|
Post by rational on May 10, 2012 8:36:57 GMT -5
The key word here is repentance. Isn't this tough if you do not associate with them?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 10, 2012 8:47:10 GMT -5
The NT apostles didn't seem to cover things up to promote a "clean green" image. How do you know? Maybe they were very good at it. I wonder what Jesus would have thought about this? "...for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The 'must not associate with' referred to not associating with those who had already professed to be Christians - not the unprofessed among whom they would still need to work.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 10, 2012 8:48:43 GMT -5
The key word here is repentance. Isn't this tough if you do not associate with them? Those needing repentence were the professed Christians who should seek repentence by means of confessing their sins and repenting of them.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 10, 2012 9:26:11 GMT -5
I've heard platform warnings - by men AND lady workers - about women's hair, women's dress, women wearing denim, women being good Godly creatures. And now we know the truth, that some perhaps many of those males that gave such stern warnings, were taking the women they chose and using them for their sexual gratification. Some of the women abused in our country are married, others were vulnerable and maybe alone and easy targets, there are young lady workers too, and some were little girls. It makes us cry. All this while they were grandstanding the virtues of a celibate homeless ministry. Ha! Us women know and we are now in the loop and know what has gone on. I can tell you, no more. That's our warning to them! How long before someone gets mad as a snake and uses a butchers knife on one of those molesting workers who stand on the platform so smug but ignore the real sickness . The women workers who support them and don't take a stand against the abuse of women in the truth are just as bad.\ PS i'm not really advocating physical harm, it's just very tempting to think of removing some of those little willies. Especially the ones who have destroyed the lives of young innocent children. One of the worst part of the 2x2s is the dress code for women. It forces professing women into a mold, rather than allowing a woman/girl to decide what hair style/dress style she needs to worship God, go to school, hold down a job. It pressures professing women to place the demands of the meeting before their own needs. I believe that this is one of the reasons why women are slower than men to leave the meetings. They need more time to rebuild their identity, and they need to understand that the demands placed on them were NOT for their good.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 10, 2012 9:43:30 GMT -5
I've seen this in action for a long time. Usually, workers don't like professing people who won't submit to them. Workers love professing people who pay them off, flatter them, and entertain them lavishly. When it's been a choice between moral and immoral, workers tend to side with the immoral. It pays better. I'm going to "pull a rational" and ask you back this up with examples that can be proven. emy, you've been professing for a long time. Why don't you provide the examples, and prove them? You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 10, 2012 10:39:21 GMT -5
I'm going to "pull a rational" and ask you back this up with examples that can be proven. emy, you've been professing for a long time. Why don't you provide the examples, and prove them? You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? I anticipate an answer from emy, but I might be wrong. That being said, how does one prove the negative? This is an example. Please take no more from this than the intent: I have never been to Washington, DC. Can I prove that? No, but can someone prove I have been?
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 11:19:46 GMT -5
I'm going to "pull a rational" and ask you back this up with examples that can be proven. emy, you've been professing for a long time. Why don't you provide the examples, and prove them? You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? emy has never ever heard a worker preach or even insinuate that they are the only truth and way. She has no clue what you are talking about. hard to have a discussion when even the most obvious doctrines of the meetings we all know are conveniently forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 10, 2012 11:38:48 GMT -5
emy, you've been professing for a long time. Why don't you provide the examples, and prove them? You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? emy has never ever heard a worker preach or even insinuate that they are the only truth and way. She has no clue what you are talking about. hard to have a discussion when even the most obvious doctrines of the meetings we all know are conveniently forgotten. TS, you are really pathetic on this board.
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 12:26:01 GMT -5
I've heard platform warnings - by men AND lady workers - about women's hair, women's dress, women wearing denim, women being good Godly creatures. And now we know the truth, that some perhaps many of those males that gave such stern warnings, were taking the women they chose and using them for their sexual gratification. Some of the women abused in our country are married, others were vulnerable and maybe alone and easy targets, there are young lady workers too, and some were little girls. It makes us cry. All this while they were grandstanding the virtues of a celibate homeless ministry. Ha! Us women know and we are now in the loop and know what has gone on. I can tell you, no more. That's our warning to them! How long before someone gets mad as a snake and uses a butchers knife on one of those molesting workers who stand on the platform so smug but ignore the real sickness . The women workers who support them and don't take a stand against the abuse of women in the truth are just as bad.\ PS i'm not really advocating physical harm, it's just very tempting to think of removing some of those little willies. Especially the ones who have destroyed the lives of young innocent children. There have been some pretty horrible things that have happened to the vulnerable people in the group. But--the great thing is that for some of the victims--they have TRIUMPHED. A close friend of mine is a fairly young sister worker--she is still in her 30s. When she went into the work as a naive young girl of 19--her overseer (in his 70s) forced her into an unwanted sexual relationship with him. She had some very tough years--and is now on a new staff in a different state. She didn't leave the work, she didn't press any kind of harassment charges, but quietly and with dignity, she has warned a lot of the young women about the things that can happen. And now--she is one of the more respected and beloved sisters on the west coast. Most of the young women (and children of either sex) who have problems of this nature--seek her out--and she counsels them and helps them get professional help. and is that overseer in jail? It is all fine and well to have dignity and to help others. If these men have done something illegal, then they need to be brought to trial. If the workers themselves are allowed to sweep their indecencies under the rug, then this sister worker is going to continue to have other sister workers to counsel with problems of the same nature.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 10, 2012 15:16:00 GMT -5
There have been some pretty horrible things that have happened to the vulnerable people in the group. But--the great thing is that for some of the victims--they have TRIUMPHED. A close friend of mine is a fairly young sister worker--she is still in her 30s. When she went into the work as a naive young girl of 19--her overseer (in his 70s) forced her into an unwanted sexual relationship with him. She had some very tough years--and is now on a new staff in a different state. She didn't leave the work, she didn't press any kind of harassment charges, but quietly and with dignity, she has warned a lot of the young women about the things that can happen. And now--she is one of the more respected and beloved sisters on the west coast. Most of the young women (and children of either sex) who have problems of this nature--seek her out--and she counsels them and helps them get professional help. The ministry shouldn't expect God's blessing until it repents from such attrocities. The Shultz doctrine results in no accountability to anyone lower in the hierarchy: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....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... ....Their judgement may not always be right, but it is always right for us to respect that judgement and to work with it in the best way that we possibly can..... .....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.... ....Whether the decision is right or wrong, the right thing for all of us is to respect it because of those who have made the judgement....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 16:22:05 GMT -5
Protecting children from CSA should be the NUMBER ONE priority of the under shepherds in the "Kingdom".
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 10, 2012 16:47:14 GMT -5
emy, you've been professing for a long time. Why don't you provide the examples, and prove them? You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? I anticipate an answer from emy, but I might be wrong. That being said, how does one prove the negative? This is an example. Please take no more from this than the intent: I have never been to Washington, DC. Can I prove that? No, but can someone prove I have been? Thanks for providing a response. I wasn't quite sure what I was being asked to do. If I don't KNOW examples, how can I prove them. As for the other two questions, no, I really haven't. In our state I can't think of one meeting that's in a home of a person significantly more wealthy than the people who attend there. And siding with an offender instead of a victim? I guess I have no first-hand knowledge of that. Really no gossip knowledge either. I'm kind of out of the loop and DO live in the boonies, though!
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 10, 2012 16:49:29 GMT -5
emy has never ever heard a worker preach or even insinuate that they are the only truth and way. She has no clue what you are talking about. hard to have a discussion when even the most obvious doctrines of the meetings we all know are conveniently forgotten. Have I said that? I do know what people mean, but I don't have to agree that it is "doctrine" in any way. Are you saying favoring the "rich" is also part of the "doctrine"?
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 18:26:58 GMT -5
emy has never ever heard a worker preach or even insinuate that they are the only truth and way. She has no clue what you are talking about. hard to have a discussion when even the most obvious doctrines of the meetings we all know are conveniently forgotten. Have I said that? I do know what people mean, but I don't have to agree that it is "doctrine" in any way. Are you saying favoring the "rich" is also part of the "doctrine"? Favouring the rich is a practice of some workers. Not a doctrine. I was referring to the fact that you seem to be clueless of the major fundamental doctrines of your group and the practices of many of the friends and worker worldwide. You seem to be clueless as to how these doctrines affect people who are weaker than yourself and how these doctrines manifest as abuse. It is blaming people for believing false things workers say when they get burned by it.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 10, 2012 19:47:49 GMT -5
Favouring the rich is a practice of some workers. Not a doctrine. I was referring to the fact that you seem to be clueless of the major fundamental doctrines of your group and the practices of many of the friends and worker worldwide. You seem to be clueless as to how these doctrines affect people who are weaker than yourself and how these doctrines manifest as abuse. It is blaming people for believing false things workers say when they get burned by it. First of all, I'm not aware that our fellowship has fundamental doctrines. I've always heard the doctrine is the Bible. As I have said, and others here in the fellowship have said, we work out our salvation between us and God. We worship Him in spirit and in truth (privately in prayer and meditation) and share the result of that fellowship with Him with those we have fellowship with in our meetings. (1 John 1:3-7)
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 10, 2012 20:43:25 GMT -5
I'm not aware that our fellowship has fundamental doctrines. I've always heard the doctrine is the Bible. As I have said, and others here in the fellowship have said, we work out our salvation between us and God. We worship Him in spirit and in truth (privately in prayer and meditation) and share the result of that fellowship with Him with those we have fellowship with in our meetings. (1 John 1:3-7) If total strangers said to you: "We work out our salvation between us and God. We worship Him in spirit and in truth (privately in prayer and meditation) and we'd like to share with you the result of that fellowship with Him and have fellowship in your meetings." Would you say: "Great, you're very welcome to be considered part of our fellowship - to break bread with us each Sunday AM and attend our bible studies, special meetings and conventions". My observations are quite the opposite. I've noticed that it typically takes many weeks if not years for strangers to be invited to profess. That tells me there are "fundamental doctrines" that must be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 21:13:19 GMT -5
Favouring the rich is a practice of some workers. Not a doctrine. I was referring to the fact that you seem to be clueless of the major fundamental doctrines of your group and the practices of many of the friends and worker worldwide. You seem to be clueless as to how these doctrines affect people who are weaker than yourself and how these doctrines manifest as abuse. It is blaming people for believing false things workers say when they get burned by it. First of all, I'm not aware that our fellowship has fundamental doctrines. I've always heard the doctrine is the Bible. As I have said, and others here in the fellowship have said, we work out our salvation between us and God. We worship Him in spirit and in truth (privately in prayer and meditation) and share the result of that fellowship with Him with those we have fellowship with in our meetings. (1 John 1:3-7) That is why I take part in meeting when I go and why I am still in the work. There is no fundamental doctrine but the Bible, which I believe and preach, and there are no rules. Somehow the less spiritual and more judgmental members of the 2x2 fellowship have a problem with that, though. Both workers and friends.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 10, 2012 21:25:39 GMT -5
The most fundamental doctrine seems to be "no one comes to the Father but by the workers".
Even sexual immorality is not considered important enough doctrine to speak about openly.
Rather its ignored, excused or swept under the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 21:36:57 GMT -5
The most fundamental doctrine seems to be "no one comes to the Father but by the workers". Even sexual immorality is not considered important enough doctrine to speak about openly. Rather its ignored, excused or swept under the carpet. Nope, JO, there is no rule or doctrine. As long as I believe in the Bible and am moved by God to preach the gospel, I am both professing and in the Work. In the work we are not accustomed to sweeping things under the rug. Things will be investigated and handled according to how we in the work see appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 10, 2012 22:34:21 GMT -5
In the work we are not accustomed to sweeping things under the rug. Things will be investigated and handled according to how we in the work see appropriate. Like this: "Each and every instance of CSA allegation made to the ministry is fully looked into and dealt with according to standards that are right in the sight of God and man and will stand open audit. "
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 10, 2012 23:18:37 GMT -5
In the work we are not accustomed to sweeping things under the rug. Things will be investigated and handled according to how we in the work see appropriate. Like this: "Each and every instance of CSA allegation made to the ministry is fully looked into and dealt with according to standards that are right in the sight of God and man and will stand open audit. " Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, you sound bitter, JO.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 11, 2012 0:05:18 GMT -5
By the way, you sound bitter, JO. Not at all TS. I have great respect for people who put principals before politics.
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 11, 2012 0:09:40 GMT -5
By the way, you sound bitter, JO. Not at all TS. I have great respect for people who put principals before politics. I should have used a smiley face. I will try again just in case someone thinks I don't like you. You sound bitter, JO I also appreciate those who put principles before politics. Just saying one puts principles before politics doesn't mean that one does, though.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on May 11, 2012 0:38:53 GMT -5
Like this: "Each and every instance of CSA allegation made to the ministry is fully looked into and dealt with according to standards that are right in the sight of God and man and will stand open audit. " Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, you sound bitter, JO.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 11, 2012 3:39:42 GMT -5
Actually, "disappointed" would better describe where I'm at.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on May 11, 2012 4:41:54 GMT -5
Actually, "disappointed" would better describe where I'm at. hang in there. I thought it asinine that TS called you bitter...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 15:39:25 GMT -5
I have never heard a worker warn the convention crowd that a "servant of God" is capable of harming the friend's children. Nope. Never heard it in the 32 years I professed. Nada. Nothing. Nuffin.
We were warned about TVs, internet, talking too much before and after meetings, length of prayers/testimonies in the meetings, marrying outsiders/divorcees, short skirts, makeup/jewelry, getting too early or late to a meeting, friendships with worldly people, golden slippers, Saturday evening activities, fishing on Sunday, dressing too casually to meeting, pets keeping people from attending convention, too many get togethers, and you name it. But NEVER EVER was CSA mentioned. Or hinted about. Other than Jeff Voglezang telling the friends that they should expect appropriate behavior from the Servants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 16:27:06 GMT -5
I have never heard a worker warn the convention crowd that a "servant of God" is capable of harming the friend's children. Nope. Never heard it in the 32 years I professed. Nada. Nothing. Nuffin. We were warned about TVs, internet, talking too much before and after meetings, length of prayers/testimonies in the meetings, marrying outsiders/divorcees, short skirts, makeup/jewelry, getting too early or late to a meeting, friendships with worldly people, golden slippers, Saturday evening activities, fishing on Sunday, dressing too casually to meeting, pets keeping people from attending convention, too many get togethers, and you name it. But NEVER EVER was CSA mentioned. Or hinted about. Other than Jeff Voglezang telling the friends that they should expect appropriate behavior from the Servants. I've been listening to Chuck Smith and numerous other Calvary Chapel pastors, as well as other denominational pastors for years and have never ONCE heard them warn against CSA from themselves, other pastors or anyone else for that matter. I wonder how many churches have ever made that a sermon subject? And the problem is not at all limited to our fellowship.
|
|