listen
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by listen on Sept 23, 2011 6:18:25 GMT -5
Why are the friends and workers shunning your family. If the subject is too personal to post publicly, please do not. However, if it is absurd, and you can explain, please do. I have yet to see the workers address things that are truly wrong and encourage things that are truly right.
Sincerely,
Listen
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Sept 23, 2011 12:21:12 GMT -5
Hi listen, I just saw this post addressed to me.
We don't know why the workers are shunning our family. I asked one of the overseers why they were shunning us, and he replied back that he didn't like the word "shun" and that I should stop using it. He also said, "If you don't visit the friends and workers in your area, then why should they visit you?"
The issue isn't that complicated.
We used to live in a different part of the state. We had 10 wonderful years down there with fellowship with the friends and workers. We moved to my home part of the state, which was 3 hours north of where we used to live. My mom still lives there and meets there. She has never liked my wife. The people in the meeting were immediately cold to my wife. They also started trying to pit our two children with behaviorial needs against us by dropping very judgemental and harsh statements accusing us of being biased toward our biological children over our adopted. They then took it a step further and began going behind our back and doing things for those 2 children like bringing them a toy, etc. We had asked them not to show the 2 children any extra attention (out of the ordinary- such as bringing JUST those 2 children a toy). The children have RAD and they were beginning to triangulate the meeting. That is what children with RAD do. A worker that also posts on this board, noels, can confirm what I am writing as there are 2 children with RAD in his field. I spoke with the elder on many occassions, many hours on the phone as well, asking for his help to stop the practice. He finally told me that he did think that my wife was being partial to the biological kids over the adopted. So, I finally, and foolishly, went to the overseer to ask him to intervene and simply tell the meeting that it was a medical issue and it is a serious problem to have the triangulation going on. That those 2 children didn't need the extra attention- to just shake their hand and treat them just like the other 6 kids that we have. But, throughout the dinner, in an expensive Japanese restaurant, he just kept giving me the elder's and my mom's position and was telling me to just give in (against the advice of medical experts). I told him that I couldn't do that- that would hurt those 2 kids. Toward the end of the meal he said something that really let me know where he stood, he said, "Some women, might say that your kids look neglected." I was stunned. Here we were eating at a fancy Japanese restaurant and he is seriously telling me that my kids look neglected? We had met him at our nice 3 story home that is cleaner then most hospitals and he was telling me that my kids look neglected? My kids wear very nice, branded clothes (not that that matters), and he was telling me that my kids looked neglected? At that moment, I felt that gossip had done her dirty work- he was so blinded to gossip that he couldn't even see the reality. But that wasn't the worse part- I had explained to him what triangulation was and how RAD kids use it to pit adults against adults. And I told him the importance of not letting those kids think that he was in "their corner" against us. So, what did he do? After the very next gospel meeting, he picked up one of those 2 kids, gave her a great big hug, and then swung her around in a big circle. He made a huge spectacle of showing to all in the meeting what he thought of my instructions (and the mental health experts) in regards to those children.
So, I knew at that moment nothing was going to change. I wrote George Lee an email saying that we were through with going to meetings- that we could not attend any longer because it was hurting the healing of our 2 RAD children in that environment. George, in kindness, wrote back and said that he didn't want "my children" to miss going to meeting, so he invited us to a meeting in his state. And we went. And it was heaven for us again. Just like the previous 10 years before we had moved. There were no issues with the children. No one gave my wife the cold shoulder or asked us why we treated one child a certain way over how we treated another child. No issues. It was heaven, and those folks have my gratitude for providing us another year of being in meetings.
Until, George called a few weeks ago and told me that we had so many kids that we were making folks in that meeting nervous- and he said that it would be best if we didn't go to meetings there anymore. When I then emailed him and asked what meeting we were to attend, he replied back, that there were none in his state. That all the meetings were full. So far, other overseers have no being able to find a meeting for us. (The odd thing is, another worker was with us, we were on vacation when George called, and he was stunned at the news. We had been in two meetings with him that week and he had stayed a night with us. So, I asked him- did you detect anything in our testimonies or spirit that seemed to indicate a problem? he said "no." Did he see us treating our biological children differently then our adopted/foster children? He replied that he didn't even know which ones were our biological children- he certainly couldn't tell.
So, we are without a meeting in a fellowship that we love BECAUSE of false gossip and the overseers digging their heels in believing in the false gossip. They are also reporting that I have an issue with "authority", which isn't true. I wouldn't have went to them or other overseers for help if I had an issue with their authority. I have an issue with their abuse of authority- and their shunning/excommunication based on nothing more then lies/false gossip is an abuse of that authority.
|
|
listen
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by listen on Sept 23, 2011 15:12:45 GMT -5
Dear Alexander and wife,
You two have got to have two of the most wonderful hearts! ANYONE who takes a verbal deadly aim at you, your wife or any one of your children could only be classified as an egotistical fool. The Bible says "pure religion and undefiled is to minister to widows and orphans in their distress.". You have also 'loved your neighbor' by taking children into your home at your own expense and gave them a refuge of love (provision, protection, affection and fierce loyalty). And this all flows out of you naturally. You should commended, appreciated, affirmed and validated as someone that is living out what they believe. Everything you are doing made me proud of both of you.
You do NOT have a problem with authority - that is terminology people use when the do not know what to do with your intelligence - it is used to control and humiliate. Jesus never told anyone 'you have a problem with authority' .
The workers will ALWAYS have a problem with people who express deep love-people who have tender hearts. In the meetings you do not see real compassion. If people were really loved by the workers the workers would be fiercely loyal to them like you are to your family. If you do not love you cannot grieve. Whoever is not grieving your loss has never truly loved you.
You KNOW what it is to sacrifice for who you love. You should see that kind of sacrifice being made for you. True love is always willing to sacrifice FOR what it loves. I believe that is what is crying out in you to be answered. You have sacrificed for the friends and workers, money, time, loyalty, trust - all that is an investment- you have a right to expect all that in return.
Thank you for pouring out your heart - I respected all I read. I look forward to being a encouragement to you both if I can.
Sincerely,
Listen
|
|
listen
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by listen on Sept 23, 2011 15:50:15 GMT -5
P.S. I am a zealous advocate for children. They are so precious, such a joy, such gifts from God - and you are a blessed man - you have a quiver full! Children are a blessing from the Lord. Don't apologize for the appearance of your children-to anyone. They are trying to find out who they are, trying to be accepted, trying to fit in...your patience with all that will serve you well. You know it's their hearts that matter. Love them and leave the rest to God.
Kids hate hypocrisy and the can find it faster than anyone.
Rules without relationship equals rebellion... And its perfectly fine to rebel against that. We were not made to keep rules - we were made for relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 23, 2011 20:00:01 GMT -5
Alexander,
I strongly suspect that George L. got called on the carpet by the overseer of your home state for meddling in the affairs of a jurisdiction outside his own. I'll bet if you LIVED in his state you'd still be going to meetings there. It's the same thing that got some of the Alberta workers in hot water.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Sept 23, 2011 20:09:13 GMT -5
Alexander, I strongly suspect that George L. got called on the carpet by the overseer of your home state for meddling in the affairs of a jurisdiction outside his own. I'll bet if you LIVED in his state you'd still be going to meetings there. It's the same thing that got some of the Alberta workers in hot water. that's the way it looks to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 24, 2011 0:59:04 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Sept 24, 2011 1:01:29 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc. that also makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2011 1:20:52 GMT -5
Dear Alexander and wife, You two have got to have two of the most wonderful hearts! ANYONE who takes a verbal deadly aim at you, your wife or any one of your children could only be classified as an egotistical fool. You do realize that, as Alexander pointed out above, that much of this is stemming from his mother. The children's grandmother.Apparently his mother does not feel the same way. Not as long as alexander is the authority. Do you mean his Mom?
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Sept 24, 2011 8:02:26 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc. He could have told anyone that asked to simply ask me. But instead he just chose to remove us rather then answer questions? Surely not.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Sept 24, 2011 8:06:47 GMT -5
Dear Alexander and wife, You two have got to have two of the most wonderful hearts! ANYONE who takes a verbal deadly aim at you, your wife or any one of your children could only be classified as an egotistical fool. You do realize that, as Alexander pointed out above, that much of this is stemming from his mother. The children's grandmother.Apparently his mother does not feel the same way. Not as long as alexander is the authority. Do you mean his Mom? You are correct, Rational. It does stem from my mom. And my mom used the workers as attack dogs against us. She does the same thing to us in the community. But, the overseers refuse to meet with me to learn the truth. For a fellowship known as the Truth, some workers sure do have issues with wanting to know the truth.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Sept 24, 2011 8:21:22 GMT -5
Not as long as alexander is the authority. Do I not have "authority" over my own household, Rational? We were going to a meeting that treated my wife cruelly. The overseer of Alabama endorsed the cruelty, and heaped more on us by implying that our kids look neglected. Another kind overseer invited us to a meeting in his territory, again, a great act of kindness. We moved. We loved the meeting. That overseer was poisoned against us and began the cruel act of shunning against us. Finally, he kicked us out. Yes, I could keep silent. But why? What happened to my family by the leading of these 2 men was cruel, inhumane, and ungodly. And these are our spiritual leaders? So, instead of EVER meeting with us to resolve a SMALL misunderstanding, they remove 6 professing people from meeting? The very same men that preach how important it is for our souls to make every possible meeting? Do they not care for the souls of my kids? Probably. But not more then they care for their own image. They need to reread Hymn 408, No Reputation. I know that I am only trashing my own reputation within the 2x2 community by my postings, but at least I have my integrity.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 24, 2011 17:25:09 GMT -5
Not as long as alexander is the authority. Do I not have "authority" over my own household, Rational? We were going to a meeting that treated my wife cruelly. The overseer of Alabama endorsed the cruelty, and heaped more on us by implying that our kids look neglected. Another kind overseer invited us to a meeting in his territory, again, a great act of kindness. We moved. We loved the meeting. That overseer was poisoned against us and began the cruel act of shunning against us. Finally, he kicked us out. Yes, I could keep silent. But why? What happened to my family by the leading of these 2 men was cruel, inhumane, and ungodly. And these are our spiritual leaders? So, instead of EVER meeting with us to resolve a SMALL misunderstanding, they remove 6 professing people from meeting? The very same men that preach how important it is for our souls to make every possible meeting? Do they not care for the souls of my kids? Probably. But not more then they care for their own image. They need to reread Hymn 408, No Reputation. I know that I am only trashing my own reputation within the 2x2 community by my postings, but at least I have my integrity. We were very surprised by the lack of compassion shown to us. This is an observation, not meant as criticism. Now, I don't mean people were not compassionate. But there was always a huge attempt to sort things out in terms of doctrine, and what's right, as opposed to a sense of feeling for us. Again, not that the feeling wasn't there. But even some close friends said some hurting things in the name of protecting their sacred cows. I think the phenomenon is called "shoot the wounded". It is good to recognize that this is what's going on, because it makes you realize that often the friends are struggling to understand, and it's not out of ill will. If you Google "Christians shoot their wounded" you'll get a lot of hits. Here is one that resonated for me: Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded
What caused Carlson to write this book?
D.L. Carlson wrote this book motivated from the premise that Christian's are not providing healing for hurting Christians in fact he insists that they are one of the only groups of people that actually keep hurting people from finding real healing to their problems through legalistic understandings of God's Word. His goal is to give Christians another perspective on emotional hurting people in hopes that they will see that healing has broader implications than just being referred to as a "sin problem." His directive is to demonstrate the need for proper spiritual perspective in physical and emotional healing in a effort to provide true holistic ministry to emotionally damaged people.
What major issues is he attempting to deal with?
The major issue Carlson attempts to deal with is the spiritual vs. physiological vs. psychological issues when it comes to healing. He believes that many Christians view every problem in this life as simply a spiritual problem and that only Biblical solutions are best for these problems. Carlson says this is true only in some cases and even these cases are very rare. As he writes, Carlson perceives this as a major fault since many Christian churches use proof-texting, shallow understanding of scriptural words, and extremist theology to reason this perspective which only puts "bandages" on deeper problems that wound many Christians through the course of life. These Christians choose to label emotional problems as only a sin problem which licensed professional counselors will only contribute to. Utilizing real life stories that illustrate dramatic points and current medical information on the source of emotional illness, Carlson demonstrates that emotional problems do have spiritual beginnings in a broad sense (that is original sin) but that many if not almost all emotional problems also have environmental, biological, or decisional beginnings as well. Carlson make an excellent point here.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Sept 24, 2011 18:51:58 GMT -5
Wonder if anyone has considered mandatory mother-in-law training?
A year or two ago we were invited to attend a wedding in the local Catholic church for the daughter of some friends of ours. The groom was not Catholic and the bride had been raised in a family who identified with that church but was not practicing. So they didn't get the 'whole nine yards', but I was impressed with much of the service, especially the advice part.
You would think this advice would have been directed toward the young couple, and much of it was, but there was a lot specifically directed to the in-laws -- and very appropriate, to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 24, 2011 18:59:31 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc. Actually I don't see that such an oddity of going across state lines for mtg. We have done that here for many, many years and with the 2 different overseers' blessings.....there are hardly enough in this large city for mtg. and there were a scattered few across the state line...gathering together made sense in all ways.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Sept 24, 2011 19:02:38 GMT -5
Wonder if anyone has considered mandatory mother-in-law training? A year or two ago we were invited to attend a wedding in the local Catholic church for the daughter of some friends of ours. The groom was not Catholic and the bride had been raised in a family who identified with that church but was not practicing. So they didn't get the 'whole nine yards', but I was impressed with much of the service, especially the advice part. You would think this advice would have been directed toward the young couple, and much of it was, but there was a lot specifically directed to the in-laws -- and very appropriate, to my mind. The Catholic Church takes the Sacrament of Marriage very seriously. In my diocese, if a couple wants to be married in the Church, it requires NINE months of marriage preparation (which includes meeting weekly, several weekend retreats, plus individual counseling sessions) I believe the church's stance on marriage preparation is sound, with the divorce rate being so astounding, they want to make sure that the couple is really ready for marriage. I did premarital counseling through the church before my marriage (it was only six months then) and learned a lot of useful things. The most useful--budgeting together and learning skills for to solving disagreements together. It was all very practical and useful. And yes--we likely would have figured out these things together on our own--however it is very advantageous to learn how to have a plan for things like handling money before you tie the knot. Possibly saves some bloodshed later.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 24, 2011 20:46:02 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc. Actually I don't see that such an oddity of going across state lines for mtg. We have done that here for many, many years and with the 2 different overseers' blessings.....there are hardly enough in this large city for mtg. and there were a scattered few across the state line...gathering together made sense in all ways. This occurs in many areas, Sharon - in my own experience I know of it in California/Oregon, California/Nevada, and I believe in California/Arizona. It's not the state line itself that is an issue, and it is often arranged this way for convenience. But when the authority of an overseer is in question, things can change quickly and drastically . . . as someone mentioned, this played a role in the events in Alberta a number of years ago as well.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Sept 24, 2011 20:56:13 GMT -5
Actually I don't see that such an oddity of going across state lines for mtg. We have done that here for many, many years and with the 2 different overseers' blessings.....there are hardly enough in this large city for mtg. and there were a scattered few across the state line...gathering together made sense in all ways. This occurs in many areas, Sharon - in my own experience I know of it in California/Oregon, California/Nevada, and I believe in California/Arizona. It's not the state line itself that is an issue, and it is often arranged this way for convenience. But when the authority of an overseer is in question, things can change quickly and drastically . . . as someone mentioned, this played a role in the events in Alberta a number of years ago as well. yes--the important thing is which overseer has the authority in the area. Many overseers have areas that go over state lines. It is likely that the house church in Sharon's example and all who meet there are under the authority of one overseer no matter where the state line is. the state line is not the issue--the issue is one of moving from a meeting within one overseers territory (where you live) to one in another overseer's territory (where you do not live). Many overseer territories are roughly delineated by state--but the actual state line is not an absolute guideline.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 24, 2011 22:36:27 GMT -5
yes--the important thing is which overseer has the authority in the area. Many overseers have areas that go over state lines. It is likely that the house church in Sharon's example and all who meet there are under the authority of one overseer no matter where the state line is. the state line is not the issue--the issue is one of moving from a meeting within one overseers territory (where you live) to one in another overseer's territory (where you do not live). Many overseer territories are roughly delineated by state--but the actual state line is not an absolute guideline. Yes, and it does even occur at times between overseer "regions" - as in the case of California/Oregon (I have in mind some small meetings on the coast.) But the movement between states is okay with both overseers, and neither perceives a threat. However, if one overseer effectively bans a person from meeting in his area, and then another accepts said person in his own region, that is perceived as a threat to authority, and as such a threat to the entire system. There's much to look at, beyond simply crossing a state line, or even an overseer "boundary." Consider the dynamics of each situation.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 24, 2011 23:25:28 GMT -5
Do I not have "authority" over my own household, Rational? We were going to a meeting that treated my wife cruelly. The overseer of Alabama endorsed the cruelty, and heaped more on us by implying that our kids look neglected. Another kind overseer invited us to a meeting in his territory, again, a great act of kindness. We moved. We loved the meeting. That overseer was poisoned against us and began the cruel act of shunning against us. Finally, he kicked us out. Yes, I could keep silent. But why? What happened to my family by the leading of these 2 men was cruel, inhumane, and ungodly. And these are our spiritual leaders? So, instead of EVER meeting with us to resolve a SMALL misunderstanding, they remove 6 professing people from meeting? The very same men that preach how important it is for our souls to make every possible meeting? Do they not care for the souls of my kids? Probably. But not more then they care for their own image. They need to reread Hymn 408, No Reputation. I know that I am only trashing my own reputation within the 2x2 community by my postings, but at least I have my integrity. We were very surprised by the lack of compassion shown to us. This is an observation, not meant as criticism. Now, I don't mean people were not compassionate. But there was always a huge attempt to sort things out in terms of doctrine, and what's right, as opposed to a sense of feeling for us. Again, not that the feeling wasn't there. But even some close friends said some hurting things in the name of protecting their sacred cows. I think the phenomenon is called "shoot the wounded". It is good to recognize that this is what's going on, because it makes you realize that often the friends are struggling to understand, and it's not out of ill will. If you Google "Christians shoot their wounded" you'll get a lot of hits. Here is one that resonated for me: Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded
What caused Carlson to write this book?
D.L. Carlson wrote this book motivated from the premise that Christian's are not providing healing for hurting Christians in fact he insists that they are one of the only groups of people that actually keep hurting people from finding real healing to their problems through legalistic understandings of God's Word. His goal is to give Christians another perspective on emotional hurting people in hopes that they will see that healing has broader implications than just being referred to as a "sin problem." His directive is to demonstrate the need for proper spiritual perspective in physical and emotional healing in a effort to provide true holistic ministry to emotionally damaged people.
What major issues is he attempting to deal with?
The major issue Carlson attempts to deal with is the spiritual vs. physiological vs. psychological issues when it comes to healing. He believes that many Christians view every problem in this life as simply a spiritual problem and that only Biblical solutions are best for these problems. Carlson says this is true only in some cases and even these cases are very rare. As he writes, Carlson perceives this as a major fault since many Christian churches use proof-texting, shallow understanding of scriptural words, and extremist theology to reason this perspective which only puts "bandages" on deeper problems that wound many Christians through the course of life. These Christians choose to label emotional problems as only a sin problem which licensed professional counselors will only contribute to. Utilizing real life stories that illustrate dramatic points and current medical information on the source of emotional illness, Carlson demonstrates that emotional problems do have spiritual beginnings in a broad sense (that is original sin) but that many if not almost all emotional problems also have environmental, biological, or decisional beginnings as well. Carlson make an excellent point here. The Jews had similar issues it seems. Time and again we read in the NT of God encouraging the Israelites to care for the widows and fatherless, the sick, the poor, the vulnerable. The pious people of Jesus' era shot the wounded. If a man was born blind they thought it was somebodies fault - his own or his parents. Jesus' ministry was so different from that of the pious Jews. He cared about those who religious people neglected and despised. Jesus wanted to be known by his fruits - rather than by what he claimed to be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 11:2-5 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 25, 2011 2:10:34 GMT -5
George Lee could also have had numerous friends in the TN meetings asking why alexander and his family lived in AL but were attending TN meetings. These questions could have been asked for any number of reasons - wondering why alexander and his family did not feel welcome in AL meetings, wondering if the friends could attend other meetings (even meetings in other states if they lived on state lines), wondering if other friends have issues with foster children, etc. He could have told anyone that asked to simply ask me. But instead he just chose to remove us rather then answer questions? Surely not. Actually, yes. This happened with my family but it was years and years ago. My grandmother piped music into my aunt's wedding. This wedding was attended by numerous professing folks. One of the professing folks approached a worker later, and asked if radios were allowed. The worker firmly stated that radios were not allowed, and then upbraided my grandparents. My grandmother approached the friend later, asking why the workers had been involved. The friend was still stunned from the behavior of the workers, and stammered that he had been hoping that radios were allowed because he had wanted to buy one. It's an old example, but workers/overseers being questioned is always considered a bad thing. It's stamped out as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 25, 2011 2:14:04 GMT -5
yes--the important thing is which overseer has the authority in the area. Many overseers have areas that go over state lines. It is likely that the house church in Sharon's example and all who meet there are under the authority of one overseer no matter where the state line is. the state line is not the issue--the issue is one of moving from a meeting within one overseers territory (where you live) to one in another overseer's territory (where you do not live). Many overseer territories are roughly delineated by state--but the actual state line is not an absolute guideline. If more than one overseer is involved, it's important that it seem as if the decision was made agreeably between the two overseers. It is not good for an overseer to be seen as offering sanctuary to a friend who is being persecuted by another overseer. Also, it is not good for a friend to make a decision to meet in another overseer's territory, and the overseers seeming to be the last to know with no authority in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 25, 2011 14:36:29 GMT -5
You are correct, Rational. It does stem from my mom. And my mom used the workers as attack dogs against us. When you addressed this with your mother what did she say? And what is the truth? That you believe if people give some of your children special attention one day a week for a very limited time it will undo any work that you have done with them during the week? You know this is not the case. Just as you know that a child having messy hair does not mean they are neglected. Meet them at convention. Realistically - what do you want the workers to do?
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Sept 25, 2011 15:39:54 GMT -5
Realistically - what do you want the workers to do? I want the overseers to meet with me at my house with witnesses, explain why they began shunning us and then hopefully apologize for any of their error in judgements, and then restore us to the fellowship. I don't actually expect this to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 18:09:12 GMT -5
Do I not have "authority" over my own household, Rational? We were going to a meeting that treated my wife cruelly. The overseer of Alabama endorsed the cruelty, and heaped more on us by implying that our kids look neglected. Another kind overseer invited us to a meeting in his territory, again, a great act of kindness. We moved. We loved the meeting. That overseer was poisoned against us and began the cruel act of shunning against us. Finally, he kicked us out. Yes, I could keep silent. But why? What happened to my family by the leading of these 2 men was cruel, inhumane, and ungodly. And these are our spiritual leaders? So, instead of EVER meeting with us to resolve a SMALL misunderstanding, they remove 6 professing people from meeting? The very same men that preach how important it is for our souls to make every possible meeting? Do they not care for the souls of my kids? Probably. But not more then they care for their own image. They need to reread Hymn 408, No Reputation. I know that I am only trashing my own reputation within the 2x2 community by my postings, but at least I have my integrity. We were very surprised by the lack of compassion shown to us. This is an observation, not meant as criticism. Now, I don't mean people were not compassionate. But there was always a huge attempt to sort things out in terms of doctrine, and what's right, as opposed to a sense of feeling for us. Again, not that the feeling wasn't there. But even some close friends said some hurting things in the name of protecting their sacred cows. I think the phenomenon is called "shoot the wounded". It is good to recognize that this is what's going on, because it makes you realize that often the friends are struggling to understand, and it's not out of ill will. If you Google "Christians shoot their wounded" you'll get a lot of hits. Here is one that resonated for me: Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded
What caused Carlson to write this book?
D.L. Carlson wrote this book motivated from the premise that Christian's are not providing healing for hurting Christians in fact he insists that they are one of the only groups of people that actually keep hurting people from finding real healing to their problems through legalistic understandings of God's Word. His goal is to give Christians another perspective on emotional hurting people in hopes that they will see that healing has broader implications than just being referred to as a "sin problem." His directive is to demonstrate the need for proper spiritual perspective in physical and emotional healing in a effort to provide true holistic ministry to emotionally damaged people.
What major issues is he attempting to deal with?
The major issue Carlson attempts to deal with is the spiritual vs. physiological vs. psychological issues when it comes to healing. He believes that many Christians view every problem in this life as simply a spiritual problem and that only Biblical solutions are best for these problems. Carlson says this is true only in some cases and even these cases are very rare. As he writes, Carlson perceives this as a major fault since many Christian churches use proof-texting, shallow understanding of scriptural words, and extremist theology to reason this perspective which only puts "bandages" on deeper problems that wound many Christians through the course of life. These Christians choose to label emotional problems as only a sin problem which licensed professional counselors will only contribute to. Utilizing real life stories that illustrate dramatic points and current medical information on the source of emotional illness, Carlson demonstrates that emotional problems do have spiritual beginnings in a broad sense (that is original sin) but that many if not almost all emotional problems also have environmental, biological, or decisional beginnings as well. Carlson make an excellent point here. The bolded above are things I have been mulling over for a couple of years and Carlson's views put into words thoughts that have made sense to me for awhile. It started for me that for a long time I have been puzzled by the frequent characterization of errant people as having a "bad spirit". I have noticed that for people who seem to me who have significant emotional challenges for various reasons, or mental illness that is not so extreme as to be blatantly obvious, they quickly get classified as having a bad spirit and the only answer is God, with more prayer, more church, more bible......more religion. The natural reaction in this kind of religious environment is that if someone doesn't measure up to some preconceived standard of behaviour, then they are classified as not having God.......and hence "shooting the wounded" commences because no one wants heathen too close to them. At the same time, these people who seem to lack so much compassion, tend to be the same people who can be very compassionate when someone has a physical illness. Fortunately, we have progressed a long way here. At one time, even physical illness was attributable to "sin" or some sort of detachment from God and we seem to have gotten over that big mistake. Now we need to begin to see reasons to have compassion on those who struggle with inward challenges that many of us don't face. I like Carlson's idea of a "holistic" approach to health and healing. The spiritual part is important, but by no means the only element of the overall health of one's being. The error of assuming a spiritual problem (which is assumed to be attributable to a lack of God-effort by the sick/wounded person) has caused untold amounts of additional pain and suffering over the centuries.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 25, 2011 18:46:23 GMT -5
I thought of another application of this, and once you begin, there are many. A friend commented to me recently that social life is not the function of the church. He had in mind those people who complain of a poor social life, never invited anywhere, etc. It struck me later that this is a cold way to look at church fellowship. Ostensibly this may even be correct, but it's a case where thinking too properly creates a legalism, which can then be used to ignore the reality of suffering in those around you. There are many friends who reach out to others in many ways, so I'm not critiquing the friends here, just the legalistic way of thinking. I believe the "open home" shouldn't only mean open to the workers; it should mean open to all those who are needy in one way or another, especially needy people in the fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 18:56:12 GMT -5
I thought of another application of this, and once you begin, there are many. A friend commented to me recently that social life is not the function of the church. He had in mind those people who complain of a poor social life, never invited anywhere, etc. It struck me later that this is a cold way to look at church fellowship. Ostensibly this may even be correct, but it's a case where thinking too properly creates a legalism, which can then be used to ignore the reality of suffering in those around you. There are many friends who reach out to others in many ways, so I'm not critiquing the friends here, just the legalistic way of thinking. There have been places and times in the F&Ws where social interaction was discouraged, and people even scurried right home after meeting after a quiet handshake, and that was it as far as social interaction. Of course, it was also taught to have a wall of separation with "the world", so many friends found themselves living in a bubble of minimal social contact. You're right, it all starts out with a good idea: that "church is not for the purpose of a social life" and before you know it, that becomes an anti-social legalism. The wall of separation becomes a similar legalism. I was once totally uninformed about the definition of an "open home". I always believed it was your latter definition until only about a decade ago when I discovered that an "open home" meant being open for the workers. It was a bit of a shock that I had missed that for all my life. Regardless, the concepts of the city on the hill, or the candle under the bushel, or the full investment of talents all speak to a very open home, and an open life.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 25, 2011 19:13:53 GMT -5
This occurs in many areas, Sharon - in my own experience I know of it in California/Oregon, California/Nevada, and I believe in California/Arizona. It's not the state line itself that is an issue, and it is often arranged this way for convenience. But when the authority of an overseer is in question, things can change quickly and drastically . . . as someone mentioned, this played a role in the events in Alberta a number of years ago as well. yes--the important thing is which overseer has the authority in the area. Many overseers have areas that go over state lines. It is likely that the house church in Sharon's example and all who meet there are under the authority of one overseer no matter where the state line is. the state line is not the issue--the issue is one of moving from a meeting within one overseers territory (where you live) to one in another overseer's territory (where you do not live). Many overseer territories are roughly delineated by state--but the actual state line is not an absolute guideline. Actually, since the mtg. was very small even with all together...we were benefitted by the privileges of BOTH states and I have to say that I never saw one thing from either overseer to make me feel that either one would be miffed if the other took control of a situation. We would have normally thought the state in which we met would be our "home conv." and I more or less leaned that way...if I had to make a choice b etween both convs. But usually had the privilege of both states' convs. There are overseers that seem willing to work together and when something comes up it isn't a bit deal IF one of the overseers happens to take that something and do what needs to be done....I know when my aunt died...both overseers came for the memorial....I was pleasnatly surprised and appreciated both of them....they worked together for that memorial as "equals" and as good companions ought to. So yes, there are overseers who are soft and tender because the Holy Spirit is with them, at least most of the time and both these overseers often back up and apologize for the times that the Holy Spirit perhaps wasn't in the issue as much as He should have been...to me that is true humility and true graciousness....takes a mighty big person to say I'm sorry esp. when they're in such a powerful position!
|
|