|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 13, 2014 6:53:43 GMT -5
Elizabeth, the first sentence of this paragraph is an opinion you can state with certainty. The rest is most likely speculation. I know of other reasons some may become uncomfortable. Hi Emy, Well, they say there's guesses and educated guesses; you could say it's educated speculation?! But yes, I can't give comprehensive reasons for everyone. It is just my opinion. I'm most open to hearing of other reasons if you're wiling to comment.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 13, 2014 8:05:40 GMT -5
Thanks for your response. As regards your final paragraph I cannot answer your question because I myself ask it many times,I do not agree with the exclusive idea and as a matter of fact if you are not too busy you will see my stance on that matter if you just have a look at the thread "post of the week" some time between 2010 and 2011 or just after that. The post is about "Divided Homes" and was chosen and introduced by Scott Ross as a post of the week. My post there speaks for itself and for me. A believer is a believer and is a brother/sister in Christ. I honestly believe that they are many righteous people in other church fellowships that will go to Heaven because God is a Righteous Judge, but man isn't. Ps The reference to Post of the week is on page 4 and is dated June 3, 2011. - Unequally Yoked. Hi Partaker, Just read your referenced post - I can see how this would be an issue close to your heart. My husband was (is) a believer from another church when we met. This caused enormous friction with the workers and I was under the clear understanding that I had to get rid of him because he was not of the fellowship. The fact that he was a believer was irrelevant. Through a long and tumultuous journey I finally came to realise it was me who was not the true believer - I had been trusting in a system rather than the righteousness of Christ. I know this is not the case for everyone - I have since met many "true believers" who are still meeting attenders. Some accept me as a true fellow believer. Many do not, simply by virtue of me not being in their system, their way. I have to conclude that they still lack a full understanding of the gospel and the true basis of salvation. However, God is amazingly gracious, and keeps on meeting each of us where we are at. Please understand that I am NOT saying that these same people are not true believers. But I do hope and pray for the day when the gospel is the main basis of our belief, rather than which group we belong to or church we attend.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 13, 2014 10:31:12 GMT -5
Well, they say there's guesses and educated guesses; you could say it's educated speculation?! Sounds difficult if not impossible! Perhaps probability might be worked into the idea. speculation - ideas or guesses about something that is not known.Merriam-Webster Online
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Sept 13, 2014 11:15:32 GMT -5
Partaker I concluded a long time ago that workers and friend just dont know how to cope when someone leaves. My loving family didnt. My inlaws didnt. Neither did my sisterinlaw in the work. None of them ever asked me why until 20yrs later after yrs in other church ministry my parents accepted that I was a christian. and were able to have some limited fellowship. My sisterinlaw to this day never brought it up. Which leads me to think its a'spiritual problem' bubbles, it seems to me that this "spiritual problem" is exclusivity and the belief that if you are leaving the meetings it means you are turning your back on God. People can also take it personally - you are not just leaving the meetings, you are "leaving" the people in the meetings as well. It can be seen or felt as personal rejection. I am talking from my own point of view and experience - I don't have any professing family, so it's not the same. But F&W were my family for 16 years in a big way. Now I am going to ramble a little bit: if the outward church stuff (talk about workers, conventions, preps, gospel meetings and such) was your main connection and glue before, once that's taken away, what is left? What do you talk about now? How do you create a new meaningful source of connection? Should a new source of connection be invented so that the relationship can continue? Is it pleasant or laborious? Is it seen as profitable or counterproductive? It's not easy for either side to continue relationship as if nothing has happened. The change has to be acknowledged and talked about. But as you point out, if they don't ask questions, it gives an appearance that they don't want to know the answers and that they are not open to honest conversation. But they may just feel awkward and at loss at how to proceed. Nevertheless, unless this church "divorce" can be talked about openly, having a meaningful sincere relationship would be very difficult. While your perspective may be accurate, unfortunately the 2x2 fellowship is NOT presented in such a way, especially to potential converts. From the day my parents became part of the fellowship (I was in my late teens) it was presented as the closest family on earth. It was presented as a fellowship with profound spiritual connection. And I came to believe this myself. It was not apparent that the only things that connected us as a church group were superficial things such as workers, conventions, gospel meetings etc. As a result, when I left (and I suspect I'm not alone in this feeling) it was a major disappointment to come to the conclusion that there was not, and had never been, anything deeper than common activities. The spiritual connection has never been an integral part of the fellowship. I do want to make it clear that some very meaningful and close relationships were formed and I remain friends with some in the fellowship but this has nothing to do with the fellowship but rather is a result of genuine friendship. I can find equally fulfilling friendships outside of the 2x2 fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Sept 13, 2014 11:35:42 GMT -5
Elizabeth, the first sentence of this paragraph is an opinion you can state with certainty. The rest is most likely speculation. I know of other reasons some may become uncomfortable. Emy, you stated that the first sentence Elizabeth presented could be stated with certainty. That sentence is "Friends withdrew from us because they quickly became uncomfortable." It is evident that you also feel uncomfortable with those who leave. Please share your feelings openly and honestly. I appreciate all things you have shared with us on TMB because I believe you are fairly honest with your feelings. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 13, 2014 12:01:09 GMT -5
Hi Rational, I'm not sure how many decades ago you departed, but I fit that category too! (2 decades). You are about 1/ 2 way there! I was commenting on the practice of questioning them since you departed. Why? You have arrived at your conclusion. You don't believe what they were selling. Why would you want to hear the answers again?I understand questioning while you were a member. It is the questioning after you have left that I was questioning. I can see how an ex-member who questioned their beliefs would not make them want to be around for the questioning. I never bought into the paranormal being story. Leaving was a family and social issue, not a spiritual issue. That still leaves the question for the believers who thought if they left they would be damned - "If you felt it was not the correct way, from a spiritual point, what would it matter?" I think the social/family issues probably were still a very large factor.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 13, 2014 15:31:00 GMT -5
Elizabeth, the first sentence of this paragraph is an opinion you can state with certainty. The rest is most likely speculation. I know of other reasons some may become uncomfortable. Emy, you stated that the first sentence Elizabeth presented could be stated with certainty. That sentence is "Friends withdrew from us because they quickly became uncomfortable." It is evident that you also feel uncomfortable with those who leave. Please share your feelings openly and honestly. I appreciate all things you have shared with us on TMB because I believe you are fairly honest with your feelings. Thanks! Your guess is not correct. I'm nearly always quite comfortable with any who have left. Maybe an exception would be if they choose a lifestyle I am not comfortable with. (Rowdy living, promiscuous, or such.)
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Sept 13, 2014 23:38:11 GMT -5
Emy, you stated that the first sentence Elizabeth presented could be stated with certainty. That sentence is "Friends withdrew from us because they quickly became uncomfortable." It is evident that you also feel uncomfortable with those who leave. Please share your feelings openly and honestly. I appreciate all things you have shared with us on TMB because I believe you are fairly honest with your feelings. Thanks! Your guess is not correct. I'm nearly always quite comfortable with any who have left. Maybe an exception would be if they choose a lifestyle I am not comfortable with. (Rowdy living, promiscuous, or such.) Is it possible that you're equally uncomfortable with those still inside the 2x2 fellowship who choose the same lifestyle you mentioned. Based on decades of observation I'd venture a guess that there are probably as many promiscuous individuals inside the fellowship as there are outside based on percentages. I'm referring to those who have been connected with the 2x2 fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 14, 2014 2:00:50 GMT -5
Well, they say there's guesses and educated guesses; you could say it's educated speculation?! Sounds difficult if not impossible! Perhaps probability might be worked into the idea. speculation - ideas or guesses about something that is not known.Merriam-Webster OnlineHmm, I should have checked the definition of 'speculation' more carefully. You're right, educated speculation is not a good term. Which takes me back to Emy's comments - I reject her use of speculation in regard to my comments, because they were more than speculation. Perhaps not comprehensive, but still fitting.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 14, 2014 2:11:48 GMT -5
Hi Rational, I'm not sure how many decades ago you departed, but I fit that category too! (2 decades). You are about 1/ 2 way there! I was commenting on the practice of questioning them since you departed. Why? You have arrived at your conclusion. You don't believe what they were selling. Why would you want to hear the answers again?I understand questioning while you were a member. It is the questioning after you have left that I was questioning. I can see how an ex-member who questioned their beliefs would not make them want to be around for the questioning. I never bought into the paranormal being story. Leaving was a family and social issue, not a spiritual issue. That still leaves the question for the believers who thought if they left they would be damned - "If you felt it was not the correct way, from a spiritual point, what would it matter?" I think the social/family issues probably were still a very large factor. I did a lot of the questioning before I left. I continued to question after I left because things did not stop when I walked away. They couldn't. For starters, I still had all of my family inside. Every single member. There was no way I could avoid ongoing contact, and the whole system greatly affected my ongoing relationship with my family. And there was a smear campaign. I was publicly denounced by the workers. I know this because I received hate mail and also got phone calls from strangers asking me why the workers were denouncing me. So, me continuing to question them and be a thorn in their side? You betcha! They've more than earned every little bit of involvement I continue to have in questioning their whole system and continuing to keep many in bondage. Your stance, Rational, seems to be that I have no right to keep questioning them. From who's perspective? Who decides that? I disagree. They mightn't like the questions, and may decline to answer, but I can still keep asking them! It might continue to open the eyes of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 7:48:56 GMT -5
Silence gives consent? ? Is it a case of : see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, do no evil, I mind my own business? Not at all, many injustices and unfair treatment are brought to light and addressed because some concerned folks choose not to mind their own business by not looking the other way; they stand up for what they believe to be right and fair.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 14, 2014 8:39:02 GMT -5
Hi Yknot, thanks for your thoughts. I can utterly relate to your example re your wife' walk - I do the same track up a mountain each week, year round, and experience the same tremendous variation. Sometimes it's dark when I set off at the base. Sometimes the sun rises just when I reach the peak. The colour is different every day. I don't know if I'd place a higher "value" on questioning the status quo, I just know I was suddenly forced to. To take your analogy further, when I think about my mountain walk (I always do it with a companion), I know that there have been attacks and assaults on this track. Rare, but it happens. Even more rare, large male kangaroos have occasionally launched a vicious attach on unsuspecting runners during mating season. I have only heard about these things, but never experienced them. If, however, I was to one day, God forbid, be the victim of a nasty attack or assault, I could never look at my morning walk the same way again. All the things I currently enjoy about it would be tainted by the context, perhaps never to be fully recovered. I guess you could say this is what happened with the fellowship. I would like to clarify that I was never attacked, or assaulted by anyone in the fellowship! I enjoyed good relationships and good fellowship with my fellow 2x2s. I could never foresee a day when I wouldn't still be in it. But stuff happened. God stuff, miraculous stuff, discoveries of deception by the workers. When I tried to to talk to the workers about it, things quickly went pear-shaped. I discovered that truth was not important to many of the workers, indeed they eventually told me point blank they would lie if I tried to tell others the truth. To someone who had revered the workers, and thought them above reproach, I was shocked, heartbroken and desperately confused. Not to say all workers are like this. But many have been around long enough to become this way for some reason. They place a far greater premium on preserving "the way" than being interested in truth. That's just the way it is. I went thru 3 years of devastating emotional conflict before I knew there was no choice but to leave. Despite most of my extended family still being in, and despite the years of fellowship I enjoyed there (born & raised), it is all badly tainted, and I can never look at it in the same way again. Thanks for your response elizabethcoleman. Indeed, stuff does happen. From my brief peak at life, stuff is always happening. I guess that is why I choose not to view life from a stand point of statics where we suddenly move from one status quo state of comfort to another status quo state of perhaps discomfort. My view of life is more along the lines of a dynamic equilibrium. As I look at life, things are constantly changing, but that constant dynamic change results in a state of equilibrium that may often ‘appear’ to be stable and constant. Growth (as I see it) is the accommodation of changes within ourselves and changes in our environment in a way that takes us to new awareness and new states of equilibrium. It has been my observation that everyone accommodates to change in different ways, at different times and at different speeds. I have never been convinced that I could affect someone else’s rate of growth or perception of “truth” about an environment that we might share. To each his own as the saying goes. Your metaphor of the kangaroo in heat is a good one. Sometimes we do unexpectedly encounter a catalyst that precipitously changes our state of equilibrium. For example, in the U.S., September 11, 2001 was such an event. It is noteworthy that everyone’s sense of security changed on that day but I venture to say that the long term effect on each individual has been different and unique to that individual. You make a comment in your response that has captured my attention. You say “To someone who had revered the workers, and thought them above reproach . . . .”. That is a powerful comment. It raised in my mind the question – ‘to what extent are we the authors of our own discontent’. I don’t know if that is a question you would care to tackle but it is a question that often comes to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 14, 2014 22:07:13 GMT -5
I did a lot of the questioning before I left. I continued to question after I left because things did not stop when I walked away. They couldn't. For starters, I still had all of my family inside. Every single member. There was no way I could avoid ongoing contact, and the whole system greatly affected my ongoing relationship with my family. I too have the vast majority of my family still attending meetings. I do not want to avoid contact but if there is any discussion it is between my family and myself. This also happened to me. My solution was to go to the convention that I knew the overseer was attending and address the problem at the source.What you feel is bondage others may well feel is a real belief based on their faith. I might feel that the belief in a god is holding many in bondage but that is their belief and as long as it does not present harm/danger to others they are welcome to it. You can question them all you want. You decide. I was wondering what your goal was. You have gone to meetings. You know what their answers are going to be. Are you expecting a change?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 15, 2014 5:21:10 GMT -5
You make a comment in your response that has captured my attention. You say “To someone who had revered the workers, and thought them above reproach . . . .”. That is a powerful comment. It raised in my mind the question – ‘to what extent are we the authors of our own discontent’. I don’t know if that is a question you would care to tackle but it is a question that often comes to my mind. Hi Yknot, I understand what you are saying, nobody is perfect and we all have flaws, did I set my standards for the workers too high? Probably. However, given what the workers (and especially overseers) purport to be (representing God, the mouthpiece of God, etc.) yes, I hold them to a higher standard. First, due to their own words in claiming to be God's only true servants (surely they of all people would be of very good character?), and second, from the words of scripture: Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ... (1 Tim 3). I don't think I expected perfection. But even if I did set my standards too high, their behaviour failed a lot lower benchmark. It would be fair to expect at least some level of integrity. To be told to my face (as a 20 yr old) that they would lie about me and it would be my word against theirs - I would only expect this behaviour from the most dishonest of men. I cannot think of anyone else I know who has exhibited anything like this low level of behaviour. Yes, people lose their temper, say things they shouldn't, make mistakes. All very human. This was calculated, deceitful behaviour. I'm not the only one who revered the workers. It was taught and expected. Ironically, it is precisely because most of the friends revere the workers that this behaviour was most effective. Who would ever believe me over them? They knew this, and hence its power.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 15, 2014 5:39:06 GMT -5
You have gone to meetings. You know what their answers are going to be. Are you expecting a change? Hi Rational, I won't re-produce the whole conversation, but will respond to the general entirety of it. Your solution of going to the source and addressing the problem there (smear campaign) was definitely a good idea. I have no doubt you handled it better than me! One difficulty for me was that I did not know the source. Hate mail was always anonymous. I do not know which workers were publicly denouncing me. Any I contacted were very unwilling to meet with me. Anyway, just some of the difficulties at the time. I wasn't really inclined to go chasing down every smear, it would have been impossible, and would not have achieved much. I know what their answers are going to be - am I expecting a change? Yes! For some, yes. For some, there has been. Some have left, some have simply been more willing to stand up for themselves against gross injustices. Some have been willing to consider their beliefs more carefully. You may have seen the newspaper article I was in last September - much good came of this. Many who saw it found out for the first time that it was not only them who were affected in the past. Some were brave enough to speak out about their own experiences for the first time, knowing they weren't alone. I don't think we should just leave it to the abused or afflicted to stand up for themselves - we need to stand up for them too, and stand alongside them in their pain and hurt. Especially those of us who know the system from the inside and know the suffering that can be inflicted. Let's face it, most of them are unlikely to receive support and understanding from the inside! Yes, I think there can be change. I believe in change. I keep hoping and trying for it. I guess a good analogy would be a conman - he swindles you and gets the better of you and moves on to the next victim. Do you leave him alone so he can carry on? Or are you concerned about his next victims and want to warn them? Or at the very least to want to confront the conman? I think a lot of conning has gone on. I'm all for confronting the conman. And warning the victims.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 15, 2014 11:03:28 GMT -5
Emy, you stated that the first sentence Elizabeth presented could be stated with certainty. That sentence is "Friends withdrew from us because they quickly became uncomfortable." It is evident that you also feel uncomfortable with those who leave. Please share your feelings openly and honestly. I appreciate all things you have shared with us on TMB because I believe you are fairly honest with your feelings. Thanks! Your guess is not correct. I'm nearly always quite comfortable with any who have left. Maybe an exception would be if they choose a lifestyle I am not comfortable with. (Rowdy living, promiscuous, or such.) Emy, rejection of people based on lifestyles that are not approved (yes, I don't approve the particular lifestyles you mention either) if they are not in the fellowship, and yet wilful blindness and acceptance of those in the fellowship and especially in the ministry who have such lifestyles is what I couldn't take. It's why I left the meetings. We as Christians should not be worrying about what those outside of the fellowship are doing (in the sense of judging them, rejecting them, withdrawing from them...), but about those inside of the fellowship. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 15, 2014 11:11:16 GMT -5
Some SAY "Jesus is the way" but they dress like Kim Kardashian, talk like Charlie Sheen and act like Miley Cirus. Jesus apparently IS the way, but not THEIR way. Bert, I am more worried about those who claim to belong to the "true way," who claim to be the true Gospel bearers, but secretly engage in immorality and abuse (sexual and other). I am even more worried about those who willfully turn a blind eye on such behavior and allow it to continue. I believe that my worry lines up with Jesus' warning about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2014 13:38:35 GMT -5
You have gone to meetings. You know what their answers are going to be. Are you expecting a change? Hi Rational, I won't re-produce the whole conversation, but will respond to the general entirety of it. Your solution of going to the source and addressing the problem there (smear campaign) was definitely a good idea. I have no doubt you handled it better than me! One difficulty for me was that I did not know the source. Hate mail was always anonymous. I do not know which workers were publicly denouncing me. Any I contacted were very unwilling to meet with me. Anyway, just some of the difficulties at the time. I wasn't really inclined to go chasing down every smear, it would have been impossible, and would not have achieved much. I didn't know the source either but I did know the overseer and put the burden on him to make it stop. For whatever reason - it did. I am not 100% certain but I think I was responding to your post saying that no one reached out to you. I only meant to point out that your actions would not have encouraged anyone! Of course, very few reached out to me and I simply walked away. Probably that 'faith' thing kicking in! I am all for beating the conman at his own game - but in this case setting up a false competing religion is just too much trouble for the small short term gain!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 15, 2014 16:26:43 GMT -5
Your guess is not correct. I'm nearly always quite comfortable with any who have left. Maybe an exception would be if they choose a lifestyle I am not comfortable with. (Rowdy living, promiscuous, or such.) Emy, rejection of people based on lifestyles that are not approved (yes, I don't approve the particular lifestyles you mention either) if they are not in the fellowship, and yet wilful blindness and acceptance of those in the fellowship and especially in the ministry who have such lifestyles is what I couldn't take. It's why I left the meetings. We as Christians should not be worrying about what those outside of the fellowship are doing (in the sense of judging them, rejecting them, withdrawing from them...), but about those inside of the fellowship. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
from findingtruth: To both of you.. If I am aware of such lifestyles within the fellowship, my reaction will be the same. I realize some within may be just quiet about it and since i am not on the gossip line (other than here where names are rarely used) I would have little way of knowing. Maja, I seem to remember that your stated reason for leaving was that the overseer of your area would not guarantee that no workers would be sent to your home who might potentially be sexual abusers. Or was it that known abusers could be sent? Were there specific known ones who were not being dealt with - in your area, or among possible visitors? Because a guarantee that there is no potential for abuse would be a somewhat foolish promise, I think. Can you name some you know of who were blindly and wilfully accepted?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 15, 2014 17:53:47 GMT -5
Elizabeth Coleman : With the tendency for your posts to often be somewhat light in verifiable fact but heavier in emotion & what you refer to as slander (when made by others) I feel it helpful that you are having dialogue with Rational. Facts he accepts, emotion & statements (that if others made you would call slanderous) he doesn't. I'm following your dialogue with him on this thread. wishes
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 15, 2014 17:57:03 GMT -5
Review
What is wrong with emotion? We are emotional beings. I find Elizabeths posts level headed easy to read and comprehend. The post doesnt come across to me as over emotional nor emotions uncontrolled.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 15, 2014 18:17:23 GMT -5
Elizabeth Coleman : With the tendency for your posts to often be somewhat light in verifiable fact but heavier in emotion & what you refer to as slander (when made by others) I feel it helpful that you are having dialogue with Rational. Facts he accepts, emotion & statements (that if others made you would call slanderous) he doesn't. I'm following your dialogue with him on this thread. wishes I used to follow the workers, now I've got workers following me ... all I can say is "wow!"
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Sept 15, 2014 20:01:49 GMT -5
I didn't know the source either but I did know the overseer and put the burden on him to make it stop. For whatever reason - it did. Trying to find the source when they are on shaky ground is impossible even when the source is known you would expect it to be easy to sort out, but in the real world things don't just fit into little unemotional boxes. This is how the overseer treated his senior minister Graham has written (2010): ...in the meeting we had in Adelaide Alan made open accusation against me which was totally fabricated and untrue. Since this last convention I have had a letter from Alan admitting that what he said about me in Adelaide was not true, and further admitting that when I protested to him about it (much later, privately – I said nothing at the time) he promised to check out the matter and he “did not do what he said he would do” (in his own words of this letter). He also said that he felt he should correct the matter with the elders in their meeting in Australia last April and did not do it. He writes that it is now his intention to do that in their meeting this year (in other words, it is still not yet done), but shows a fixed determination not to correct it with the other 10 men who were in the meeting and heard his remarks. He was not the only one who lied in the gatherings those days either; other of his brother elders also did (this is established fact, not supposition). It only remains to be asked “who is ‘the father of lies’?”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2014 20:28:05 GMT -5
Graham has written (2010): ...in the meeting we had in Adelaide Alan made open accusation against me which was totally fabricated and untrue. Since this last convention I have had a letter from Alan admitting that what he said about me in Adelaide was not true, and further admitting that when I protested to him about it (much later, privately – I said nothing at the time) he promised to check out the matter and he “did not do what he said he would do” (in his own words of this letter). He also said that he felt he should correct the matter with the elders in their meeting in Australia last April and did not do it. He writes that it is now his intention to do that in their meeting this year (in other words, it is still not yet done), but shows a fixed determination not to correct it with the other 10 men who were in the meeting and heard his remarks. He was not the only one who lied in the gatherings those days either; other of his brother elders also did (this is established fact, not supposition). It only remains to be asked “who is ‘the father of lies’?” Sounds like a spiritual solution was being applied to a secular problem.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 15, 2014 20:57:54 GMT -5
Emy, rejection of people based on lifestyles that are not approved (yes, I don't approve the particular lifestyles you mention either) if they are not in the fellowship, and yet wilful blindness and acceptance of those in the fellowship and especially in the ministry who have such lifestyles is what I couldn't take. It's why I left the meetings. We as Christians should not be worrying about what those outside of the fellowship are doing (in the sense of judging them, rejecting them, withdrawing from them...), but about those inside of the fellowship. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
from findingtruth: To both of you.. If I am aware of such lifestyles within the fellowship, my reaction will be the same. I realize some within may be just quiet about it and since i am not on the gossip line (other than here where names are rarely used) I would have little way of knowing. Maja, I seem to remember that your stated reason for leaving was that the overseer of your area would not guarantee that no workers would be sent to your home who might potentially be sexual abusers. Or was it that known abusers could be sent? Were there specific known ones who were not being dealt with - in your area, or among possible visitors? Because a guarantee that there is no potential for abuse would be a somewhat foolish promise, I think. Can you name some you know of who were blindly and wilfully accepted? Emy, I apologize if it sounded as if I was implying that you yourself would be comfortable with such things in the fellowship. I was just talking about how things are in general, based on what I've found out not just here on TMB but most importantly from people I know. I spent 15 years in the fellowship knowing very little about controversies. I heard some things, but didn't think that problems were that common, so didn't pay much attention. However, when a year ago we broached the subjected with a worker we know well, he said: "You are the last ones to find out (about these issues) because you are pure." He himself is very grieved about these things, but unable to speak out for fear of losing his place in the ministry. We've had some other friends and workers open up to us as well, those who are grieved, but unable to speak openly because they fear repercussions. Yes, there are those who know about problems, but will only talk about it in the safety of privacy and secrecy. You are right about me stating something different as the reason why we left. It is impossible for me to summarize the reason in one simple sentence, so I'll probably give it a different slant each time. There are so many aspects to this. No, we did not ask that no potential abusers/immoral would be sent to our home, but that no known abusers/immoral be sent to our home, or anyone else's. To be precise, here are the (abbreviated) assurances we asked for in our letter to Overseers: 1) that NO known child molester is allowed to enter or remain in the work; 2) that all senior workers will work to effect a change in the fellowship culture for the purpose of creating a safer environment for children; 3) that in cases of alleged CSA, parents of victims, adult victims, and other concerned individuals will be encouraged to report allegations to authorities, and that workers will not try to judge whether an allegation is true or false, but will allow trained and authorized professionals to investigate; 4) that if a known child molester is placed in a meeting, people in the meeting will be notified, so that they can exercise due vigilance with their children; 5) that NO known child molester will be allowed to attend conventions; 6) that NO ONE who has committed sexual immorality (regardless of whether it’s consensual or abusive in nature) is allowed to remain in the work; 7) that there will be ONE standard on how to deal with those who have committed sins of sexual immorality regardless of their place and position in the church, and regardless of the presence or lack of an outward evidence of their sin; 8) that those who have abused the trust given to them because of their place in the ministry through sexual immorality and abuse will not be eased out of work in a secretive way, but will be openly rebuked before the church; Is this too much to ask for? I don't think it's too much to ask these things from church leadership that claims to be the true ministry, the bearers of the true Gospel, who preach that all other churches are false, where ministers live in people's homes and are revered even more than preachers in other churches. Besides, most other churches have guidelines and practices that fall along these lines in whatever way they may apply to their particular church. We have also asked specifically about the issue of adult abuse/immorality in another letter that we sent to certain overseers, regarding a particular case. Here we asked, and later in person, can we have assurance that the immoral and abusers will be removed from the work, and we did not receive an answer. Of course, we know how things are handled now, but we were truly hoping that we could explain to these overseers why such things are unacceptable and persuade them to change. Naive, I know. Perhaps the main reason why we left was not that we didn't receive these assurances, but that the friends in our field didn't express openly that they need the same assurances. Yes, there were some that told us in private that they agree with some of the things we asked for, but there was no one who would say openly and before all that they agreed. A few even let us know that they did not want to hear from us about the matter again. We realized that in their church culture it is not appropriate to discuss problems openly, only in secret, and that it is not appropriate to ask anything of the ministry. We also realized that we cannot be part of that culture and that it was best for all of us if we left the meetings - for our local friends, so we are not disturbing their peace any more, and for us, so we can reclaim ours. The last question I can only answer by PM.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 15, 2014 21:08:56 GMT -5
Graham has written (2010): ...in the meeting we had in Adelaide Alan made open accusation against me which was totally fabricated and untrue. Since this last convention I have had a letter from Alan admitting that what he said about me in Adelaide was not true, and further admitting that when I protested to him about it (much later, privately – I said nothing at the time) he promised to check out the matter and he “did not do what he said he would do” (in his own words of this letter). He also said that he felt he should correct the matter with the elders in their meeting in Australia last April and did not do it. He writes that it is now his intention to do that in their meeting this year (in other words, it is still not yet done), but shows a fixed determination not to correct it with the other 10 men who were in the meeting and heard his remarks. He was not the only one who lied in the gatherings those days either; other of his brother elders also did (this is established fact, not supposition). It only remains to be asked “who is ‘the father of lies’?” Sounds like a spiritual solution was being applied to a secular problem. In case you can't guess why, I'll give you a hint: it's church matters that are being discussed. As much as it may sound strange to you, for Christians, all issues pertaining to human relationships are primarily of spiritual nature.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2014 21:47:52 GMT -5
Perhaps the main reason why we left was not that we didn't receive these assurances, but that the friends in our field didn't express openly that they need the same assurances. Yes, there were some that told us in private that they agree with some of the things we asked for, but there was no one who would say openly and before all that they agreed. A few even let us know that they did not want to hear from us about the matter again. We realized that in their church culture it is not appropriate to discuss problems openly, only in secret, and that it is not appropriate to ask anything of the ministry. We also realized that we cannot be part of that culture and that it was best for all of us if we left the meetings - for our local friends, so we are not disturbing their peace any more, and for us, so we can reclaim ours. The last question I can only answer by PM.This seems to be following a pattern.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Sounds like a spiritual solution was being applied to a secular problem. In case you can't guess why, I'll give you a hint: it's church matters that are being discussed. As much as it may sound strange to you, for Christians, all issues pertaining to human relationships are primarily of spiritual nature. And applying spiritual solutions to secular matters never ends well. "Don't report child abusers to the authorities - we will deal with it internally. God will provide a solution. After all, the bible says we have to forgive others. He will repent, say he is sorry, and all will be well." How long are people going to go down this road before it is clear that it doesn't work?
|
|