Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 21:09:17 GMT -5
I know of one or two instances where this happens. How do they keep the unprofessing spouse from knowing the ins and outs of the Kingdom? If the elder wants to report someone's poor attendance, do they go outside and talk about it? Would seem like an awkward setup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 21:30:51 GMT -5
is there some unspoken rule that the unprofessing spouse should be kept out of the loop?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 0:50:58 GMT -5
I know of one or two instances where this happens. How do they keep the unprofessing spouse from knowing the ins and outs of the Kingdom? If the elder wants to report someone's poor attendance, do they go outside and talk about it? Would seem like an awkward setup. report someone's poor attendance????huh
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2014 1:46:33 GMT -5
I know of one or two instances where this happens. How do they keep the unprofessing spouse from knowing the ins and outs of the Kingdom? If the elder wants to report someone's poor attendance, do they go outside and talk about it? Would seem like an awkward setup. Sounds like something the Ferguson PD might be able to handle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 2:18:39 GMT -5
Quote - "report someone's poor attendance? huh" Yes, this paranoid stuff winds up in the TTT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 5:21:23 GMT -5
is there some unspoken rule that the unprofessing spouse should be kept out of the loop? I am not an elder, but I live in a "so called" divided home, and you would be surprised at what goes on in this fellowship. I recently received a letter from a worker who said that she hopes that I don't feel too neglected. I feel left out of the loop in many things, even my sister, who is professing, would mention things to me and tells me not to let my wife know, and it can be very hurtful to me, but God knows and sees everything. I always remember what Harold Mc Knight said in a Sunday morning meeting several years ago :" sometimes we think that we are in, but we are going to be out." This forum has opened my eyes to many things that I had turned a blind eye to, what's the word for it? Oh yes, deceit/ resulting in "blind loyalty." Folks, confession is good for the soul , deceit destroys the soul, because we can fool ourselves and fool others but we cannot fool God, He sees and knows everything about us and in the final analysis He will be the righteous judge for all believers. I do acknowledge and appreciate and respect the rights of others, (unbelievers,) to have a contrary view. In my humble opinion, I believe the fellowship needs a serious overhaul by having a very honest and serious examination of the mode of operation spiritually and morally. Love, compassion and humility rather than the display of forceful dictatorial power exerted on some members to tow the official line come what may, or else.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2014 7:12:12 GMT -5
Quote - "report someone's poor attendance? huh" Yes, this paranoid stuff winds up in the TTT.Well I dunno, for many years I attended a meeting where the elder's wife kept such records (she was known as the 'bishopess'). I also know that she would discuss these particulars with the workers. What they did with this information I have no idea, but I have no doubt that if needed this information would be used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 9:51:53 GMT -5
Quote - "report someone's poor attendance? huh" Yes, this paranoid stuff winds up in the TTT.Well I dunno, for many years I attended a meeting where the elder's wife kept such records (she was known as the 'bishopess'). I also know that she would discuss these particulars with the workers. What they did with this information I have no idea, but I have no doubt that if needed this information would be used. That does not surprise me either. I have heard a brother worker at a gospel meeting speaking about certain matters relating to friends without calling any names and he said, and I quote: " these things get back to our ears." Now what does that tell you? folks in the fellowship are not as perfect and upright as they tend to portray - we share a lot in common with others in worldly churches, and to be honest, I am not excepted either. I am no holier than thou when closely examined, same human failing and frailties, prejudices as any other; however I now cease to condemn others in other churches where they are gathered in Jesus's name, because I believe that He will be there in the midst of them.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 26, 2014 9:53:10 GMT -5
Folks, confession is good for the soul , deceit destroys the soul, because we can fool ourselves and fool others but we cannot fool God, He sees and knows everything about us and in the final analysis He will be the righteous judge for all believers. I do acknowledge and appreciate and respect the rights of others, (unbelievers,) to have a contrary view. One unbeliever’s comment on “He sees and knows everything about us”.
I lived in a divided home, as I was the only one in my family to profess, it wasn’t fun time growing up. My wife and I professed before we were marred, but left years afterwards at the same time. In my family there are elders and convention grounds owners, some divided. My thinking changed after leaving the 2x2 on the “he knows everything about us”. I firmly held this view for many years, and I see this in action today with my professing family.
The idea of eternal justice in the afterlife; wrongs in this life find justice in eternity; the unseen good deeds today will be rewarded in an afterlife, are common among many religions. This was in some strange way part of how I demonstrated my faith. I had pleasure knowingly letting other take advantage of me. I had joy knowing I was “banking rewards”. Today I see this thinking is harmful, yet a common harm done by religion.
There are some people who take advantage of others without regard to the harm they do. You read about the big ones like the Bernie Madoff’s from time to time. Some claim that a person of faith must be gullible by definition, as if they will believe one thing without evidence, they are primed to believe other things without good reasons.
There is also the increase in fraud rates; in-group fraud vs. out-group fraud. Other at higher risk are the newly wealthy, and the elderly. Those who are more naive, and those with impaired judgment, or desperate for friendship.
For me now the best thing to do is to treat people fairly but with a degree of skepticism as to motive. Knowing allowing others to take advantage of you for an eternal reward is harmful thinking and enables the abuser.
If you see a harm it’s better to speak up in the here and now than leave it to be fixed in heaven and hell.(see Matthew 5 for more harmful thinking)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 26, 2014 10:09:49 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself.
My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason.
But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>".
Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange.
Time to retire this turkey: "divided home".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 10:39:51 GMT -5
"If you see a harm it's better to speak up in the here and now than leave it Ito be fixed in heaven or hell"
Yes that would be morally correct, however our weak human nature very often stand in our way of doing what is morally correct because of the fear of probable repercussions to self and/ or family as a result of doing the right thing. Sometimes our toughest battle is with our human nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 10:48:44 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself. My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason. But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>". Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange. Time to retire this turkey: "divided home". It is more like an albatross around the neck rather than a turkey.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 26, 2014 11:15:19 GMT -5
"If you see a harm it's better to speak up in the here and now than leave it Ito be fixed in heaven or hell" Yes that would be morally correct, however our weak human nature very often stand in our way of doing what is morally correct because of the fear of probable repercussions to self and/ or family as a result of doing the right thing. Sometimes our toughest battle is with our human nature. Christianity teaches it's wrong to put yourself first; rather put god first, others next, then yourself. I have come to believe this is not the best moral teaching. I find the greater good comes when each put themselves first AND live with integrity. First be honest with yourself, then with those around you. You will never please everyone. It's best to do the right things first for yourself vs. trying to please other out of peer pressure. You can not help others if you yourself need help. That's why on a plane they say "put on your own face mask first before helping others". Contrary to the bible, it is moral to think of yourself first. Your human nature is selfish, it wants to protect itself above all else. Selfishness does not sound moral, but helping yourself first then helping others out of empathy, is more moral than what your read in Mat. 5. which does not resist immoral acts but enables them. Some who study these things say all forms of reciprocal altruism is selfish. I don't like that thought because of my indoctrination, but's its probably true, if nothing else I get to "feel good" when I help those who can not return the favor.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 26, 2014 13:06:05 GMT -5
"If you see a harm it's better to speak up in the here and now than leave it Ito be fixed in heaven or hell" Yes that would be morally correct, however our weak human nature very often stand in our way of doing what is morally correct because of the fear of probable repercussions to self and/ or family as a result of doing the right thing. Sometimes our toughest battle is with our human nature. Christianity teaches it's wrong to put yourself first; rather put god first, others next, then yourself. I have come to believe this is not the best moral teaching. I find the greater good comes when each put themselves first AND live with integrity. First be honest with yourself, then with those around you. You will never please everyone. It's best to do the right things first for yourself vs. trying to please other out of peer pressure. You can not help others if you yourself need help. That's why on a plane they say "put on your own face mask first before helping others". Contrary to the bible, it is moral to think of yourself first. Your human nature is selfish, it wants to protect itself above all else. Selfishness does not sound moral, but helping yourself first then helping others out of empathy, is more moral than what your read in Mat. 5. which does not resist immoral acts but enables them. Some who study these things say all forms of reciprocal altruism is selfish. I don't like that thought because of my indoctrination, but's its probably true, if nothing else I get to "feel good" when I help those who can not return the favor. I've always been troubled by Charles Dickens' "Christmas Carol", much as it does make me feel as mushy and sentimental as the next person. We welcome Scrooge's new found generosity at the end of the tale, but doesn't it come out of his wealth, and didn't that require, at a minimum, shrewdness and tenacity in its acquisition. I think the lesson of Scrooge holds, but at the same time, his generosity was the direct result of him being a miser for most of his life.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Nov 26, 2014 15:49:00 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself. My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason. But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>". Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange. Time to retire this turkey: "divided home". I was concerned about the treatment of a friend of mine in another country, and I brought this topic up with our overseer. He told me that if we were to practice this (unchristian) prejudice against believing/unbelieving spouses in our part of the world, then we'd lose half the members of our fellowship. We have a few workers who come from homes where one parent was professing and the other wasn't. This is possibly one of the reasons we don't see that kind of discrimination here. Jesus considered a husband and wife to be " one flesh", and Paul wrote For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Any practice that discriminates against a couple, based on the status of one of the partner's faith, is certainly not a Christian practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 16:14:59 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself. My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason. But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>". Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange. Time to retire this turkey: "divided home". I was concerned about the treatment of a friend of mine in another country, and I brought this topic up with our overseer. He told me that if we were to practice this (unchristian) prejudice against believing/unbelieving spouses in our part of the world, then we'd lose half the members of our fellowship. We have a few workers who come from homes where one parent was professing and the other wasn't. This is possibly one of the reasons we don't see that kind of discrimination here. Jesus considered a husband and wife to be " one flesh", and Paul wrote For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Any practice that discriminates against a couple, based on the status of one of the partner's faith, is certainly not a Christian practice. i've often wondered what that verse means: 1Co_7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. does that mean a spouse or children get a pass if your professing Christ? or does it mean that eventually your spouse and children will confess Christ because your professing Christ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 17:39:00 GMT -5
I was concerned about the treatment of a friend of mine in another country, and I brought this topic up with our overseer. He told me that if we were to practice this (unchristian) prejudice against believing/unbelieving spouses in our part of the world, then we'd lose half the members of our fellowship. We have a few workers who come from homes where one parent was professing and the other wasn't. This is possibly one of the reasons we don't see that kind of discrimination here. Jesus considered a husband and wife to be " one flesh", and Paul wrote For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Any practice that discriminates against a couple, based on the status of one of the partner's faith, is certainly not a Christian practice. i've often wondered what that verse means: 1Co_7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. does that mean a spouse or children get a pass if your professing Christ? or does it mean that eventually your spouse and children will confess Christ because your professing Christ? I don't know the correct answer, but I don't think that a spouse or the children get a pass just because one parent or both parents are serving Christ; the children would have to be believers also and spiritually nurtured/instructed by one parent or the other who sets the example of a Christlike (Christian) life. The problem in the fellowship is that if the wife or the husband is a believer in another church other than the F&W fellowship, then it is considered to be a divided home. Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way it should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. This however is not a guarantee from God that the child will not depart, but I believe that the hope is, that it he departs,he will return again eventually.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 26, 2014 21:05:29 GMT -5
I was concerned about the treatment of a friend of mine in another country, and I brought this topic up with our overseer. He told me that if we were to practice this (unchristian) prejudice against believing/unbelieving spouses in our part of the world, then we'd lose half the members of our fellowship. We have a few workers who come from homes where one parent was professing and the other wasn't. This is possibly one of the reasons we don't see that kind of discrimination here. Jesus considered a husband and wife to be " one flesh", and Paul wrote For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Any practice that discriminates against a couple, based on the status of one of the partner's faith, is certainly not a Christian practice. i've often wondered what that verse means: 1Co_7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. does that mean a spouse or children get a pass if your professing Christ? or does it mean that eventually your spouse and children will confess Christ because your professing Christ? My opinion: There was some feeling that the children of a divided home were bastards -- illegitimate offspring. Paul was setting the record straight: If you are professing and your spouse is not, and children are born to that union, do not fear -- your children are not bastards. The professing spouse validates the marriage and the offspring, regardless of the other spouse being an unbeliever. Now if both are unbelievers, well, the whole lot is condemned to hell fire. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2014 21:14:42 GMT -5
Quote - "report someone's poor attendance? huh" Yes, this paranoid stuff winds up in the TTT.Well I dunno, for many years I attended a meeting where the elder's wife kept such records (she was known as the 'bishopess'). I also know that she would discuss these particulars with the workers. What they did with this information I have no idea, but I have no doubt that if needed this information would be used. I expect that an elder who doesn't want to play stool pigeon is going to have a very difficult time, because the workers WILL BE ASKING. Believe me, they ask. We got a new elder in our meeting once and he was stupid enough to assure me that the workers asked him to keep track of me. Of course, I already knew that. I said something to him once just to see if it would come back to me, and it most certainly did. How does an elder tell the workers he's not going to answer questions about the people in his meeting? ??
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 26, 2014 23:48:29 GMT -5
The fact is that no special amount of spying or record keeping is required to know who are the attendance laggards. I mean, in a church where 95% of the people attend 100% of the meetings, any lapses along that line are quite noticeable and known by everyone.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Nov 26, 2014 23:57:10 GMT -5
Fred's quote for many years I attended a meeting where the elder's wife kept such records IMHO the reason for this was , so the church could pray for those that were absent from meetings
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 27, 2014 0:08:48 GMT -5
I know of one or two instances where this happens. How do they keep the unprofessing spouse from knowing the ins and outs of the Kingdom? If the elder wants to report someone's poor attendance, do they go outside and talk about it? Would seem like an awkward setup. Sounds like something the Ferguson PD might be able to handle. The conversation would probably go like this..... Boom.... now don't do it again.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 27, 2014 0:12:12 GMT -5
i've often wondered what that verse means: 1Co_7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. does that mean a spouse or children get a pass if your professing Christ? or does it mean that eventually your spouse and children will confess Christ because your professing Christ? My opinion: There was some feeling that the children of a divided home were bastards -- illegitimate offspring. Paul was setting the record straight: If you are professing and your spouse is not, and children are born to that union, do not fear -- your children are not bastards. The professing spouse validates the marriage and the offspring, regardless of the other spouse being an unbeliever. Now if both are unbelievers, well, the whole lot is condemned to hell fire. Happy Thanksgiving! It is when Paul speaks like this that myself and others who think the same way lose respect for Paul's writings.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 27, 2014 0:15:56 GMT -5
Well I dunno, for many years I attended a meeting where the elder's wife kept such records (she was known as the 'bishopess'). I also know that she would discuss these particulars with the workers. What they did with this information I have no idea, but I have no doubt that if needed this information would be used. I expect that an elder who doesn't want to play stool pigeon is going to have a very difficult time, because the workers WILL BE ASKING. Believe me, they ask. We got a new elder in our meeting once and he was stupid enough to assure me that the workers asked him to keep track of me. Of course, I already knew that. I said something to him once just to see if it would come back to me, and it most certainly did. How does an elder tell the workers he's not going to answer questions about the people in his meeting? ?? Not all elders are asked such things.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2014 0:34:08 GMT -5
I expect that an elder who doesn't want to play stool pigeon is going to have a very difficult time, because the workers WILL BE ASKING. Believe me, they ask. We got a new elder in our meeting once and he was stupid enough to assure me that the workers asked him to keep track of me. Of course, I already knew that. I said something to him once just to see if it would come back to me, and it most certainly did. How does an elder tell the workers he's not going to answer questions about the people in his meeting? ?? Not all elders are asked such things. Wouldn't that depend more on who the worker was than who the elder was?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2014 0:43:31 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself. My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason. But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>". Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange. Time to retire this turkey: "divided home". The expression "divided home" is not unique to the 2x2s. In fact, Hilary Clinton during one of her interviews said that she lived in a divided home -- She was one denomination and Bill was another denomination. I think what makes it so common an expression among the 2x2s is because they consider it a problem-causing complication and thus gets more attention than among some other groups.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 27, 2014 4:01:49 GMT -5
Not all elders are asked such things. Wouldn't that depend more on who the worker was than who the elder was? You could have the following scenarios: 1. An uncontrolling worker and an uncontrolling elder. 2. An uncontrolling worker and a controlling elder. 3. A controlling worker and an uncontrolling elder. 4. A controlling worker and a controlling elder. Its the last combination that can do a lot of damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 4:50:21 GMT -5
The fact that the friends have this expression, "divided home", is a problem in itself. My wife left meeting before I did, and the fact we then had a "divided home" was the reason our monthly Wednesday Bible study was pulled. At least, that was the stated reason. But here is an example of the kind of conversation I had with one or another of our (non-meeting) friends on more than one occasion around that time. Me: "Yes, I left the home church because they had issues with us as a divided home, among other things." -- Laughter --- Me: "What's so funny?" (Non-meeting) Friend: "The term 'divided home' sounds so weird when you're talking about you and <my wife's name>". Yeah, I have to admit that a marriage of almost 40 years being considered a "divided home" by a church is just more than a little strange. Time to retire this turkey: "divided home". The expression "divided home" is not unique to the 2x2s. In fact, Hilary Clinton during one of her interviews said that she lived in a divided home -- She was one denomination and Bill was another denomination. I think what makes it so common an expression among the 2x2s is because they consider it a problem-causing complication and thus gets more attention than among some other groups. Yes Bob, that thought has ran through my mind also. The problem causing complications could very well have something to the lack of free access to " divided homes." It is my belief that workers don't feel as confortable visiting, staying and over-nighting in divided homes as they would in homes that are not divided. So they might feel that a divided home would be one less home that would be open and available to accommodate them. That's just my feeling, but I could be wrong.
|
|