|
Post by sharonw on Feb 28, 2011 8:11:39 GMT -5
Alexandra, no-one has a problem with the truth. Rather: WHAT PART OF THE TRUTH ARE YOU REFERRING TO? Hmmmm, when did Alexander change sexes....I missed something there!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 28, 2011 9:57:55 GMT -5
JO wrote this earlier re authority: The gentile model of authority:"In Mark 10:42 "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." The kingdom model of authority:Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In Mark 10:43-44 Jesus defines the authority of the kingdom which He says will not be modelled after the gentile type; that of the greatest exercising "Lordship." He goes on to describe the Kingdom model as that of being a "minister" or a "servant." It seems that it takes faith to believe that this can actually work, just as it takes faith to accept any of the concepts that Jesus set forward. I have experienced the authority of the Kingdom by gestures of service and kindness which have humbled my heart, and caused me to worship God. Any kindness or service that has the Kingdom's authority in it will bring about a response and a responsibility, as Christ's spirit always does. The great thing is we can all have this authority because it is always safe and when I have used it, it has the right affect and makes the other party responsible to God and not me. The gentile model attempts to make another responsible to the lordship concept or the individual exercising it. The Kingdom model makes both parties responsible to the Spirit of God. When the service of another humbles me I automatically have acknowledged its authority by bowing to it. Source: professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=15963&page=2#342307
On the same thread, clearday wrote: The unknown Hebrews author hardly answered the question at all. Who has the rule? What authority do they have? What is their position called? What decisions do they make for you? Who says the verse has anything whatsoever to do with workers or any other self appointed rulers? Jesus answered the question much better than that: Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. That's the simple truth from Jesus bert, not the mumbo jumbo you are peddling. Christians do well to check with Christ first for the answers.
CD: The biggest mistake that readers make of the Hebrews passage is to jump to the conclusion that the writer is advocating a hierarchal ruling system. That's not the case at all, he is merely acknowledging that it exists and advises how to behave when someone has the rule over you. There is no religious hierarchal advocacy in the Hebrews writing. Hierarchal religious ruling systems are anti-Christian, Jesus established that unequivocally.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 10:17:51 GMT -5
JO wrote this earlier re authority: The gentile model of authority:"In Mark 10:42 "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." The kingdom model of authority:Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In Mark 10:43-44 Jesus defines the authority of the kingdom which He says will not be modelled after the gentile type; that of the greatest exercising "Lordship." He goes on to describe the Kingdom model as that of being a "minister" or a "servant." It seems that it takes faith to believe that this can actually work, just as it takes faith to accept any of the concepts that Jesus set forward. I have experienced the authority of the Kingdom by gestures of service and kindness which have humbled my heart, and caused me to worship God. Any kindness or service that has the Kingdom's authority in it will bring about a response and a responsibility, as Christ's spirit always does. The great thing is we can all have this authority because it is always safe and when I have used it, it has the right affect and makes the other party responsible to God and not me. The gentile model attempts to make another responsible to the lordship concept or the individual exercising it. The Kingdom model makes both parties responsible to the Spirit of God. When the service of another humbles me I automatically have acknowledged its authority by bowing to it. Source: professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=15963&page=2#342307
On the same thread, clearday wrote: The unknown Hebrews author hardly answered the question at all. Who has the rule? What authority do they have? What is their position called? What decisions do they make for you? Who says the verse has anything whatsoever to do with workers or any other self appointed rulers? Jesus answered the question much better than that: Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. That's the simple truth from Jesus bert, not the mumbo jumbo you are peddling. Christians do well to check with Christ first for the answers.
CD: The biggest mistake that readers make of the Hebrews passage is to jump to the conclusion that the writer is advocating a hierarchal ruling system. That's not the case at all, he is merely acknowledging that it exists and advises how to behave when someone has the rule over you. There is no religious hierarchal advocacy in the Hebrews writing. Hierarchal religious ruling systems are anti-Christian, Jesus established that unequivocally. Who has authority over the overseers that misbehave. It seems pretty obvious that no one does. The friends that care and love this fellowship that point out the wicked men that are hurting the sheep, are turned on by the wolves and either excommunicated, or shunned, and worse, lied about and demonized. This has been documented time after time. It takes YEARS to get an overseer removed, and someone has said that it can take up to 8 other overseers to get a problem overseer removed- therefore it is obvious, that some of them aren't accountable to a chief overseer. These men preach their authority, they would do well to remember that with great authority comes great responsibility. Accountability is the missing part of the equation. Some of these men openly brag about not being accountable to the saints. One common saying that some of the workers will say and then laugh heartily (I've heard it), is, "the friends didn't hire me and they can't fire me!"
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Feb 28, 2011 10:25:28 GMT -5
JO wrote this earlier re authority: The gentile model of authority:"In Mark 10:42 "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." The kingdom model of authority:Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In Mark 10:43-44 Jesus defines the authority of the kingdom which He says will not be modelled after the gentile type; that of the greatest exercising "Lordship." He goes on to describe the Kingdom model as that of being a "minister" or a "servant." It seems that it takes faith to believe that this can actually work, just as it takes faith to accept any of the concepts that Jesus set forward. I have experienced the authority of the Kingdom by gestures of service and kindness which have humbled my heart, and caused me to worship God. Any kindness or service that has the Kingdom's authority in it will bring about a response and a responsibility, as Christ's spirit always does. The great thing is we can all have this authority because it is always safe and when I have used it, it has the right affect and makes the other party responsible to God and not me. The gentile model attempts to make another responsible to the lordship concept or the individual exercising it. The Kingdom model makes both parties responsible to the Spirit of God. When the service of another humbles me I automatically have acknowledged its authority by bowing to it. Source: professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=15963&page=2#342307
On the same thread, clearday wrote: The unknown Hebrews author hardly answered the question at all. Who has the rule? What authority do they have? What is their position called? What decisions do they make for you? Who says the verse has anything whatsoever to do with workers or any other self appointed rulers? Jesus answered the question much better than that: Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. That's the simple truth from Jesus bert, not the mumbo jumbo you are peddling. Christians do well to check with Christ first for the answers.
CD: The biggest mistake that readers make of the Hebrews passage is to jump to the conclusion that the writer is advocating a hierarchal ruling system. That's not the case at all, he is merely acknowledging that it exists and advises how to behave when someone has the rule over you. There is no religious hierarchal advocacy in the Hebrews writing. Hierarchal religious ruling systems are anti-Christian, Jesus established that unequivocally. Who has authority over the overseers that misbehave. It seems pretty obvious that no one does. The friends that care and love this fellowship that point out the wicked men that are hurting the sheep, are turned on by the wolves and either excommunicated, or shunned, and worse, lied about and demonized. This has been documented time after time. It takes YEARS to get an overseer removed, and someone has said that it can take up to 8 other overseers to get a problem overseer removed. These men preach their authority, they would do well to remember that with great authority come great responsibility. And accountability. Some of these men openly brag about not being accountable to the saints. One common saying that some of the workers will say and then laugh heartily (I've heard it), is, "the friends didn't hire me and they can't fire me!" Do you want authority over the overseers? Your words are saying you do.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Feb 28, 2011 10:32:57 GMT -5
Dale Schultz, the 2011 2x2 / Truth / Fellowship Overseer of California, had written:I would just like to encourage you to accept this support that Willis and Jim have at the present time as a reality and to respect that decision because it comes from a group of men whom God has called and whom God is using in guiding his work in this part of the earth. If our attitude towards them becomes disrespectful, it is a reflection on our attitude towards God as well.Dale went on to write in that same letter:Another possibility is that it was not the best decision for the province. But, whichever is the applicable possibility in this case, it does remain the right thing to respect that decision because of where it has come from and to work with it no matter what our own thoughts might be on the subject.www.thelyingtruth.info/index.php?f=exc&id=shultz In the interest of historical accuracy and full context disclosure, can someone provide the date of the letter written by Dale Schultz? I'm pretty sure it wasn't in 2011 when he was overseer of California. Does the source link have a date on the letter? edit to add: I see the original post has been modified to show the letter was written in 1999. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 10:33:02 GMT -5
Who has authority over the overseers that misbehave. It seems pretty obvious that no one does. The friends that care and love this fellowship that point out the wicked men that are hurting the sheep, are turned on by the wolves and either excommunicated, or shunned, and worse, lied about and demonized. This has been documented time after time. It takes YEARS to get an overseer removed, and someone has said that it can take up to 8 other overseers to get a problem overseer removed. These men preach their authority, they would do well to remember that with great authority come great responsibility. And accountability. Some of these men openly brag about not being accountable to the saints. One common saying that some of the workers will say and then laugh heartily (I've heard it), is, "the friends didn't hire me and they can't fire me!" Do you want authority over the overseers? Your words are saying you do. I neither said it or implied it. I just want to be left alone to worship my Lord and Savior with my family and the meeting that we love without being lied about by these men. Evidently that is too much to ask. I want to know where in the scriptures it gave the ministry the power to lie, deceive, and punish those that called attention to those liars. I feel that I have all the power of heaven behind me as I am for the truth, and not for the lies. Rev 2-2 says what the Lord expects of us as saints, "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" I'm saying this very plainly, Lin, any worker that lies and then punishes those that expose the lie, is evil. It is our DUTY to expose such wickedness because of the harm that it does to the lives of the Lord's people.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 10:38:01 GMT -5
Dale Schultz, the 2011 2x2 / Truth / Fellowship Overseer of California, had written:I would just like to encourage you to accept this support that Willis and Jim have at the present time as a reality and to respect that decision because it comes from a group of men whom God has called and whom God is using in guiding his work in this part of the earth. If our attitude towards them becomes disrespectful, it is a reflection on our attitude towards God as well.Dale went on to write in that same letter:Another possibility is that it was not the best decision for the province. But, whichever is the applicable possibility in this case, it does remain the right thing to respect that decision because of where it has come from and to work with it no matter what our own thoughts might be on the subject.www.thelyingtruth.info/index.php?f=exc&id=shultz In the interest of historical accuracy and full context disclosure, can someone provide the date of the letter written by Dale Schultz? I'm pretty sure it wasn't in 2011 when he was overseer of California. Does the source link have a date on the letter? I was afraid that was going to confuse people. I was simply providing his current title and date of Dale, the current overseer of California. There are plenty of links on the web to the letter, Cheries site at www.tellingthetruth.info has the letter or links to the letter. I think that it is important that the folks know that Dale was promoted to be overseer of the wealthiest and most populous state in the United States after his wickedness in Alberta/Manitoba. He got promoted even after he assented to kicking a worker out of the work because she crossed "field lines" (as he stated in another letter, as well as demonizing her with unspecified charges- a tactic that I DESPISE as the workers are using that tactic against me as well.) Link to the letter from Dale about Marg: www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=marg2 (his letter where he demonizes Marg to a relative, without the decency of including her in the reply, is midway down the page and is dated: 5 mars 2001) Thanks for asking for a clarification. Truth, honesty and openess should be of paramount importance in a fellowship that is known as the Truth. Unfortunately, the overseers don't seem to understand that concept. Kind regards, Alexander
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 10:47:19 GMT -5
That's not accurate at all. Dale didn't kick out any elders, meetings or friends.....at least nothing in those numbers. You're probably thinking of Willis and he didn't kick out that many elders either.
Dale did fire a worker solely for visiting kicked-out friends in fields which wasn't her own.
Dale did consent to all the decisions of the Alberta excommunications. It is possible to draw a dotted line to his CA promotion perhaps as he indicated that he was a good team player and was prepared to put his conscience aside for the preservation of the team.
In truth, all indications are that Dale didn't agree with all the decisions in Alberta, but consented to them anyway.
That letter would have been around circa 2000 in the aftermath of the Alberta excommunications.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 10:48:58 GMT -5
That's not accurate at all. Dale didn't kick out any elders, meetings or friends.....at least nothing in those numbers. You're probably thinking of Willis and he didn't kick out that many elders either. Dale did fire a worker solely for visiting kicked-out friends in fields which wasn't her own. Dale did consent to all the decisions of the Alberta excommunications. It is possible to draw a dotted line to his CA promotion perhaps as he indicated that he was a good team player and was prepared to put his conscience aside for the preservation of the team. In truth, all indications are that Dale didn't agree with all the decisions in Alberta, but consented to them anyway. Right, sorry. I did mean Willis. I do hold Dale just as accountible, though. Just my opinion. But thanks for the clarification. Should I change what I wrote? For accuracies sake?
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 10:51:24 GMT -5
That's not accurate at all. Dale didn't kick out any elders, meetings or friends.....at least nothing in those numbers. You're probably thinking of Willis and he didn't kick out that many elders either. Dale did fire a worker solely for visiting kicked-out friends in fields which wasn't her own. Dale did consent to all the decisions of the Alberta excommunications. It is possible to draw a dotted line to his CA promotion perhaps as he indicated that he was a good team player and was prepared to put his conscience aside for the preservation of the team. In truth, all indications are that Dale didn't agree with all the decisions in Alberta, but consented to them anyway. That letter would have been around circa 2000 in the aftermath of the Alberta excommunications. Thanks, I changed it.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 28, 2011 10:55:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 11:02:47 GMT -5
Nope. I am waiting to see if ANY worker will show any care of a shepherd and at least start asking questions about the issue and prove me wrong that there is accountability in the overseer ranks. From what I am seeing and hearing, there is none, so I may be waiting a long time.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 28, 2011 11:10:51 GMT -5
As requested: Dale Schultz April 12, 1999 Letter This is the one Alexander quoted from above
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 28, 2011 11:23:36 GMT -5
The friends reasons...March 9, 1998 Letter by Walter Holt Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 28, 2011 13:23:38 GMT -5
Dale's letter is a text-book example of human politics. These men seem to have no understanding of the words of Jesus:
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 28, 2011 13:39:08 GMT -5
Politicians have territory too. Marg Magowan visited some friends during her free time as she passed through Alberta with her father. According to Dale she needed permission from the Alberta politicians to visit her friends:
You were wondering why a promise to not visit the disturbed people in Alberta would have been sufficient to have enabled Marg to stay in the work. That is actually not the case. We had five requirements to present to Marg and we were asking for a commitment on all five of them. Before we brought up any of them, Marg asked us if these requirements would affect who and where she visited. So, when she was unable to comply with this part of it, we brought up nothing further. A simple understanding that workers recognize the world over is that we don't go into other fields and get involved without the knowledge and sanction of the workers in that field. That applies to the field bordering us, let alone the neighboring province.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 28, 2011 14:36:26 GMT -5
Politicians have territory too. Marg Magowan visited some friends during her free time as she passed through Alberta with her father. According to Dale she needed permission from the Alberta politicians to visit her friends: You were wondering why a promise to not visit the disturbed people in Alberta would have been sufficient to have enabled Marg to stay in the work. That is actually not the case. We had five requirements to present to Marg and we were asking for a commitment on all five of them. Before we brought up any of them, Marg asked us if these requirements would affect who and where she visited. So, when she was unable to comply with this part of it, we brought up nothing further. A simple understanding that workers recognize the world over is that we don't go into other fields and get involved without the knowledge and sanction of the workers in that field. That applies to the field bordering us, let alone the neighboring province.I thought that in Christ was no North or South. In Christ no East or West. If the Lord's spirit is the same the world over, and if the workers are led by the Lord's spirit, then why is it a threat to the workers if a worker visits a friend in another field- especially since it was the Lord's spirit guiding them there? Are the workers that disruptive in visiting their friends in other fields that they should be kicked out of the work that God called them into? By the way, while I was in the work, I never heard of this being an issue (visiting in other fields) or a concern among ANY worker. Most of the time we welcomed any new worker that would come our way.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 28, 2011 16:07:25 GMT -5
Before Dale got sucked into power politics he too was involved in the neighboring province:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5131 Lansdowne Drive; Edmonton, AB T6H 4L1; CANADA
July 29, 1999
Our Dear Alberta Staff Overseas,
Jim and I are back to BC from the Elders Meeting at Milltown. All were present including our two Seniors, Ernest Nelson and Eldon Tenniswood. The details of convention visitors both to us and from us, for the year 2000, were easily worked out. Other matters were opened for discussion. While there was much discussion the following two things were all that were finalized:
1. Jim Knipe will go to Washington to labour on Sydney Holt's staff, and Mark Huddle, who has been laboring in Alaska will come to Alberta to be my helper, in Jim's place. This will happen in early September at the beginning of the mission season. Mark will be with me.
2. Jack and Dale Shultz at our request agreed to disassociate themselves from those they have been linked with in Alberta. This will surely help to get things resolved. They will write to our Staff stating their intention.
Word today from Marvin he has his approval for Pakistan. He will leave Aug 17th. We have been in touch so recently that won't make this longer than just these details, and our well wishes.
Your brother gratefully,
SIGNED: Willis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 16:50:11 GMT -5
In other words:
"Jack and Dale have agreed to ignore the pleas for help from Alberta people and throw them under the bus. That way I can strong-arm them into submission or kick them out of the meetings, which ever method allows me to resolve my wobbly power base and get firmly back in control of this church in Alberta."
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 28, 2011 17:52:09 GMT -5
You can debate this topic til the cows come home. Unless these men and women are convicted of sin there will be no repentence. Just because you say it is wrong wont get the result you are looking for.
|
|