|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 30, 2014 0:34:51 GMT -5
Elizabeth Thanks! How do I get in touch with these people? Have you had opportunity to present the opening post of this thread to them? review 005, thanks for stepping up to the plate to defend our fellowship. I feel your effort would be greatly enhanced if you would list for everyone to see the untrue statements made by Ms Coleman. When the truth is made plain for everyone to see there should be no more argument. With respect, fred I agree Fred, if Review could list for everyone to see the things he feels are untrue in Elizabeth's OP, then there would be no need for any disagreement
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 30, 2014 0:38:53 GMT -5
Elizabeth, Aah I see, the discussion you have on that closed forum hasn't included material such as the rhetoric questions (as the ex on this thread described them) of the opening post of this thread. Please pm me when you find someone/people from the fellowship with whom you are able to have mutually beneficial and good dialogue with on the opening post of this thread, I'd be interested to know and see it. A number from the fellowship have posted on this thread but all expressed disagreement and rejections of your thoughts. thanks! review 005 Your underlined section was not on the original post, Review. You keep moving the goal posts. A number on this thread have expressed agreement and acceptance of my thoughts, but apparently they don't count. I guess we've reached a stale mate. In the end, please consider that this is not an 'argument' that I am trying to 'win'. If it opens up dialogue and discussion about the issue of money in the fellowship, leading to greater integrity on the part of the ministry, then that is a good thing. If it is ignored and downplayed, it is not to my loss. (Except, perhaps, that I may be further maligned for daring to raise the issue. Another pitfall of using my real name). I'm sorry you are not interested in joining the forum I mentioned to discuss more edifying matters. The invitation remains open.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 30, 2014 1:13:46 GMT -5
Why is there lack of concern by most of members of the group who do contribute funds? I'll give you the answer to that one....because they know and trust the men of integrity who handle them. Sometimes those you "know" and "trust" and consider "men of integrity" can let you down. Elizabeth is suggesting that putting prudent systems in place can mitigate the risk. professing.proboards.com/thread/19819professing.proboards.com/thread/14221/who-abusing-money-practicallyI totally disagree with sofastarch. Over the years I was with the 2x2s I have known many cases of abusive use of money collected by the workers. Here are some examples - When the overseer in Greece decided to organise conventions there in the 80's a lot of money was sent to him from overseas (mostly the USA). Suddenly the «penniless and poor» overseer had enough money to construct a new convention building (many say he also paid for buying the piece of land on which the building was constructed). Of course the property was in the name of a friend! The same overseer had also enough money to support the establishment of another convention ground - there we heard he had to cover some debts of the non professing person who owned the property. Furthermore, some months later this same overseer, who had started acting like a dictator towards his fellow workers, left the 2x2 organisation and created his own flavour of christianity. He then bought a big property in one of the most lavish suburbs of Athens and constructed a villa apparently with the money he appropriated from the donations given to him for the establishment of the convention grounds. The new appointed overseer never disclosed how much money was stolen, nor asked them back!
- When certain workers in our region (in Europe) started using cars, instead of public transport (as was the custom until then), a friend suddenly bought a car «specifically for the workers to use», although his economic condition was not such as to allow him such largesse. We gathered that the money were given by the workers. When the car crached several times, the workers (who were responsible for the accidents) paid for the repairs although the cost of these repairs was quite high and any logical person would have prefered to buy a new car.
- When the overseer in our part of the world developed an adulterous affair with the wife of one of the friends, he started travelling several times a week from his «field» to the town of the lady. At the time we did not know of the affair but were startled by the frequency of travel who costed a fortune. In view of arranging practical questions about meetings etc. we would often try to contact the overseer whose field covered our region but we could not locate him at the place he was supposed to be and later discovered that he was out of town «unexpectedly for matters pertaining to the work».
So over the (more that 30) years I followed this cult I have seen enough cases which prove beyond doubt that the workers 1. Have a lot of money, 2. Manage this money in a most unacountable way, 3. Very often abuse the money without any control.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 30, 2014 1:30:36 GMT -5
Elizabeth You are correct I did 'remove the goalposts' Why? because the 'proof' you presented that you could have meaningful and beneficial dialogue with professing people was such that had no relevance to the subject and nature of this thread! I find your style and substance of posting means I am unable to enter into good or mutually beneficial dialogue. Thanks anyway! But perhaps it the reason for this lack lies all with me? I'll be persuaded of that when Fred (or some other professing poster) will do what the rest of us haven't been able to do so far. Have beneficial and good dialogue on the subject of the OP. So far they reject and have no common ground with you. But that also makes sense! They are in the fellowship and by conviction reject what you propose. You by conviction are the member of a church with audited financial statements. until then best wishes! I attend fellowship meetings and can respond to the challenge posed by Review005. Many members would like to know whether the ministry does currently need funds for its operations or whether the ministry has accumulated substantial funds. If it has, the members could increase their charitable giving to other charities such as Red Cross or to personal cases of need. A worker commented on how stupid he had been to not see the foolishness of 'the penniless ministry' claim. Other workers have expressed concern about handing of finances. I have no interest in knowing how much others have given, or whether income or expenditure has increased or decreased, and no desire for audited accounts. However I think we should know who handles the finances and what the end of year position is. Some members have noted that the elders who handle the funds in some areas have become unusually wealthy and have concerns as to whether the funds are being handled correctly. It hurts me to hear workers criticising other churches for having buildings when we do the same, and to slander all other churches by examples of the worst behaviour of some ministers in some churches. It seems that we have learned to hide the hypocrisy by willful blindness to the manner in which our fellowship effectively does the same things that other churches do.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 30, 2014 3:25:13 GMT -5
Virgo your earlier quote: " where is the evidence? it is all very well making conjecture of such you ask for truth but don't post truth in actual evidence" So now where is your evidence or is it conjecture? what i posted is fact why the need for evidence? Of course Virgo, if it was on television it's a fact!
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Aug 30, 2014 5:30:14 GMT -5
It is true no one is compelled to donate to workers
But when an overseer is asked in a letter for transparency, by friends he knows, it should alert him to the fact there is an accountability issue he needs to address
To respond publicly in self righteous indignation raises red flags,
Mr Richardson could have responded to the letter giving an honest reply, why did he choose to use public rebuke and twisted logic?
There is a growing awareness a lot of money is spent supporting the system and lifestyle of the hierarchy and from what we know very little possibly none on victims (of that system) and the poor in(Vietnam etc). When reasonable questions are not answered, concerns become public issues.
It would be good if all overseers and senior workers realised lack of information leads to incorrect and unsubstantiated assumptions, we have been kept in the dark and feed mushroom food for too long, asking for transparency so we can make informed decisions regarding our donations is a reasonable request.
Review I am in the fellowship and feel Elizabeth has asked questions, I would like answered, accountability in a number of areas needs addressing and private attempts to speak to workers have been a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 30, 2014 6:55:49 GMT -5
Holdmyhand. I'd say if you are a New Zealander then personally communicate or approach Mr Richardson with your concerns. That is the first step of what Mat 18 teaches when we have concerns with a brother over a matter. I wrote to Alan Richardson (and other Australian overseers) about several matters (including finances) on behalf of a group of concerned friends and workers. Alan replied with a private letter and indicated that he did not intend to answer any of the issues raised in our letter. Matthew 18 actually teaches us how to deal with a brother who is sinning (trespass). I'm not sure that is applicable in these circumstances. Jack Carroll spoke 'frankly and freely' about financial matters in a 1934 sermon. Jack counselled us to be frank and candid about financial matters. He said that funds given to workers, including from inheritances, are scattered. He did not indicate that substantial funds would be accumulated over many years but that seems to have happened since then.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 30, 2014 7:14:16 GMT -5
Holdmyhand. I'd say if you are a New Zealander then personally communicate or approach Mr Richardson with your concerns. That is the first step of what Mat 18 teaches when we have concerns with a brother over a matter. I wrote to Alan Richardson (and other Australian overseers) about several matters (including finances) on behalf of a group of concerned friends and workers. Alan replied with a private letter and indicated that he did not intend to answer any of the issues raised in our letter. Matthew 18 actually teaches us how to deal with a brother who is sinning (trespass). I'm not sure that is applicable in these circumstances. Jack Carroll spoke 'frankly and freely' about financial matters in a 1934 sermon. Jack counselled us to be frank and candid about financial matters. He said that funds given to workers, including from inheritances, are scattered. He did not indicate that substantial funds would be accumulated over many years but that seems to have happened since then. The concerns you have are relevant. You did the biblical thing by going to AR with your concerns. Scripture says take it to the elders and then higher. AR is the highest you can go in NZ. My alarm bells would be going off. Who is AR accountable to in the ministry? you could take it too the church/congregation You know the more I learn about the group the worse it seems to get. Is it sin to hide funds. To accumilate wealth? If they are men and women of faith they should be open especially about money because of the LOVE of money and the dangers of the that. If you look at how giving was managed in Acts. The apostles gave back out to those who had need whether money clothing food etc. Why would workers stash it like scrooge mcduck? If they believe in malaci 3, and the giving principle they would know that there is no need to hord.
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Aug 30, 2014 8:57:56 GMT -5
When I am not satisfied with the way a charity uses the funds I donate I stop donating. If you don't approve of the explanation regarding money provided by the workers, stop giving and explain why. If you don't think the funds are being used correctly, stop giving and explain why. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Aug 30, 2014 9:55:42 GMT -5
Jack Carroll spoke 'frankly and freely' about financial matters in a 1934 sermon. Jack counselled us to be frank and candid about financial matters. He said that funds given to workers, including from inheritances, are scattered. He did not indicate that substantial funds would be accumulated over many years but that seems to have happened since then. The Jack Carroll sermon is also relevant because it addresses this question from Elizabeth: He states that: The Matthew 10 ministry model is viewed as the conditions which justify the receipt of food, clothing, shelter, and funds. While I've heard other churches' finances criticized many times, I'm not so sure that it was done by the overseers or elders with the financial authority that Jack Carroll would have had...
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 30, 2014 15:30:15 GMT -5
stevnz You make use in your posts of terms like 'many friends' and 'workers'. Perhaps get them to sign their names to a copy of the letter and resend it to Alan Richardson. It will give proof and meaning to termsì like 'many friends' and 'workers' that you use? People with sincere and deep conviction on that matter will have no concern with such. (br]Interestingly where matters of concern in a letter similar to yours? your letter? were mentioned by Alan in a meeting the response was: " There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people."
You are sidetracking. of course they would react like that but I bet they had no cause to question. if they knew the scandalous way funds have been handled in other nations they might not have reacted. I find your comment 'the very people who contribute'? Odd. Are you implying the writers do not? If so how do you know?
"There is gulf of difference in understanding and conviction of right between those who submitted the letter and the young and old, liberal and conservative present in the meeting who responded in amazement/disbelief...and rejection of what was sought in the letter.
I inadequately tried to express in an earlier post:
"There is an understanding between the members and the ministry when they contribute financially. A deep mutual feeling of trust and good will. Something spiritual, deeper, more wonderful and more binding that any audited accounts could ever express."
No different to any church. Its called trusting your leaders.
This goes towards explaining the expressions of amazement and outright rejection of what was advocated by the writer of the letter."
Nope. Not at all. When people trust they do it whole heartedly. Until the trust is broken/betrayed. Workers are no more 'special'than other ministries in any local church. The reason for that comment is you make the writers look the bad guys and the workers beyond reproach. Writers are looking for honest straight up dialogue. You and AR are not. That is how it appears from someone watching.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 30, 2014 15:34:43 GMT -5
Ive commented but it went blue. Oops.. Sorry Think It was 2nd blue paragraph is mine not yours
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 30, 2014 16:13:01 GMT -5
stevnz You make use in your posts of terms like 'many friends' and 'workers'. Perhaps get them to sign their names to a copy of the letter and resend it to Alan Richardson. It will give proof and meaning to terms like 'many friends' and 'workers' that you use? People with sincere and deep conviction on that matter will have no concern with such. Interestingly where matters of concern in a letter similar to yours? your letter? were mentioned by Alan in a meeting the response was: " There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people."
"There is gulf of difference in understanding and conviction of right between those who submitted the letter and the young and old, liberal and conservative present in the meeting who responded in amazement/disbelief...and rejection of what was sought in the letter.
I inadequately tried to express in an earlier post:
"There is an understanding between the members and the ministry when they contribute financially. A deep mutual feeling of trust and good will. Something spiritual, deeper, more wonderful and more binding that any audited accounts could ever express."
This goes towards explaining the expressions of amazement and outright rejection of what was advocated by the writer of the letter."
Asking people to have blind faith in the workers is scary and one of the reasons that abuse occurred when allowing workers into people's homes. Flowery words will not stop abuse of power as has been shown by workers. We are natural and spiritual people. God expects us to show wisdom and accountability is one. Are you meaning like the elder in meetings who was an accountant who was struck off being an accountant for tax evasion. Of course you would know about him as it occurred in your country amongst your elders. Wellington NZ to be exact.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 30, 2014 20:15:27 GMT -5
Elizabeth You are correct I did 'remove the goalposts' Why? because the 'proof' you presented that you could have meaningful and beneficial dialogue with professing people was such that had no relevance to the subject and nature of this thread! I find your style and substance of posting means I am unable to enter into good or mutually beneficial dialogue. Thanks anyway! But perhaps the reason for this lack lies all with me? I'll be sure of that when Fred (or some other professing poster) will do what the rest of the professing posters haven't been able to do so far. Have beneficial and good dialogue with you on the subject of the OP. So far they reject and have no common ground with you. But that also makes sense! They are in the fellowship and by conviction reject what you propose. You by conviction are the member of a church with audited financial statements. You doing what is right and best for you. They doing what is right and best for them. It would make as much sense them addressing the members of your church telling them to stop paying your minister (if you have a paid one) or stop taking collections (if you take them) or stop making appeals for funds (if you do so) as would you telling members of this fellowship to stop giving and having funds managed in the way they are. best wishes for meaningful beneficial dialogue with Fred (or some other professing poster). 005 p.s. perhaps it will be fixit also that will have meaningful beneficial dialogue on the points in the OP? p.p.s stevnz may be another one?! Well review its seems that the people you mentioned and others agree with Elizabeth's OP, so what is your response to that ?
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Aug 30, 2014 21:54:41 GMT -5
As I read your wonderful thoughts....it just came to me that the problem with the "exclusive" 2x2ism is not the exclusiveness totally but the isolationism.....the forbidding of the modern media in homes, the past habit of denying further education for the youth and the total powers of the workers to seal off their members to the point the members don't know anything but what the workers feed them with.....this has been the worst crippling that I can think of and seen within people exiting the 2x2s! A person is in NO way ready to meet the reality of the world they are living in for they've been living not only an exclusive spiritual life, but an isolated physical life! This would be one reason that a study by some would make them call the 2x2ism a "cult" and some would even call it a "dangerous cult" due to the thing of isolation practices that really go into the controlling by the power brokers of the 2x2s. Thank you Ross & STR two great posts here ! I think they should be the posts of the week Also thank you Elizabeth for the OP maybe that should be post of the week too ! I had a wee chuckle when I read this post. Sharingtherichers - where have you been for the last 30 years. When I look around the church I see office workers, nursers, lawyers, accountants, business owners, managers, doctors etc etc. I see many people that have been to university,some that employ dozens of people, others that sit on company boards and committees, have children at school- the list goes on. Really just a cross section of society. These people also read the newspaper, have access to the internet and actually interact in the community. Hardly a picture of an brain washed isolated bunch!! Choosing not to involve yourself in certain things and being ignorant to their existence are too very different things. I love the fact that we have the choice.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 30, 2014 22:17:56 GMT -5
Thank you Ross & STR two great posts here ! I think they should be the posts of the week Also thank you Elizabeth for the OP maybe that should be post of the week too ! I had a wee chuckle when I read this post. Sharingtherichers - where have you been for the last 30 years. When I look around the church I see office workers, nursers, lawyers, accountants, business owners, managers, doctors etc etc. I see many people that have been to university,some that employ dozens of people, others that sit on company boards and committees, have children at school- the list goes on. Really just a cross section of society. These people also read the newspaper, have access to the internet and actually interact in the community. Hardly a picture of an brain washed isolated bunch!! Choosing not to involve yourself in certain things and being ignorant to their existence are too very different things. I love the fact that we have the choice. Really & Truly, 30 years ago it was still expected of young girls to marry professing young boys, have children & be stay at home Mums, NOT to go to University. For myself growing up in the 70's it was not the "done thing" for people to go to University. Sure things have changed, you only have to look at the young ones at conventions today to see how much things have changed... wow the girls even wear denim skirts now and low cut sleeveless tops, and their hair down ! So much for the unchanging way !!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 30, 2014 22:20:00 GMT -5
Quotes about Education
Willie Jamieson You rich professing people will have to learn to keep your hands out of your pockets and you educated people have to learn to keep your mouths shut! [Chelan WA Conv 1954] REF #117
Dan Hilton Parents, don't sacrifice your children on the altar of education. [1979] REF #374
Tharold Sylvester It took 40 years in the back side of the desert to get the education of Egypt out of Moses
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 30, 2014 22:33:21 GMT -5
Yes, you are correct, members come from all walks of life and a greater respect is shown to the successful, well educated and the wealthy - just a cross section of society. There still exists that separation that Sharon speaks of in distant rural areas, or where there is a predominance of the elderly.
I do notice, however, that generally the friends are good compartmentalizing their lives - you see one persona at work and another around the workers and fellowship groups. In my experience most church going folks that I have mixed with do not do this, and their faith is expressed in every facet of their lives. I do have thoughts on why this might be so, but another time.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Aug 30, 2014 23:47:13 GMT -5
Yes, you are correct, members come from all walks of life and a greater respect is shown to the successful, well educated and the wealthy - just a cross section of society. There still exists that separation that Sharon speaks of in distant rural areas, or where there is a predominance of the elderly. I do notice, however, that generally the friends are good compartmentalizing their lives - you see one persona at work and another around the workers and fellowship groups. In my experience most church going folks that I have mixed with do not do this, and their faith is expressed in every facet of their lives. I do have thoughts on why this might be so, but another time. Very much so Fred. I'm 40 & no longer 'professing' but still 'compartmentalize' around my parents & older professing folk. It's been well beaten into me to not 'offend'. Pity the ones who shuffled me out weren't more concerned with 'offending'! I notice the same as you around regular church attending Christians, they're so honest. By learning to live a double life, I learnt to not be honest.....
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 30, 2014 23:48:37 GMT -5
stevnz You make use in your posts of terms like 'many friends' and 'workers'. Perhaps get them to sign their names to a copy of the letter and resend it to Alan Richardson. It will give proof and meaning to terms like 'many friends' and 'workers' that you use? People with sincere and deep conviction on that matter will have no concern with such. Interestingly where matters of concern in a letter similar to yours? your letter? were mentioned by Alan in a meeting the response was: " There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people."
"There is gulf of difference in understanding and conviction of right between those who submitted the letter and the young and old, liberal and conservative present in the meeting who responded in amazement/disbelief...and rejection of what was sought in the letter.
I inadequately tried to express in an earlier post:
"There is an understanding between the members and the ministry when they contribute financially. A deep mutual feeling of trust and good will. Something spiritual, deeper, more wonderful and more binding that any audited accounts could ever express."
This goes towards explaining the expressions of amazement and outright rejection of what was advocated by the writer of the letter."
It seems quite alarming that we need to get people to sign their names before Alan will respond. It was signed by one person and Alan chose to not respond to that person. Why would other names change the situation? Does the person who signed the letter not deserve a response but other names might deserve a response? You seem happy to quote unnamed people in your posts but expect others to provide names before Alan should respond to them. You have posted: "A member/s did approach the ministry with requests along the line you ask. Many members of the fellowship became aware of that. There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people."
and " There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people.
"There is gulf of difference in understanding and conviction of right between those who submitted the letter and the young and old, liberal and conservative present in the meeting who responded in amazement/disbelief...and rejection of what was sought in the letter."and "...expressions of amazement and outright rejection of what was advocated by the writer of the letter."
Should we expect you to validate your claims by asking you to provide the names of the people with the views you claim to represent? I don't think you were at the meeting where Alan spoke. We could wonder how many people who were at the meeting have you discussed the matter with? Did you discuss exactly what Alan said or your second hand understanding of what might have been said? Have you read the letter that was sent to Alan discussing various matters including finances? If your discussions with various people were regarding whether individual donations should be disclosed then I can understand widespread rejection of that concept. The letter writers did not contemplate or want such disclosure. However that does not mean that all financial matters should remain secret.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 31, 2014 1:36:24 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! The response to Graham Thompson's concerns was not encouraging!
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 31, 2014 2:24:02 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! They have chosen to remain anonymous for their own reasons. I respect that and have no intention of asking them to give their names to Alan. Why would Alan give them information when he chose to not answer me? Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? Jack Carroll counselled us to be open about such matters. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 31, 2014 2:54:47 GMT -5
Yes, you are correct, members come from all walks of life and a greater respect is shown to the successful, well educated and the wealthy - just a cross section of society. There still exists that separation that Sharon speaks of in distant rural areas, or where there is a predominance of the elderly. I do notice, however, that generally the friends are good compartmentalizing their lives - you see one persona at work and another around the workers and fellowship groups. In my experience most church going folks that I have mixed with do not do this, and their faith is expressed in every facet of their lives. I do have thoughts on why this might be so, but another time. Oh indeed, a greater respect was shown to the well educated once that they became well educated in my day!
The workers did everything that they could to keep you from becoming educated, but once you went ahead & became a doctor, teacher, whatever, - you would hear some of them say almost with reverence, "He's a doctor you know!" or nurse or teacher or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 31, 2014 3:23:35 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! Well we know what would happen - it's straight from the handbook, "pick 'em off one at a time". I saw this manoeuvre get pulled when a group of elders requested a meeting with the overseer and he got backup from another State and proceeded to organise meetings with one individual at a time. The elders got wind of this so that when they arrived at the first individual's home all the elders were assembled. In this case there was a good outcome, but not what was intended by the overseer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 3:47:30 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! They have chosen to remain anonymous for their own reasons. I respect that and have no intention of asking them to give their names to Alan. Why would Alan give them information when he chose to not answer me? Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? Jack Carroll counselled us to be open about such matters. Do you disagree? it's the way of the weak to make accusation and then hide, to me that's gutless, you ask Alan to be upfront but you go about hiding yourself from Him, why? shamefunnily i notice that none of the accusers have said they have spoken to God about this, why? it's seems as if God is a non entity in people who say they love Him but are not prepared to involve Him, strange when He is supposed to be first port of call it is that the accusers are affraid they will loss their power if they get the answer they don't want?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 3:48:58 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! Well we know what would happen - it's straight from the handbook, "pick 'em off one at a time". I saw this manoeuvre get pulled when a group of elders requested a meeting with the overseer and he got backup from another State and proceeded to organise meetings with one individual at a time. The elders got wind of this so that when they arrived at the first individual's home all the elders were assembled. In this case there was a good outcome, but not what was intended by the overseer. i wouldn't talk to people who hide behind their skirts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 3:50:40 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! They have chosen to remain anonymous for their own reasons. I respect that and have no intention of asking them to give their names to Alan. Why would Alan give them information when he chose to not answer me? Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? Jack Carroll counselled us to be open about such matters. Do you disagree? and what are they going to do with these millions?
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 31, 2014 4:31:08 GMT -5
They have chosen to remain anonymous for their own reasons. I respect that and have no intention of asking them to give their names to Alan. Why would Alan give them information when he chose to not answer me? Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? Jack Carroll counselled us to be open about such matters. Do you disagree? it's the way of the weak to make accusation and then hide, to me that's gutless, you ask Alan to be upfront but you go about hiding yourself from Him, why? shamefunnily i notice that none of the accusers have said they have spoken to God about this, why? it's seems as if God is a non entity in people who say they love Him but are not prepared to involve Him, strange when He is supposed to be first port of call it is that the accusers are affraid they will loss their power if they get the answer they don't want? Wrong Virgo; I didn't hide. I wrote to Alan with my full name. I choose to use a nickname here, just like you do. Do you think I should tell you what I have shared with God? Perhaps you should consider what the bible teaches about prayer. I'm not afraid of losing 'power' as I don't have any to start with.
|
|