|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 12, 2010 17:08:44 GMT -5
This is Alan Vandermyden. I recently suggested to the admins here that it might prove interesting if former workers were allowed to post on the workers’ board, and they seemed to like the suggestion. So, here I am!
All are welcome to stop in and listen a bit. Any of you others with experience in the work ready to step in and chat?
Incidentally, Coffee Talk is the name of a small coffee shop about three blocks from our apartment in Kaimuki, Honolulu. It's one of those "collegey" places, with just a few very good sandwiches and such on their menu, as well as the usual choice of lattes and mochas . . . and they still have free wireless!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 12, 2010 17:20:49 GMT -5
Maybe it would be helpful to have for each worker or former worker who posts here give an outline of when and where they were in the work, as well as any other related information he or she may wish to share.
I'll begin:
I was in the work from 1980 to 1998, always in areas under the California "administration." About half of my 18 years were spent on the continent - 7 in California and 2 in Nevada - while the other 9 were spent in Hawai`i and the region of the Pacific generally lumped together as "Micronesia." In particular, I worked on Saipan, Guam, Pohnpei, and Majuro and Likiep Atolls in the Marshall Islands.
Alan Vandermyden
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 13, 2010 12:48:48 GMT -5
I'll begin posting some experiences, hopefully a little later today (Hawai`i is up to 6 hours behind some of you folks). For now, I'm going to throw out a few suggestions:
• Feelings about being "called" into the work
• Offering for the work
• Being accepted into the work
• First time speaking
• Changed relationship with the friends upon becoming a worker
• Changed relationship with other workers
• Companion relationship/interactions
• Gradually assuming/being given more responsibility - within a field and with the regional administration
• Brother worker/sister worker interaction - I find this particularly interesting at preps. And no, I am definitely not talking about "exposure" of any wrongdoing - This is NOT the place for that! But the interaction of identities, "power," etc. can tell us a lot about why some decisions are made, why people do and say some things that others may see as problematic.
• How did you handle the change of bed, diet, etc. every few nights?
• How did you handle the annual change of fields and companions?
• What was the most difficult for you in the work?
• What was the most enjoyable for you in the work?
• Did you ever see something in your companion that concerned you, yet you were afraid to bring it up? Or did you bring it up? What happened?
• How about leaving the work? What was the most difficult thing in this experience? What/who was a help to you in this?
• And what about transitioning from the work back to "civilian" life?
This is obviously not meant to be a complete list - how could it be? Millions of days have been spent as a worker, by thousands of individuals. There's lots to visit about!
And again, names and identifying facts need to be left out of the more awkward, "compromising" stories. And we all need to be careful not to attack, even if we feel we have been attacked. Acceptance of others' feelings, even if we disagree, goes a long way toward bringing understanding. No one is going to be "open" if they feel unsafe. If there are issues that need to be dealt with, that can be done in an appropriate setting.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Aug 13, 2010 20:38:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure when the guy I know was in the work. I think he prefers to forget that part of his life . . . . He has told his story a whole bunches of times and people pop out of the woodwork and have fits so he doesn't really like to talk about it much.
From him to me to you, that's as much as you'll likely get.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 14, 2010 1:20:02 GMT -5
Maybe a logical place to start is the initial "offering for the work" and then "starting out":
I was raised going to conventions, where I remember frequent references to "the need of the harvest," and these are quite easily pushed aside as being "for someone else." But at Gilroy in 1976, just weeks before I began my junior year in high school, the workers seemed to speak about "the harvest field" a lot, and I sensed that I was going to need to confront this question someday. Other (young) friends didn't seem to notice the references!
And sure enough, I had to deal with it! I was out stacking lumber from a fence we were tearing down (Dad & Mom had 5 acres) the day before school started, and I just suddenly became very troubled about the work. My school picture that year reflects my dislike of the feeling. But I gave in after several weeks, and felt more at peace.
Knowing I would need to finish high school anyway, I didn't offer right away. Then, in the spring of '79, nearly a year after graduating, I was waiting for God to tell me again that I was called, when I realized "God has called me once, and He hasn't changed his mind." I wrote a letter to Eldon Tenniswood, and soon received a reply - "Your letter brought great joy to my heart . . ." - telling me things I had already perceived - there would be a wait, just work for awhile, etc. I do feel that Eldon was wise in advising young people to work for awhile, rather than going into the work immediately after graduating from high school. I understood it as a matter of proving that we could support ourselves, and weren't going into the work just for a "free ride." I do remember being reminded in workers' meetings through the years that the work could become either a place of usefulness or a place of laziness - those weren't the exact words, but something to that effect.
I found it hard to think of really applying myself at college, so just worked at a couple of low-paying jobs until I could start in the work. As is often the case, people guess that you're going in the work - partially by clues like not going to school and not dating, but also perhaps being due to me being so quiet and serious, which was really due to me being so painfully shy and also the oldest child in my family, being told I was to "be an example" and so on. A lot of what was taken for "worker material" in me was just a matter of being painfully shy and lacking social skills. I believe that the work can become a cop-out on these things - college and career, and even dating (although I desperately wanted to date, but didn't know the first thing about relationships). But, in retrospect, I have to admit that it saved me from making choices that could have seriously limited my future too.
I waited about 18 months, until a workday at Gilroy preps in 1980, when Eldon approached me as I waited for the lunch line to shorten, taking me aside to tell me there would be a place for me that fall. I never did eat lunch that day!
People heard quickly, as at Wednesday night study the next week, I was asked to lead the meeting. I understand the friends "upholding the ministry" as they were taught, but I also believe it's strange that a newly-given position suddenly lifts a young person up above the elder and other professing people. And yes, I was one of those who sat on the front row, prayed before going to bed at night, and all those "future worker" things . . .
I agreed with my boss to finish a few more weeks on the job, attending the weekend of Gilroy I, then all of Gilroy II (which had already been arranged with my employer), and then returning to work for a couple of weeks before going down to Santee for the conventions and workers' meeting. Even at Gilroy, I of course sat with the workers, ate with them, slept in the brothers' quarters, and spoke at Gilroy II.
As I try to remember things now, the overwhelming feeling is one of awe at suddenly being in such a new position, which entailed an entirely new relationship with the friends. I was suddenly being told "how much we appreciate your sacrifice," as well as being asked for my "sage" advice, as if I knew anything! I believe this lifting up of the workers and seeking their advice, based on a position, rather than because of their wisdom or doctrinal standard, can become problematic. This isn't to say that it is always a problem, but it does open the door for abuse of a position, or even for simply lapsing into a careless attitude.
I also sat with the workers during meetings. This brings an immediate separation, and a person is aware of being up there, "on display," while the friends are given a visual representation of the separation, of the workers being different. If a worker chose to sit with family or (usually young) friends for a meeting or two, it was a very special and noticed occasion, the worker choosing to sit with "normal people."
I enjoyed it, and enjoyed my new relationship to the workers, whom I admired, as well. I accepted this all in my integrity, as I believe most young workers do. I believe that some of the things mentioned above - the respect given to workers, the separation, the familiarity with friends and their homes - can become problematic in some cases, though these are things that can have a positive side too.
Please accept this for what it is - just my experience, as I felt it then and as I view it now.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 14, 2010 16:06:53 GMT -5
I don't want to write a whole lot at once because no one will read it.
I can tell you what I feel right now. I was called into the work. I even asked signs to confirm that it was so. I was given those exact signs that were irrefutable. Not just a little thing but a big putting out of the fleece. I was also given a strong vision. Those two things kept me going through rough times.
"The work" to me is much more than the system that all the workers and friends accept. The work is not something you can go into and come out of.
I realized the above when I tried over years to "leave the work". It is like Jonah trying to leave.
The only thing that changed when I left the work is that God provided for my needs and not the friends.
God sent me after I left the work to deliver my wife from a cult. All the workers who knew her family said that they were a cult(though they were "professing"). But they had no power to deliver her.
I had not recovered financially from the work when this call came. I had a bit of savings and I had worked hard. I know the moment God called me to go to her. I recognized the voice from having been called into the work. And, like the work, I did not know what I was getting into.
So without the benefit of a group of sympathetic and supportive people behind me, I went into the lions den and plucked one soul out of it. That was more than 10,000 gospel meetings had done or could ever do.
I did this with the OPPOSITION of the worker who is presently in the work with much esteem and also in a relationship with my wife's sister. He turned the workers and friends against us.
Currently we are in the same position. I have done some "tent making" along the way but we are basically relying on God and His people to support us. I am still in the work. My ministry has changed from the time I was in "the work". I am preaching truth to the friends and workers. They seem about as receptive to the truth as the pharisees were to Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 14, 2010 21:43:02 GMT -5
I'm back from criss-crossing O'ahu, by The Bus and by car, for a funeral mass, burial, and luncheon with the family . . . Excuse me sir, I couldn't help but overhear your comment, while finishing my coffee and brownies at that table there... I hope you don't mind, I have a question or two. You mentioned that some regarded your new job as a "sacrifice". Did you regard preaching the gospel as sacrifice? Or did you see it as a privilege and blessing? Was it an exciting adventure of walking by trust each day? Or did you feel a sense of duty, more like a burden? Did the way the friends suddenly worshiped you become a hindrance? Give you a big head at times? Is it a form of idolatry? Here, let me buy you another coffee while we sit and chat Sure! I think "euphoric" best describes my state in those first weeks. I had felt like I was in kind of a "limbo" for the prior couple of years, and now I was finally starting to do what I felt I was called to do. I "intellectually" understood it to be a sacrifice, and yet I was not at all into the day-to-day reality of what that meant. Celibacy is probably the single most difficult part of it all, and somehow a person kind of thinks he's going to get a "special power" over those feelings. The reality of that hit after a couple of weeks. It's an every day struggle. Another thing that was difficult for me to give up was snow skiing. I loved it, and yet I knew it was an expensive, and possibly dangerous, sport for a worker to be involved in. I think more workers do it now, but it wasn't really the thing to do back in the early 80s. It vexed me throughout my first year to hear young people - basically my age or a bit younger - planning ski trips. Finally, at Orick preps after my first year, I settled it. I just wouldn't keep hoping it would "work out" to ski again. And really, it didn't bother me after that. By the time I left the work in 1998, I was so into the Pacific Islands, and wanting to eventually return here, that skiing basically never came up in my thinking any more. I've often heard people talking about the difficulty of sleeping in a different bed each night (or every few nights at the best), and that never bothered me at all. I mean, yeah, I did wake up in the middle of the night most nights and have to "get my bearings" again - "Where am I tonight?" "Which way to the restroom?" The ever-changing diet didn't really bother me either. Now, it did bug me when the people of the home would tell us breakfast would be at a certain time, say 7:00, and then change it to a half hour or so earlier. Like, I would plan out my morning - when to get up, read and pray, go walking or jogging, get back in time for a shower and then breakfast. Well, sometimes I would arrive back, all sweaty, to find my companion and the folks of the home all ready for breakfast, thinking they were doing us a favor by speeding it up . . . oh well, we made it through somehow! I think the celibacy requirement became the most "burdensome" part of it. But when a person feels called, and then they aren't feeling the way they had understood they would feel, aren't "getting victory," one begins to doubt his own "spirituality." It can become a trap. This plays out in other respects too, when some others seem to let on that they're so spiritual, and not having all these kinds of thoughts. I believe a person can really get into a guilt trip, beginning to doubt his own thinking, even when he does see something worrisome in another worker. I think the friends' "worship" can become a problem, but I also think it needs to be placed in context. For instance, a very young-looking priest led the funeral mass we attended today. At the following luncheon, he and a deacon were seated at a head table, and were the only ones who were served hard liquor. Now, I don't know this young man, and he may be honorable in his "ministry." My point is that this "lifting up" of people with a position happens in other systems too. That's not to say, "Oh well. Everybody does it." I strongly feel our entire manner of granting respect and authority needs to be questioned. It also reminded me of a time in the Marshall Islands, out on Likiep Atoll. The "monthly" field trip ship had arrived, and we were in line on board the ship to buy food staples - we always tried to help with the food and not be a burden to the family we stayed with out there. The local Protestant preacher saw us, and motioned us to "take cuts" in line with him. We thanked him and declined. But it was evident that he was encouraging us to take privilege because of our "clergy" position, just as he was doing. My point here is not to blast anyone or any particular church. Whether religious, political, or otherwise, we create these institutions, give people "authority," and lift them up. We'll criticize them when they do wrong, but we'll still say "it's the best way/system." Does respect for a person and what they are doing necessarily mean they are above being questioned? I think we all create these problems, in the various degrees to which we "buy into" a system. Is it idolatry? I see idolatry as looking to something outside of us - something we create, then set out there to pray to and ask for help. The worker may be called of God, but perhaps we have created a position that is untouchable, something that we trust in, rather than getting in touch with our own experience and then seeing if that person's advice correlates with scripture and experience. I can tell you what I feel right now. I was called into the work. I even asked signs to confirm that it was so. I was given those exact signs that were irrefutable. Not just a little thing but a big putting out of the fleece. I was also given a strong vision. Those two things kept me going through rough times. "The work" to me is much more than the system that all the workers and friends accept. The work is not something you can go into and come out of. I think my feelings are similar to yours, ts. When leaving the work, part of the struggle then was reconciling my call into the work with the fact of my stepping aside from the work. But I also felt it was the thing I was intended to do at the time. I felt God's direction in choosing to marry Jayne, whom I had known for 15 years at the time - and she had nothing to do with my leaving the work - it surprised her just as much as all the friends there on Guam, and she tried to encourage me to go back in the work. Some of you may not agree with me, and I'll respect your feelings and opinions on this, but I still feel I have a calling, and not necessarily a "new calling" because the initial calling "didn't work out." I feel God very much knows how he can use us in the future, and what experiences we need to prepare us. And I'm not implying that the work was just a "negative" learning experience. Everything in life can teach us the dangers of human reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 14, 2010 22:05:32 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting how we say, "I am married, but I didn't leave the work to get married..." as if that is something bad. Part of the mindset in the work.
I was called to preach the truth, not "meeting doctrine". I am not saying that all doctrine in the meeting is wrong. I am just saying that God, during my time out of the work, showed me that the unmarried ministry was not scriptural and that it is hurting people and hindering God's work. The doctrine of unmarried ministry also spawns other abuses.
Not to digress too much here, but what I learned in the work is that it is not about numbers. We were proud both to be small in number(compared to the world) and a world wide ministry. I might be the only person on this mission.
I learned in the work that we need to trust God for provision and He is true to His word.
I learned in the work that if you preach the truth you will have persecution. We taught the "outsiders" in gospel meetings that if they professed their friends would naturally drop away. Often those closest to you will turn against you. All of these things happened when I started telling the friends the truth. My own professing family turned against me. They no longer support me as a "worker". I understand, of course. The point is that they are looking at "the work" as a system. It is like saying to Elijah, "Your words are not allowed here. We aren't part of your religion".
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 14, 2010 22:23:20 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting how we say, "I am married, but I didn't leave the work to get married..." as if that is something bad. Part of the mindset in the work. Yes! We are somehow made to feel we have to explain our choices. I state it because some assumed that Jayne and I both left Guam at the same time because we planned to marry. That would be okay too, really, but sometimes a woman gets branded as a "worker chaser" (as if the workers don't make their own choices!), and I generally make things clear for her sake. More on your other, important points later . . .
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 14:58:20 GMT -5
I can tell you what I feel right now. I was called into the work. . . . "The work" to me is much more than the system that all the workers and friends accept. The work is not something you can go into and come out of. I think we all look for some kind of meaning in life, and many of us find it in our feeling that God has called us to a particular work, though some may find it in helping with with social or other issues, and some may just kind of give up and try to get through as well as they can. I don't doubt anyone else's calling, but I no longer place my sense of "mission" within the work. That is a part of Christian Conventions, and to me, it is valid for them to define it in the way they want. I'm no longer able or willing to fit into their conditions, so I no longer see myself as in the work. But, I also feel, as I posted earlier, that God may have had longer-range intentions for me - as well as for others, of course - that at one point included the work. I do not look on my years in the work as wasted. They taught me much, and they have contributed to forming what I am today. And yes, time spent in the work can seriously set a person back financially, but so can a lot of other choices in life. Trying to find employment at 38 years old, with no education or marketable skills, was very frightening. I'm now within a year of receiving my MA, and my wife has been working valiantly to help me through college these past 5½ years. It's frightening, but then, I don't know that I would have done any better if I had gone directly into school and the job market. I had no idea what I wanted to do anyway. I see many classmates who really don't know what they want in school, just there obtaining a degree in something popular, such as business or IT. I - as well as other 'non-traditional' classmates - am a lot more focused on school, and have a much clearer idea of what I want to do. We also have a lot more experience to bring to the table in discussions or paper writing! All I can do is take it as it is and go from there . . .
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 17:20:29 GMT -5
How about some humorous worker doings? The thread on speaking lists brought to mind some stuff a few of us did at Santee one year:
The sister workers used to (and maybe still do) clean the brother worker quarters every morning of convention (except Sunday). Our theory was that this was done to make sure we didn't sleep in.
Well, one morning when we went back into "Struggle Inn" after breakfast, some of us noticed a new list. It was a "tea-pouring" list, which none of us had ever heard of! This had to do with the "tea-times" before the first two meetings each day and after the last one.
Apparently, these lists have long existed for sisters, with us brothers mostly unaware. Well, this list had all of us brothers on it. And we fell for it! Some of us immediately began to panic, because we were scheduled to "pour tea" immediately before the meetings in which we were to be speaking! And of course, none of us knew a thing about getting all the snacks and drinks out for "tea time."
It finally dawned on us that this was a joke. So I came up with a counter: We would make up a platform list, with sisters sitting up there! Unlike the "real" platform list, this one stipulated who would "test" the meeting - that way we could have the youngest sister test it. This list coordinated with the speaking list.
Since we don't clean the sister's quarters, and don't have access to them, we brought one young sister into our plan, who willingly posted our list. It brought the desired reaction. Some obviously knew about the "tea serving" list and would have connected it, but some evidently didn't. Anyway, they hadn't been aware that a platform list existed either . . .
As workers, we often joked about "living by lists." One list I began to make up was for transportation after conventions ended. Workers usually spent a week or two with family or friends, and it often got quite confusing to sort out which car and which worker were going where, and sometimes someone ended up stranded or not able to go where he/she had been hoping. I asked one of the "older" brothers if I could get the car and worker destination data together and he thought it was a great idea. I did that my last 2 or 3 years at California conventions (in the mid-90s), and it was much appreciated by most of the workers.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 15, 2010 17:21:33 GMT -5
Just want to say how much I'm enjoying this "coffee talk." Carry on.... Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 17:54:31 GMT -5
I like to look at humor, not just to get a laugh, but because it says a lot about how things are handled. Humor often points out inconsistencies between reality and "talk." I'm not really saying it's pointing out hypocrisy, but just the tension people feel in trying to live up to individual and cultural ideals.
In 1985, after returning from a year on Guam and a year on Pohnpei with Harry Henninger, I was spending a few days at Santee preps before the conventions there. Harry and I had also made our first, 3-week visit to Likiep Atoll in the Marshall Islands (two other pairs of workers had visited the atoll for a week each time), also spending several days on Majuro Atoll en route to Likiep.
And of course, I had to buy some souvenir tee-shirts. Having always been fascinated with language, and after learning a few simple sentences in Marshallese, I bought a tee that had the names of all 30+ atolls of the Marshall Islands printed on the back, in varying sizes, colors, and orientations.
I was wearing this tee while working around the grounds at Santee, and kindly old brother worker Clinton Heldstab came up behind me and was obviously reading over the island names, most of which are very difficult for English-speaking people to pronounce. Then he lighted on one Atoll name and read it outloud: "Bikini - hmmm . . . think maybe I'd like to go take a look around out there."
I don't think of this as being crude, but rather as an acknowledgment of a struggle that each worker is keenly aware of. It meant something to me to hear an older brother worker acknowledge the same struggle. I feel this is what humor often accomplishes - it acknowledges tensions that are there, but are generally left unspoken.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 19:46:10 GMT -5
Al, When you get a chance, would you talk about how you learned about doctrine? Did anyone walk through what the F&W's believe and don't believe? What was okay to talk about and what wasn't? This could get interesting . . . but since you've asked . . . In thinking about this today, I don't recall any instance of being specifically instructed in doctrine as a group of workers. Most doctrinal instruction, if it occurred at all, occurred in a study or meeting that was also open to the friends. You may ask, "When and where was this?" - and that is basically my point. I believe there is very little doctrinal instruction. Some workers do occasionally give a "study" on the ministry or the church in the home - Leo Stancliff would do this - but again, it was not in a setting specifically intended for workers. And, since there really isn't an "official" doctrine or creed, even though there is a general consensus on the "ministry without a home" and the "church in the home," even the reasons given for these could vary from worker to worker. I think this is a lot of why I always felt very nervous if workers my age and older were visiting in our gospel meetings, or when speaking at convention, when many older workers are present. I felt like I always wondered if I was "getting it right." Worker meeting topics tended to be focused on "encouragement" and on matters such as working together as companions, discretion in sharing things among the friends (basically, "Don't gossip"), care in using the money given to us, appropriate behavior in the friends' homes, etc. Much of it was actually very good advice. In my opinion, much of the doctrine is in what "we don't do or have" - buildings, salaried ministers, "rules and regulations," even a spelled-out creed. Obviously, there are many ways these can be, and are, challenged, but I am talking about things that are often stated and generally believed. This makes it difficult to even describe how things are taught, as it feels like I'm talking about something that's not there in any "concrete" form. I'm sure some would say that the Spirit teaches, that we don't need doctrinal meetings or whatever, but I also feel that much of what a person is to believe is contained in "discourse" - The way things are framed when they're talked about, whose opinion is considered as worth listening to, what is even worth discussing . . . Consider this: When someone first begins attending meetings, they sometimes make the comment that they feel like an outsider. The workers or friends sometimes then tell them "It's the spirit working with you." I had trouble with this, even when I was pretty much in full agreement with most things about Christian Conventions. The special "lingo" professing people use makes a visitor very aware that he/she is not being fully included. This happens in many social groups, and is not so bad in itself, but most others don't tell people that it's the spirit convicting them. Well, if the person continues to attend meetings, they begin to understand the lingo, and they begin to pick up on the way to dress, places they shouldn't go to, activities they shouldn't engage in, etc. This happens at many levels, including in the work. There are a lot of insinuations, withholding of approval, talking about ones who are approved, etc. I'm not saying that everything taught this way is necessarily bad, but I'm just saying I don't feel there is a straightforward way of talking. Some companions are very good at communicating what they expect and how they view things; others aren't so straightforward. My first companion repeated to me over and over, in front of various friends, that for me, as a beginning worker, everything would be all turned upside down, and I wouldn't know which way was up. Well, I took it to be true, and it was pretty much. But why does it need to be that way? Jesus brought something that helped to put people's lives in order, and I don't see that beginning to preach it should make the preacher feel all topsy-turvy. Shouldn't even a new minister, even if a bit shy or whatever, feel like he can connect with people to share something he loves? I feel like this unsettled feeling works to keep a person doubting and fearful, wanting the approval of an older companion. I don't resent that companion. In fact, I have been good friends with him from that year and on. I even took on some of his mannerisms (as several other California brothers have done) for my first couple of years, until I was more strongly influenced by someone else. I've been a bit hesitant to express these views, as I'm well aware some of you may take issue with them. I'm not here to blast anyone, but for me this is very much how it worked.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 20:42:30 GMT -5
I think we all look for some kind of meaning in life, and many of us find it in our feeling that God has called us to a particular work, though some may find it in helping with with social or other issues, and some may just kind of give up and try to get through as well as they can.
I don't doubt anyone else's calling, but I no longer place my sense of "mission" within the work. That is a part of Christian Conventions, and to me, it is valid for them to define it in the way they want. I'm no longer able or willing to fit into their conditions, so I no longer see myself as in the work.
I feel that "the work" is still my calling because I tried to get away from it and could not. I tried to "get on with life" and could not. Tried to forget about the gross abuses but could not. I didn't get very far until I realized that the abuses of the work had followed me. I decided that it was irresponsible of me to "give up" on ministering to the friends and workers. I realize, of course, that I will not be well received. But that is normal. Neither was Jesus. I do know that there are many people being hurt like my wife was. It is because of false doctrines and not just a few bad apples.
The fact of the matter is, I am not cut out for anything else but God's calling. When He said give everything, I did. I gave all to the work and the ministering to the friends. I gave up all other ambition. Maybe my view is over simplistic, but I went into the work to preach the truth. The truth is something that isn't false. If there is falseness in doctrine, the fruit will show. It is definitely showing in the work with all the CSA and other emotional abuses. I can't imagine Jesus saying, "Well, they don't want me, so I guess I will go back to carpentry and get on with life." No, He warned that if they rejected Him then they would all the more reject us for preaching truth. I remember what William Lewis said once. "Don't look at the world to find a pharisee. If anyone is going to be a pharisee it is us because we have the only truth and way like the Jews did." I don't have to wonder how well received my message would be if I were to speak at convention. Actually I think many would find it a welcome relief. The leaders wouldn't. I spoke recently at a special mtg. The first I had spoken in a mtg in 7 years. I didn't plan to even be there, much less speak. A professing person told me that that was the only evidence of the spirit in the meeting.....so, there you go. There is scope for my "heresies."
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 23:17:53 GMT -5
My first companion repeated to me over and over, in front of various friends, that for me, as a beginning worker, everything would be all turned upside down, and I wouldn't know which way was up. Well, I took it to be true, and it was pretty much. But why does it need to be that way? Jesus brought something that helped to put people's lives in order, and I don't see that beginning to preach it should make the preacher feel all topsy-turvy.
I had a old companion who proudly told me that he had the reputation of breaking in new companions. "If anyone can make it with me" he said, "they can make it with anyone." I had been in the work 11 years. He was my last companion.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 16, 2010 0:48:34 GMT -5
I had a old companion who proudly told me that he had the reputation of breaking in new companions. "If anyone can make it with me" he said, "they can make it with anyone." I had been in the work 11 years. He was my last companion. Wow! What a thing to be proud of! And he claimed to be following Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Aug 16, 2010 11:39:41 GMT -5
I was called to preach the truth, not "meeting doctrine". I am just saying that God, showed me that the unmarried ministry was not scriptural and that it is hurting people and hindering God's work. I learned in the work is that it is not about numbers. We were proud both to be small in number(compared to the world) and a world wide ministry. I might be the only person on this mission. I learned in the work that we need to trust God for provision and He is true to His word. I learned in the work that if you preach the truth you will have persecution. We taught the "outsiders" in gospel meetings that if they professed their friends would naturally drop away. Often those closest to you will turn against you. All of these things happened when I started telling the friends the truth. My own professing family turned against me. They no longer support me as a "worker". I understand, of course. The point is that they are looking at "the work" as a system. It is like saying to Elijah, "Your words are not allowed here. We aren't part of your religion". I don't doubt anyone else's calling, but I no longer place my sense of "mission" within the work. That is a part of Christian Conventions, and to me, it is valid for them to define it in the way they want. I'm no longer able or willing to fit into their conditions, so I no longer see myself as in the work. Next post ---I feel that "the work" is still my calling because I tried to get away from it and could not. I tried to "get on with life" and could not. Tried to forget about the gross abuses but could not. I didn't get very far until I realized that the abuses of the work had followed me. I decided that it was irresponsible of me to "give up" on ministering to the friends and workers. I realize, of course, that I will not be well received. But that is normal. Neither was Jesus. I do know that there are many people being hurt like my wife was. It is because of false doctrines and not just a few bad apples. The fact of the matter is, I am not cut out for anything else but God's calling. When He said give everything, I did. I gave all to the work and the ministering to the friends. I gave up all other ambition. Maybe my view is over simplistic, but I went into the work to preach the truth. The truth is something that isn't false. If there is falseness in doctrine, the fruit will show. I can't imagine Jesus saying, "Well, they don't want me, so I guess I will go back to carpentry and get on with life." No, He warned that if they rejected Him then they would all the more reject us for preaching truth. I remember what William Lewis said once. "Don't look at the world to find a pharisee. If anyone is going to be a pharisee it is us because we have the only truth and way like the Jews did." I don't have to wonder how well received my message would be if I were to speak at convention. Actually I think many would find it a welcome relief. The leaders wouldn't. I spoke recently at a special mtg. The first I had spoken in a mtg in 7 years. I didn't plan to even be there, much less speak. A professing person told me that that was the only evidence of the spirit in the meeting.....so, there you go. There is scope for my "heresies." That pretty much tells my point. Some experiences were a bit different but all was quite similar at one point in life or another. One difference is I moved on from religion as most know it. That part of my life is over. There was way too much disappointment and distress. I cannot believe in a being that claims everyone is loved and everyone will be assisted in life and then lets people down, lets people function entirely on their own. I do not believe a supreme being tests its subjects. That is conditional love. Tests are for proving something. Teachers test their subjects. Engineers test their creations. Why should a supreme being that knows all before, during, and after need to test its creation? Much of the bible and its interpretations are based on human error instead of supreme being. I believe those who follow bible teachings are following humans. Those who have a relationship with their supreme being do not need a book to guide the way.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 16, 2010 11:48:08 GMT -5
Thanks for joining us, Hawk!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 17, 2010 15:37:15 GMT -5
Sorry I've been so quiet - got preoccupied with the banana-coconut bread pudding available up there at the counter today. Not bad.
Since our discussion on the (non?) instruction in doctrine, I've thought of one point that I do remember being discussed occasionally among workers, though I don't remember it ever being discussed in a "formal" setting, such as a workers' meeting:
I'm speaking of the doctrine of being the only way. Now, I'm beginning to pick up that not all members of Christian Conventions believe this to be so, but some do, and I did as well. And my point here is not to debate that point, but to point out that this was discussed among workers - or at least, I sometimes participated in groups of workers who were discussing whether or not "strangers" or "babes" should be told this, or whether "the spirit would teach them in time."
As I remember it, most of those I heard discussing this were more-or-less of the opinion that it wasn't good to "force" this doctrine on people, but just to let the Spirit do the teaching.
This sounds reasonable, but I also link it now - and the apparent lessening of this belief - to the amount of information available or not available. These forums weren't available back when, and it was much easier to keep a "closed" system, keeping people unaware of what was being said and done "out there."
I have a difficult time expressing myself in groups, and I generally didn't say much in these - or any other - discussions (unless someone happened to ask me about the Pacific Islands ;D). But I do remember thinking, and perhaps occasionally mentioning, Jesus' request that Peter and the others not tell people who he was. I'm embarrassed to say this now, but I did conflate "letting the Spirit/God reveal" who Jesus is with revealing a way as "the only way." But then, I think this well illustrates that in my mind, as in many people's minds, they are the same thing.
This is obviously a very sensitive point for many, and again, I'm not attacking, but trying to bring out how one important point was handled/taught in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 19, 2010 14:48:48 GMT -5
I am very frustrated at the moment. I am trying to define the illogical set up and expectations of the work. It constitutes abuse, but I am having a hard time defining it.
I have started a couple of threads to help me define it. One is "The spirit of a (dysfunctional) child" and "What is the role of a worker"
I keep coming across this wall of reasoning. If I say something like, "I was in an intellectual vacuum" I get the come back of "Well that is your fault because there are workers who take classes etc".
I would have loved to be more active with my education like other workers did. It simply was not allowed. I was not strong enough to go against the flow and bear all the accusations against my salvation and I did not want to compromise my place in the work.
My wife and I are both in the same position. We are very childlike and both were emotionally and/or physically abused as children. We needed (and still do need) a place of nurturing and I feel that the work (if it is God's true ministry) should be a place to get that sort of nurturing. Instead, the work took from me my youth and left me even more dysfunctional than I was. And now they don't care about me. Worse, they say it is my fault.
I was studying a foreign language on my own. Instead of encouraging me, my companion said, "much study is weariness of the flesh" and kept badgering me until I stopped. Even if I studied the scriptures he did the same. I guess it is my fault for giving in but if you beat a dog enough, he will cow down.
I had over ten years in the work. I think it is reasonable to assume that if a ministry were worth anything that a person who enters into it should be a better and more responsible person when they leave. they should have built some life skills during that time even if they had none to begin with. If the ministry were focusing on building their own, do you not think that spirit would enter into the congregation?
Instead, I am being blamed for not having things that the work took from me.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 19, 2010 15:28:50 GMT -5
I keep coming across this wall of reasoning. If I say something like, "I was in an intellectual vacuum" I get the come back of "Well that is your fault because there are workers who take classes etc". You misunderstood what I wrote. I said it was "partly your own doing" not "it was all your fault". We all have to take some responsibility for our own lives. I am glad that most overseers make young people (18-yr-olds) wait and spend a few years living on their own before entering the work today. Having some independence might make it harder to adjust to a nasty companion, but it will also make these young people aware that they can survive independently if they need to leave the work to get away from that nasty companion.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 19, 2010 15:58:33 GMT -5
When you say that it is "partly my your fault" I think of my wife. She realizes that the choices she made were her own choices but they were based on what she learned. You have to base your choices on something. If your mind is warped, that is the type of choice you make. At 28 years old, my wife had no mind of her own. She actually, like a child, believed what she was told. She believed that the worker she saw in a relationship with her sister was in a godly relationship. She wanted to serve God more than anything. So she emulated that.
I just think that it is cruel as a group to support falseness and then back out of the responsibilities when there are damages caused by the teaching.
Not one worker or overseer has been understanding of the choices we made in childlike trust. They have always turned it back on us as if it were our responsibility. They didn't teach us otherwise.
I think I am plenty capable of taking responsibility for my actions. I thought that is what I was doing when I left school and went into the work. It was, in my mind, a responsible thing to do. Now, my family thought it was foolish, but they were not professing. I disregarded their advice and believed the workers.
It was a foolish thing in the mind of others to leave my good job and rescue my wife from a cult. I take responsibility for that. I would do it again. What I am saying is, the teachings of the workers, is destructive and THEY are not taking responsibility for them. THEY are not paying for the damages done. Who is holding them accountable?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 19, 2010 16:20:17 GMT -5
When you say that it is "partly my your fault" I think of my wife. She realizes that the choices she made were her own choices but they were based on what she learned. You have to base your choices on something. If your mind is warped, that is the type of choice you make. I agree. Just having the legal right to make a choice certainly does not mean that we have been taught how to make good choices, or that we see more than a limited range of options available to us. I believe this is why many groups do not like members to become educated or to talk with people outside of the group. This was a very real part of the experience some of us had in Christian Conventions as we were growing up. We may be getting a bit off-topic here, as Coffee Talk is intended for our experiences in the work. But perhaps I can also relate this to the work. For me, being sent to a foreign land as a worker played a large role in helping me to question cultural assumptions I had grown up with. I had learned certain things about Pacific Islands peoples which are not at all what I witnessed when living among them. This may be considered "secular," but it definitely made me look beyond what I had been taught - historically and culturally - and I eventually extended this to include "spiritual" things.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Aug 20, 2010 11:34:05 GMT -5
I think the time people spend in the work when they know something is wrong tells most of the story. The longer the time spent, the more obvious the story.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 20, 2010 12:26:28 GMT -5
We go into the work to preach truth. When the workers are living contrary to truth, it is our responsibility to point it out. Finished. Full Stop. We meet persecution when we do this, but that is what we are supposed to expect. We are no more supposed to give up than Jesus did. The workers are hurting people with their lies. Perhaps all are not abusive or child molesters. That might only be a few. But for years in the past even into the present there are liars, womanizers and child molesters among the workers. I did not know this was my calling when I went into the work but it is becoming more and more clear now that I have left that system and lived for truth. The friends are giving away their "hard earned money" (as they say) to workers who are actually hurting the flock. What I am saying is, I was called. I gave up my education and career because I answered the call when I was called. I put my hand to the plow. Being true to the call has led me to speak truths that are contrary to what the workers speak. This path has also led me to financial hardship due to lack of education and lack of opportunities in a foreign country. But at least one soul was delivered from a cult in the process. The friends and workers knew about the cult situation before I did and did nothing to help. They had no power. They actually exacerbated the situation by knowingly supporting a worker who is currently having an affair with one who is in the same cult(cult is the word that the workers used first, not me).
When I ask the workers and friends for help(the help I mainly ask is for them to just be honest), across the board their answer centers around what they feel is my irresponsibility for not having an education or a job. When, in fact, I am being the most responsible in the kingdom by giving up all for the sake of one soul. I am, in fact, doing their job while they hang around all the cream and cushy areas with all the wealthy friends having gospel meeting after gospel meeting and affairs on the side. A person doesn't leave a work that God called him into. Maybe once the workers figure that out, they won't be so afraid to be led by the Spirit and actually reach out and help people and also reach out to get help from godly "outsiders". Meanwhile, the friends have supported liars and let those who are working for the sake of the gospel go hungry. God is our provider and He uses people whose hearts are soft and He can move to give. The friends and workers, because of their doctrine, have just missed a lot of opportunities to help the real work that is being done.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 9, 2011 19:06:45 GMT -5
Just want to say how much I'm enjoying this "coffee talk." Carry on.... Blessings, Linda Me, too, Linda! It's interesting to hear the other side of the story! It really helps us to sympathize and understand better what some workers went through in their introduction to the worker's life. I also agree, the friends also contribute to the "drama" in the workers' lives by how we put them on the pedestal from the start! Like the old saying goes, "It takes two to tango." Like a music concert, someone has to be in the crowd cheering them on and swooning at their every word. This helps create the "image" that must be upheld at any costs! BTW, Al, I loved your story which I read on TLC a little time back. You had a difficult road to travel and I admire your efforts to make the best of it and to return to help others. That's real noble of you, and I'm not trying to put you on any pedestal either. Those days are past for me and long gone. I just like to see real evidence of change for the better, and your testimony came to mind as I enjoyed this "Coffee Talk."
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on May 3, 2011 7:43:27 GMT -5
Al, I'd love to see a thread on the worker board about the "lifetime commitment", how current and former workers see it, and how the friends can help current and former workers put aside feelings of guilt when they need to leave the work. From a thread on the main board: Edgar/Noel I was never in the work but I have had conversations with several workers who had contemplated leaving the work and from those conversations it was obvious they were struggling with their ingrained worker/friends thought that once offering for the work it was a liftime committment. Jim Brown who I loved thrashed out his reservations about losing his reward, having nothing to live on, concerns about what the friends would think . Another worker talked about the only way to gracefully leave the work was based on poor health or the care for a relative, all others reasons were shameful. I remember when Joe Crane left the work and married how ugly some of the friends were to him despite how much good he had done. Would you want to leave the work and face that type of response. In some smaller measure those who contemplate leaving the fellowship are faced with the same fear based thinking. ken This is quite true for many exiting workers....my own family member who had been in the work close to 30 yrs. went through several years of a psychological warfare which was aided by people's very evident "disappointment" in her exiting the work....the inner conflict she had was enough but to have friends and workers both be coldly friendly and then word comes back that those cold friendly folks said things against her exit in a very derogatory way added to the psychological adjustment 100 per cent. I think it is perhaps hard for workers who are still 100 percent still much in the work to see or understand this until they personally taste it. However there does become a reward for all this psychological warfare...in years down the line the workers usually like to warm the ex workers' homes "because they understand what we go through". Which is a slap in the face to other friends who have a welcome mat out for the workers. As to poor dear Jim Brown....he sought to find himself a mate, but the mate he sought pushed him back into the work so that "he'd finish honorably"....poor man was ailing then and perhaps if he could have found a home that was his in every way he would not have suffered so badly in the end.
|
|