus) have loved you (Peter), by feeding my sheep is how you will show that fullness of love in return".
How are we to show love to Jesus? "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 22:35:34 GMT -5
For myself, I've often thought about the gift (grace) that was given freely (by grace). Personally sometimes I find "the what" is the lesson rather than "the how." Needless to say those who never receive the gift (grace) freely cannot extend it for they never accepted it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 22:42:50 GMT -5
Ron Hall, in no way to my understanding of HIS nature would I believe the Lord would approve of those with control over large sums of excess money then using what He related regarding something being done against his own death as justification for their own parsimony and abuse of power over such sums. I do not agree with your comparison at all. But then, that is just how I see it, you obviously see it differently.
For me, such a "viewpoint" as you present completely obscures "the what" that was occuring when he was annointed with a costly spice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2009 22:56:33 GMT -5
"That would also mean that you would not hold back if someone doesn't have money, a little like the emergency rooms of US hospitals." Clearday, am I to understand you mean that US hospitals turn away people needing emergent care IF they have no funds nor insurance? As Scott mentioned, I meant the opposite. Whoever spreads the message needs money to continue their work. However, their work should not be held back from someone who does not contribute. In an ideal situation, everyone freely gives according to need and it will all work very well. The 2x2 style is probably one of the best systems in this regard. The word is spread without request for money, and very rarely implied. However, most mainstream churches welcome all listeners without cost too, but all listeners will sooner or later become well aware of the costs, and may feel some kind of pressure, even if subtle, to contribute. Where the 2x2 system is deficient on the "freely give" principle is the hoops people have to jump through in order to be deemed as having received what is given. One of my kids annually attends a week long activity which is operated by a mainstream church. It's not particularly cheap, but last year upon arrival, the record of registration had been lost yet there was no hesitation for admission. I didn't hear about it until the end of the week and was quite impressed that they had just "freely" allowed admission. That seemed to follow the "freely give" principle (even though we really had paid).
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 7, 2009 19:52:10 GMT -5
I too like this explanation. If I may ask, what would you consider to be an "entrance fee to hear the gospel"? I've seen strongly "encouraged" giving in churches bordering on guilt trips, which is a bit rich to me, but I wouldn't say that's an entrance fee as there is no obligation on any particular individual to give. Sometimes there are guest speakers or conferences where there is a fee to attend, though it would never be just the gospel. As a matter of principle, I don't go to them. To be honest, I don't know what an entrance fee to hear the gospel would look like. I don't know anyone or any church blatant enough to actually charge an entry fee, and I think they would be intentionally avoided. I agree with Clearday, I do think that the F&W system in terms of cost and money requirements is one of the best for its particular aims. But there is an omission here too. The reason the NT church established a deaconate was to address material needs, especially for those within the church but against the background of Jewish teachings regarding the welfare of all (Cf. the gleaning laws, and tithes that provided for the poor in the community), it would probably have included observed needs of those not in the church as well. The individual can and should directly give to needs but corporate giving makes it easier to attend to large-scale concerns such as hospitals/clinics, food banks, temporary accommodation shelters and so on. Scott, I'll return to your question.
|
|
|
Post by buzzybee on Aug 7, 2009 21:21:27 GMT -5
I don't think abusing money is really the issue here. It's that they preach they are penniless and poor which in not the case.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 7, 2009 22:27:50 GMT -5
Well, they also make it a point of pride/humility in not taking up a collection as the "worldly" preachers do, and yet all their needs are mysteriously met - such are the wonders of the Way that provides for them.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 8, 2009 0:49:16 GMT -5
I too like this explanation. If I may ask, what would you consider to be an "entrance fee to hear the gospel"? I've seen strongly "encouraged" giving in churches bordering on guilt trips, which is a bit rich to me, but I wouldn't say that's an entrance fee as there is no obligation on any particular individual to give. Our parish is often presented with opportunities for extra giving but they have to do with charitable giving. I have heard people (not our parish) remark about the push for funds for building a new facility. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to--perhaps something I unaware of. And, it may indeed differ from church to church. We haven't been in a church where a huge push was made for money, fortunately.I agree with you that the system seems to have worked well. I suppose it's the potential for corruption that is questionable, the unknown, as there is no transparency.
I absolutely agree with the omission, and the establishing of the deaconate (where is it in the F&W?) and the great need, especially in difficult times like these with so many needing help.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 8, 2009 4:46:30 GMT -5
I totally disagree with sofastarch. Over the years I was with the 2x2s I have known many cases of abusive use of money collected by the workers. Here are some examples - When the overseer in Greece decided to organise conventions there in the 80's a lot of money was sent to him from overseas (mostly the USA). Suddenly the «penniless and poor» overseer had enough money to construct a new convention building (many say he also paid for buying the piece of land on which the building was constructed). Of course the property was in the name of a friend! The same overseer had also enough money to support the establishment of another convention ground - there we heard he had to cover some debts of the non professing person who owned the property. Furthermore, some months later this same overseer, who had started acting like a dictator towards his fellow workers, left the 2x2 organisation and created his own flavour of christianity. He then bought a big property in one of the most lavish suburbs of Athens and constructed a villa apparently with the money he appropriated from the donations given to him for the establishment of the convention grounds. The new appointed overseer never disclosed how much money was stolen, nor asked them back!
- When certain workers in our region (in Europe) started using cars, instead of public transport (as was the custom until then), a friend suddenly bought a car «specifically for the workers to use», although his economic condition was not such as to allow him such largesse. We gathered that the money were given by the workers. When the car crached several times, the workers (who were responsible for the accidents) paid for the repairs although the cost of these repairs was quite high and any logical person would have prefered to buy a new car.
- When the overseer in our part of the world developed an adulterous affair with the wife of one of the friends, he started travelling several times a week from his «field» to the town of the lady. At the time we did not know of the affair but were startled by the frequency of travel who costed a fortune. In view of arranging practical questions about meetings etc. we would often try to contact the overseer whose field covered our region but we could not locate him at the place he was supposed to be and later discovered that he was out of town «unexpectedly for matters pertaining to the work».
So over the (more that 30) years I followed this cult I have seen enough cases which prove beyond doubt that the workers 1. Have a lot of money, 2. Manage this money in a most unacountable way, 3. Very often abuse the money without any control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 8:25:32 GMT -5
Here is a universal formula for the conditions under which money abuse will occur:
1.Money given which is not earned. 2.Money given without condition. 3.Zero accountability of that money.
It's a slamdunk. Under those conditions, even the most noble of individuals will eventually abuse the money. They may not run off with it like the Greece overseer, but they will make expenditures which will be foolish, wasteful or completely inappropriate, it's guaranteed.
|
|