|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 15:41:29 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right?
It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal).
As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI.
One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 15:49:53 GMT -5
Lin dear fellow. I will try not to embarrass you but JF IS an accused person, ie someone who is accused of breaking the law. He has been appearing in court on account of this accusation. The matter would not have gone to court unless the .....ahem....prosecution believed there was a case to answer. They are the ones who have had complaints served on JF based on the evidence they have received from the investigators. Yes someone has made a complaint to the authorities about JF. That has been investigated and like it or not the prosecution are satisfied that on the evidence available JF HAS broken the law. The prosecution have ACCUSED JF of breaking the law. A person has a legal right to a fair trial and JF is exercising that right. I support him in this. However, I have no feelings as to which way I would like to see this case go (for various reasons). All I have seen is the judge refused to dismiss the case. therefore it would be bound over to court.If Jf would be accused of breaking the law,would not there be record of posting of bail or being released on his own recognizance. Also would he not be under travel restriction? Your demeaning manner does not make you an expert. That is being a bit dramatic, don't you think, Linford? I mean, he is being accused of something like littering. You make me think of the army recruiter in the song "Alice's Restaurant". "Have you been rehabilitated, kid?" Response, "Rehabilitated?....from littering?" (Meanwhile he was going to Vietnam to kill people.) You do realize that Jerome, at the end of the day, is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mean, if you, in court, were accused of being an elder in a church, would you not say that you were and not quibble about the definition of "church"? I assume you would.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Apr 8, 2012 15:51:10 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. This could all be true ts. is this case though going to have an impact on all the csa in Michigan. If that was the true purpose I wouldn't and don't object. My concern is the risk of a Salem like witch hunt. That's scary to all of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 15:53:21 GMT -5
Yes and no. Mr.Lessing: "There's lots of references in the bible that we are all ministers of the word of God." Mr.Lessing: "We are all ministers according to his beliefs of the word of God." I took it from there that Mr.Lessing considered himself a minister of the word of God according to MrFrandle's beliefs.. He doesn't state what he believes according to his own beliefs. Here is the quote (p. 16 of transcript). I want to clarify something. Mr. Frandle's not saying that he doesn't consider himself a minister. He does consider himself a minister as the Bible considers all of us ministers of the word of God. We're not trying to step away from that. He's not, as a matter of convenience, sometimes calling himself a minister and sometimes not. The question becomes, is that the definition that fits within the statute. And clearly it does not. However, the portion in italics is deceptive. We don't know if that came from Frandle or Lessing. It may have come from JF, and then Lessing took it in a direction that was not correct. The above highlights exactly why the prosecution must be on the ball. JF via his lawyer is implying that all the members of the fellowship are "ministers of the word." This statement in one sense is 100% correct. Every Sunday am or pm or Wed meeting the members of the fellowship minister the word to one another through testimonies and prayers. Of course, to those who are ignorant of the workings of the fellowship this might come across as suggesting that every member of the fellowship is active in publicly preaching the gospel message and unless the statement is properly explored this is what many might be led to believe, or believe the status of every member of the fellowship is identical. However, there may not be a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, just a statement of fact being made. It might be up to the prosecution to have such properly examined to establish exactly what is meant, depending on the circumstances in which the statement is made,.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 15:56:42 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. This could all be true ts. is this case though going to have an impact on all the csa in Michigan. If that was the true purpose I wouldn't and don't object. My concern is the risk of a Salem like witch hunt. That's scary to all of us. The problem is not that there is a witch hunt. The real problem is that the "witches" are already in the leadership and have convinced everyone that there is no such thing as witches. Now that is the scary part. If Jerome is guilty of speeding, littering of failure to report CSA, then pay the price. Quit quibbling about whether he is a clergy or not. He should be GLAD that someone is holding him accountable...ESPECIALLY his own church. Were the system different and more amenable to suggestions and complaints of the lower ranks, this whole thing would not be necessary in court. The lesser ones have had to appeal to a higher authority. Good for them. Now it may put the fear in the leaders. If not the fear of God, at least the fear of the laws of the land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 15:59:05 GMT -5
Lin dear fellow. I will try not to embarrass you but JF IS an accused person, ie someone who is accused of breaking the law. He has been appearing in court on account of this accusation. The matter would not have gone to court unless the .....ahem....prosecution believed there was a case to answer. They are the ones who have had complaints served on JF based on the evidence they have received from the investigators. Yes someone has made a complaint to the authorities about JF. That has been investigated and like it or not the prosecution are satisfied that on the evidence available JF HAS broken the law. The prosecution have ACCUSED JF of breaking the law. A person has a legal right to a fair trial and JF is exercising that right. I support him in this. However, I have no feelings as to which way I would like to see this case go (for various reasons). All I have seen is the judge refused to dismiss the case. therefore it would be bound over to court.If Jf would be accused of breaking the law,would not there be record of posting of bail or being released on his own recognizance. Also would he not be under travel restriction? Your demeaning manner does not make you an expert. Linford, the truth will hit you some day. JF has appeared in court on account of the prosecution having officially accused him of breaking the law. The prosecution have now been called upon to prove their accusation at a future court date. I believe that JF has recognised this fact and has been forced to employ a defence lawyer to challenge the accusation. JF IS an accused person. Who do you think is accusing him in court? This isn't about expertise. It is just plain common sense.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 8, 2012 16:01:39 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. TS, if the workers were to follow those verses literally, then they would be accused of hiding CSA because they preferred to take care of issues themselves (as they have tried to do in the past) rather then take it to the law. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and that isn't fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 16:04:29 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. TS, if the workers were to follow those verses literally, then they would be accused of hiding CSA because they preferred to take care of issues themselves (as they have tried to do in the past) rather then take it to the law. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and that isn't fair. Personally I believe the issue that Paul was speaking about was fairly minor civil breaches that Christians should be able to resolve amongst themselves with the right spirit, not serious criminal matters.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 16:17:33 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. TS, if the workers were to follow those verses literally, then they would be accused of hiding CSA because they preferred to take care of issues themselves (as they have tried to do in the past) rather then take it to the law. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and that isn't fair. Yes, I understand that. But that is their own standard that they have held the friends to. Are they willing to be judged by their own standards? I suggest that their standards are not Godly standards and that they are putting burdens on people that they themselves are not willing to bear with their little finger. I suggest that NO ONE be damned and that they take the yoke of Jesus on them. "Throw out the old leaven" is an appropriate message for this Passover season. A little leaven has thoroughly leavened the lump among the leaders. The leaven (sin) has affected many if not all of the friends. get rid of the old bottles and get new bottles for new wine. get rid of the old garment and get a new one instead of patching the old one with new patches. Why would the gospel message be any different for the workers and overseers than it would be to "the world" they preach to? Like that 80s song says, "[they] are the world". If the workers cannot see that, despite the perfectness of "the way", they are all acting just like the world around them, then they really do need a dose of the gospel. REPENT!!!! Let your roots be scratched about and dunged. It isn't pleasant, but it is necessary. Learn from the LEAST ESTEEMEd among you. Let the LEAST ESTEEMED among you be your judges. I suggest that the LEAST ESTEEMED in the meetings are those who have been abused, demonized and cast out or forced out. Bring them back in and let them be the judges in these cases.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 16:23:06 GMT -5
TS, if the workers were to follow those verses literally, then they would be accused of hiding CSA because they preferred to take care of issues themselves (as they have tried to do in the past) rather then take it to the law. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and that isn't fair. Personally I believe the issue that Paul was speaking about was fairly minor civil breaches that Christians should be able to resolve amongst themselves with the right spirit, not serious criminal matters. Hang on. I understand that failure to report CSA is not a "serious criminal matter". It is a misdemeanor. I also think that the friends should be able to talk openly to the workers about what they expect of them and the workers comply with that like true servants and not lords over the friends. But we know that that is not the case. That is why this matter has gone to court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 16:33:26 GMT -5
Personally I believe the issue that Paul was speaking about was fairly minor civil breaches that Christians should be able to resolve amongst themselves with the right spirit, not serious criminal matters. Hang on. I understand that failure to report CSA is not a "serious criminal matter". It is a misdemeanor. I also think that the friends should be able to talk openly to the workers about what they expect of them and the workers comply with that like true servants and not lords over the friends. But we know that that is not the case. That is why this matter has gone to court. I wasn't speaking about the JF case but attempting to show that Paul was speaking about civil infringements (perhaps such as cattle straying onto another's property etc) and not about criminal matters. With regards to the JF case, this would NOT have been a crime in my country. I am not aware of the full circumstances which led to the JF matter being brought to court. However, in MI there may not be an option for workers and friends to resolve such matters themselves. If JF and the workers there are classified by the court as members of the clergy then they must by law report such matters to the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 16:34:06 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. TS, if the workers were to follow those verses literally, then they would be accused of hiding CSA because they preferred to take care of issues themselves (as they have tried to do in the past) rather then take it to the law. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and that isn't fair. If the workers had been living up to the standard of what Paul said, they would have purged themselves of sexual immorality and given the perpetrators over to Satan. The workers would have been more spiritually discerning, as well, and not allowed a child molester to hang on in the work for many decades and become overseer. They would not so much as EAT with one who is sexually immoral who calls himself a brother....let alone let him come to convention, speak from the platform, go to meeting and become overseer. Don't you see that the reason that all of this is hitting the fan now and being double speaked to death is because of years of living an unscriptural and unGodly standard and claiming that they are God's servants in the only truth and way? While there are many truths and many good people who are caught up in the mess, the whole thing has gotten falser and falser by the year as more immoral and dishonest overseers have promoted more immoral and dishonest overseers and protected dishonest workers. Jerome's case is just the tip of the iceberg....or perhaps it is the Titanic. Either way, the workers are putting way too much effort into a misdemeanor because they have a lot of dishonesty to protect.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2012 16:51:18 GMT -5
Here is the quote (p. 16 of transcript). I want to clarify something. Mr. Frandle's not saying that he doesn't consider himself a minister. He does consider himself a minister as the Bible considers all of us ministers of the word of God. We're not trying to step away from that. He's not, as a matter of convenience, sometimes calling himself a minister and sometimes not. The question becomes, is that the definition that fits within the statute. And clearly it does not. However, the portion in italics is deceptive. We don't know if that came from Frandle or Lessing. It may have come from JF, and then Lessing took it in a direction that was not correct. The above highlights exactly why the prosecution must be on the ball. JF via his lawyer is implying that all the members of the fellowship are "ministers of the word." This statement in one sense is 100% correct. Every Sunday am or pm or Wed meeting the members of the fellowship minister the word to one another through testimonies and prayers. Of course, to those who are ignorant of the workings of the fellowship this might come across as suggesting that every member of the fellowship is active in publicly preaching the gospel message and unless the statement is properly explored this is what many might be led to believe, or believe the status of every member of the fellowship is identical. However, there may not be a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, just a statement of fact being made. It might be up to the prosecution to have such properly examined to establish exactly what is meant, depending on the circumstances in which the statement is made,. Actually, non-workers can lead a gospel meeting. It has happened on a number of occasions around here in any case. The idea of the Brethren is that ministry is everyone's responsibility but some are full time preachers. But you're basically right, ram. That statement in the mind of most people leads to all kinds of implications which are simply not true. For example, in practice only workers can make meeting assignments, choose new elders, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 18:04:17 GMT -5
The above highlights exactly why the prosecution must be on the ball. JF via his lawyer is implying that all the members of the fellowship are "ministers of the word." This statement in one sense is 100% correct. Every Sunday am or pm or Wed meeting the members of the fellowship minister the word to one another through testimonies and prayers. Of course, to those who are ignorant of the workings of the fellowship this might come across as suggesting that every member of the fellowship is active in publicly preaching the gospel message and unless the statement is properly explored this is what many might be led to believe, or believe the status of every member of the fellowship is identical. However, there may not be a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, just a statement of fact being made. It might be up to the prosecution to have such properly examined to establish exactly what is meant, depending on the circumstances in which the statement is made,. Actually, non-workers can lead a gospel meeting. It has happened on a number of occasions around here in any case. The idea of the Brethren is that ministry is everyone's responsibility but some are full time preachers. But you're basically right, ram. That statement in the mind of most people leads to all kinds of implications which are simply not true. For example, in practice only workers can make meeting assignments, choose new elders, and so on. In my 12 years in the work I HEARD of maybe a time or two where the friends had gospel meetings under extenuating circumstances and the WORKERS TOLD THEM TO. However, I have never heard of any of the friends being moved by the Holy Spirit to hold gospel meetings without the consent of the workers. It doesn't happen and is not approved of in the Meetings. For Jerome to suggest that friends and workers have equal parts in ministry in meeting is deceptive.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 18:27:56 GMT -5
As a 2x2, with all of us being ministers, can I baptize my overseer? Just please don't drown him!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 18:37:23 GMT -5
Why, then, did Paul tell them that they should not take a brother to the law. Are they not going to judge the Earth one day? Can you not decide among yourselves what is right? It was the pharisees who were taking Paul to court. Not the "Friends". Also, Paul defended himself with the word of God. Jerome is using a lawyer that is misusing the word of God("When Jesus baptized someone, He washed away all their sins..."). Paul was not ashamed of the doctrine of Christ and to be a servant of God. Jerome, who is very well capable of speaking for himself in front of many people as a leader, can very well stand up and declare in court what he is and what he represents....Except if he told the truth, he would "incriminate" himself(if being a clergy is somehow criminal). As you said, Linford, "the people of MI" is really a somebody(probably one of the friends) who has brought to the attention of the state that there is possibly a law broken. The state prosecutor apparently thought there was a strong enough case to pursue it and also thought the case was relevant enough to bring to light in order to protect the children of MI. One of the friends apparently cared enough about the children in meeting and knew enough about justice among the overseer ranks to bring it to the attention of the state rather than go to his brother in Christ. This could all be true ts. is this case though going to have an impact on all the csa in Michigan. If that was the true purpose I wouldn't and don't object. My concern is the risk of a Salem like witch hunt. That's scary to all of us. The "witch hunt" mindset happened AFTER JF had hired and fired 2 different lawyers...and made a big deal out of a misdeamor charge! What is the price of taking whatever the judge decides to hand out and then in a year he would get the chance to have this "Misdeamor Charge" expunged off his record? JF didn't listen to his first lawyer...IF he had listened to her, this would all be over and done with. Now as it may well be the written law in MI that would excuse the workers, then the "written law" needs to be changed...and that's what will happen with this case. The workers WILL definitely be considered clergy from now on out. THIS case will cause other states to sit up and take notice to the wording in their laws. The states have to realize that there are "pastors and minisiter" all over the states that are not "ordained" clergy like the ministers/priests/pastors are that have gone through a theology school and/or a bible college. THEN ALL of the states will upgrade those general laws to state differently then what they've stated so far and make it to where not only workers but any other church leaders will not squeak by due to a technicality of the law. It is high time for this to happen in order to protect the children....I see God's hand in this very much. One can say the 2x2 fellowship will NEVER be an "unknown" religion ever again.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 8, 2012 18:51:55 GMT -5
The above highlights exactly why the prosecution must be on the ball. JF via his lawyer is implying that all the members of the fellowship are "ministers of the word." This statement in one sense is 100% correct. Every Sunday am or pm or Wed meeting the members of the fellowship minister the word to one another through testimonies and prayers. Of course, to those who are ignorant of the workings of the fellowship this might come across as suggesting that every member of the fellowship is active in publicly preaching the gospel message and unless the statement is properly explored this is what many might be led to believe, or believe the status of every member of the fellowship is identical. However, there may not be a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, just a statement of fact being made. It might be up to the prosecution to have such properly examined to establish exactly what is meant, depending on the circumstances in which the statement is made,. Actually, non-workers can lead a gospel meeting. It has happened on a number of occasions around here in any case. The idea of the Brethren is that ministry is everyone's responsibility but some are full time preachers. But you're basically right, ram. That statement in the mind of most people leads to all kinds of implications which are simply not true. For example, in practice only workers can make meeting assignments, choose new elders, and so on. I do not know what you mean by "Actually, non-workers can lead a gospl meeting." In the case here where one of the companions are not able to be at a mtg. or even when a worker has NO companion assigned to them and usually this is the overseer. (s)he may ask one of the friends, usually one of the elders to sit in and speak where a companion would speak...BUT they do NOT lead the gospel mtg. The lone worker has always "lead" the gospel mtg. and the "friend" speaks before the lone worker speaks in said gospel mtgs. But the lone worker takes full responsibility of the gospel mtg. in general.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 8, 2012 19:58:48 GMT -5
This issue can be bandied about until eternity passes, and there is one simple fact remaining. Jerome was charged with a crime, and he will be found one of two ways. Not guilty, which means that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or guilty. He will not ever be found innocent. That is just the way the system works. People think that not guilty means innocent, but it absolutely does not. It does not mean that a person may be innocent, but they are not found, "innocent".
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 8, 2012 20:01:34 GMT -5
Lin, Jerome has been charged with a crime. In cases like these, with a person that hires an attorney, usually is released with little bail or on their own recognizance(OR), which means they are not a flight risk. Since this is a misdemeanor, and Jerome has a lawyer, he has either been released OR, or has made bail. I would bet he was released OR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 22:30:20 GMT -5
Regarding the idea of believers (workers or whomever) taking care of matters before they get to court, that refers only to civil matters, not criminal matters. Criminal matters are not between two people to settle, it is between the state and the accused. Once it is between the state and a believer, it is no longer an internal matter and cannot be "settled" internally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 22:32:57 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front.
I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 22:46:42 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. Then why would Jerome feel comfortable having his lawyer say that the friends are ministers in the same sense as the workers are in order to try to prove there was no distinction and, therefore, no "clergy" in the meetings? (in other words, why would Jerome lie like that?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 23:03:05 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. Then why would Jerome feel comfortable having his lawyer say that the friends are ministers in the same sense as the workers are in order to try to prove there was no distinction and, therefore, no "clergy" in the meetings? (in other words, why would Jerome lie like that?) How would I know how Jerome feels? According to his lawyer, all believers are ministers to spread the word. If you want to hear how someone can justify that, we all know that workers have preached that the friends are sometimes "the only bible the world ever reads". This is commonly understood. It is hoped that Christ would be seen in one of the friends' lives, leading them to the workers. In that way, one could say the friends are "ministers of the word".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 23:25:28 GMT -5
Then why would Jerome feel comfortable having his lawyer say that the friends are ministers in the same sense as the workers are in order to try to prove there was no distinction and, therefore, no "clergy" in the meetings? (in other words, why would Jerome lie like that?) How would I know how Jerome feels? According to his lawyer, all believers are ministers to spread the word. If you want to hear how someone can justify that, we all know that workers have preached that the friends are sometimes "the only bible the world ever reads". This is commonly understood. It is hoped that Christ would be seen in one of the friends' lives, leading them to the workers. In that way, one could say the friends are "ministers of the word". ...which is equivocation. Even at that, the friends are to "be the Bible" and bring people to hear the workers. This puts the friends and workers in different ministry categories. The friends in the category of living "in the world" and the workers as ...ehem....the clergy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 23:40:36 GMT -5
How would I know how Jerome feels? According to his lawyer, all believers are ministers to spread the word. If you want to hear how someone can justify that, we all know that workers have preached that the friends are sometimes "the only bible the world ever reads". This is commonly understood. It is hoped that Christ would be seen in one of the friends' lives, leading them to the workers. In that way, one could say the friends are "ministers of the word". ...which is equivocation. Even at that, the friends are to "be the Bible" and bring people to hear the workers. This puts the friends and workers in different ministry categories. The friends in the category of living "in the world" and the workers as ...ehem....the clergy. Not necessarily equivocation. All ministries have members who have different functions of ministry. Some may have a family ministry, some may have a ministry to the poor. Some may have an introductory ministry (like the friends) and others have a teaching ministry (like the workers). Remember, the letter was signed "minister'' and that is all that Mr.Lessing was addressing. The fact that he may have a different ministry than other believers is not germane to the argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 23:51:37 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. I only know of once that this has happened in our field, it was about 50 years ago, and it startled everyone (but me--I was too young to care). The person asked to take the meeting had been in the work. Having friends given their testimony is fairly common, but that's the only time I've heard of one of the friends running the show.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 23:55:50 GMT -5
...which is equivocation. Even at that, the friends are to "be the Bible" and bring people to hear the workers. This puts the friends and workers in different ministry categories. The friends in the category of living "in the world" and the workers as ...ehem....the clergy. Not necessarily equivocation. All ministries have members who have different functions of ministry. Some may have a family ministry, some may have a ministry to the poor. Some may have an introductory ministry (like the friends) and others have a teaching ministry (like the workers). Remember, the letter was signed "minister'' and that is all that Mr.Lessing was addressing. The fact that he may have a different ministry than other believers is not germane to the argument. as was pointed out, workers take minister discounts and the friends do not. That is because they are more than just those sort of people who minister at convention by showing up at preps and vacuuming rugs. They are clergy type ministers, the workers are. They know it. IN FACT, all the friends and workers used to know it before this case came up. They knew the distinction. The friends minister to the physical needs of the workers and the workers minister to the spiritual needs of the friends. The workers, therefore, are clergy. I remember in the work telling people that the ministry is foundation of the church. I did not come up with that on my own. It is fundamental and the workers are separated unto the work of the gospel. They are, in fact, clergy. It appears that the workers think that the law was written for "false preachers" only and not for God's true servants.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 8, 2012 23:59:42 GMT -5
As far as friends preaching at gospel meetings, I have never seen it in my half century+, nor do I personally know anyone who has done so. I have seen situations many years ago where there was only one worker and he asked a few friends to participate in prayer and give their personal testimonies from the crowd.....but they never preached either from the crowd or up at the front. I think we are talking about an occurrence that is so rare that it is effectively non-existent. I only know of once that this has happened in our field, it was about 50 years ago, and it startled everyone (but me--I was too young to care). The person asked to take the meeting had been in the work. Having friends given their testimony is fairly common, but that's the only time I've heard of one of the friends running the show. Oh, that must have been the one case that Jerome knew about also and told his lawyer just before they started the hearing. That lawyer, Mr Lessing, seemed to be trying to discredit Mr Koning's testimony by saying, "You mean that it NEVER happens that one of the friends preaches?" (something to that effect). Yes, 50 years ago somewhere some friend had to speak in a gospel meeting once. Now it looks like Jerome would like the court to think that that is the norm and make Ms Koning look like a liar.
|
|