_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 22, 2007 19:45:10 GMT -5
I have no problem and can find no biblical issue with a local body of believers being good stewards of God and giving back to the ministry in hopes of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If we are to worship God with our all, does that somehow not include our time and energy, which is reflected in monetary funds?
Only the leadership of your fellowship, as recipients of your charity/offerings, know what you and other members give to them... Just as only the leadership in my fellowship knows what I give to my local fellowship...
I fail to see how the biblical verse above plays any roll in my fellowship or your fellowship, since we both give in secret and only those within the leadership know what we give...
If you argue that it's possible for the Friends to send a blank envelope to the Workers, not knowing who the money came from... so to can I give cash and not a check each sunday during service.
Since I do not know what other members of my fellowship give, nor do they know what I give, I fail to see the relevance of the verse you quoted.
You assume this is the only way workers receive funds and charity... so too are anonymous offerings given to my local fellowship...
In addition important point here - often times the charity/giving in the fellowship is not limited to cash in unmarked envelopes... Charity towards the workers often take a very visible form, such as meals, cars, places to stay, and so forth... these are not hidden, and the right hand knows what the left hand does... so to speak...
Staying at ones home is not free... driving ones car is not free... eating ones food is not free... all of these forms of offerings/charity towards the workers are visible and cannot be hidden.
Do you take this from the bible where collections were gathered?
No other members know what I give to my local fellowship outside of the church's leadership who take in my checks/cash...
physically?
Heaven forbid the thought one can buy their way into heaven... Just as, heaven forbid the thought that we need not give back to God and the spreading of his word throughout the world.
The Lord loves a cheerful giver!
I reject the idea that Christian churches, through offering times at services, promote money on public display... I also reject the assumption that workers only receive anonymous cash offerings and all gifts/charities within the fellowship cannot be traced back to the giver...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 22, 2007 19:54:02 GMT -5
A pastor requires a furnished house, with enough room for wife and kids and pets, and needs to pay a whole bunch of bills - taxes, education (paying back seminary college loan; kid's schooling), needs to pay electricity, gas, water, phone bills. Etc, etc, etc. When you factor in the fact that Pastors function as individuals, whereas workers function as a unit of two or three, there is a collossal difference. No... there is not a difference... you only want to highlight a difference to separate the two groups... My pastor is sustained through the charity of my church's members... so do are your workers sustained through the charity of the Friends... The amount is irrelevant... how they use such charity is irrelevant... My pastor is nondenominational... Are you summing up your argument to a specific dollar amount? What relevance does "more upkeep" have or have not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2007 7:22:42 GMT -5
I have to agree with fm's views on most issues regarding money. In most respects, our church is no different than most other churches. We have an organization that needs to be supported and the friends do so. We have pastors who need money and money-in-kind and we provide it. We have church bank accounts, church property investments and upgrades to properties. Some donations are visible (meeting in the home, provision of cars, convention property) while most is not. I would suggest that these sources of donations are more visible in our church than in most mainstream churches.
The only significant differences are: (1) There are no public, and few if any private, appeals for money. There is some virture, some downfall in this. (2) All money expenditures are unaccounted for. Some virtue, some downfall in this too.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 7:40:10 GMT -5
I have no problem and can find no biblical issue with a local body of believers being good stewards of God and giving back to the ministry in hopes of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Neither do we. I don't think this issue is in contention by either the Friends or the exes. Ministers must be supported by the Church; a clear teaching of scripture. But the way in which that support is given is the issue in contention.
If we are to worship God with our all, does that somehow not include our time and energy, which is reflected in monetary funds?
Absolutely. In a sense - in a very limited sense, in my opinion - when we give freely to the Ministers we are giving something of our substance into the service of the Gospel and of God. There is blessing in giving "monetary funds", in our case, to the servants of the Most High God.
Only the leadership of your fellowship, as recipients of your charity/offerings, know what you and other members give to them... Just as only the leadership in my fellowship knows what I give to my local fellowship...
In my personal view, I don't think the Church leadership - the Workers in unity with the Elders of the churches - have any idea who has given what to the ministry. It's not as if we keep Predator Drones flying overhead to monitor the extent of the donations given by individual congregants.
The whole point of alms-giving, according to Jesus, is that it should not be done "for to be seen of men". The reward comes from God knowing, not man.
I fail to see how the biblical verse above plays any roll in my fellowship or your fellowship, since we both give in secret and only those within the leadership know what we give...
A debatable point. No records are kept of personal contributions.
If you argue that it's possible for the Friends to send a blank envelope to the Workers, not knowing who the money came from... so to can I give cash and not a check each sunday during service.
Which, as I pointed out previously, is charity as a public act. Our alms-giving should be done in secret, so that God who sees all things, can reward us openly. This is a teaching of Christ.
Unless you believe that giving cash during your Sunday worship does not constitute alms-giving?
Since I do not know what other members of my fellowship give, nor do they know what I give, I fail to see the relevance of the verse you quoted.
It is relevant in the context of "the collection" in worship. And as it has been pointed out previously, honest denominational churches keep budgetary figures which are supplied to the church-goes. One of those figures will be compiled contributions given during the collection, as this constitues income. At least, this is how Roman Catholics Churches are instructed to operate.
You assume this is the only way workers receive funds and charity... so too are anonymous offerings given to my local fellowship...
I am in full agreement with the concept of anonymous offerings. In my view this is the scripturally-consistent way of doing charity. That was the whole point of my previous post.
In addition important point here - often times the charity/giving in the fellowship is not limited to cash in unmarked envelopes... Charity towards the workers often take a very visible form, such as meals, cars, places to stay, and so forth... these are not hidden, and the right hand knows what the left hand does... so to speak...
A good point. And sometimes, no doubt, people are aware of who has supplied cars for the Workers, and most people are usually aware of where the Workers are staying. You make a very good point here - these are visible acts of charity.
However, in defence, I would point out that it is hard to hide a house, and no one publishes a list of car owners who contribute the use of their vehicle. And I also point out that lending a room, or a car is very different from supplying a house, and a car, and other neccessities of life for a Pastor who expects to own the gear. Workers are merely borrowing the essentials.
I was discussing the act of the "collection" in church services. I feel these comments are a tanget from the original point.
Staying at ones home is not free... driving ones car is not free... eating ones food is not free... all of these forms of offerings/charity towards the workers are visible and cannot be hidden.
Correct. It is safe to say then that everyone in the Fellowship has at one time or other given food and shelter to the Workers. But how much has each individual spent? How much time and effort did each give? No one knows. I reject the idea that Christian churches, through offering times at services, promote money on public display... I also reject the assumption that workers only receive anonymous cash offerings and all gifts/charities within the fellowship cannot be traced back to the giver...
The trackability of a gift or donation is not an issue here! Of course some gifts and donations could be tracked back to the giver. That's hardly an argument against anonymous donations and freewill offerings, or a clinching argument against Christ's command to give alms privately rather than publically. Just because it is possible to trace them back, does not mean one should no longer bother with anonymous donations.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 7:57:07 GMT -5
No... there is not a difference... you only want to highlight a difference to separate the two groups...
Surely we're not going back to the old "I'm right you're wrong, get over it" routine. Don't we all agree that these argumentation methodologies are without credibility?
My pastor is sustained through the charity of my church's members... so do are your workers sustained through the charity of the Friends...
This was not the issue which you raised. We both acknowledge that ministers are supported by their churches - that was never the debating point.
You originally maintained that the difference in "technique\manner" of charitable giving is what the Friends object to. I elaborated on this statement, commenting on how the "technique\manner" is different, and why we believe ours is consistent with the teaching of scripture. (i.e. Christ's teachings regarding alms-giving.)
Your response strikes me as so much ducking, weaving and obfuscation. I was clearly talking about public collection of money as opposed to private donations.
The issue of cars, accomodation and food are, of course, going to be different. You can't very well hide these rather obvious things. You seem to want to avoid the issue of public giving in the church service itself, and in particular, avoid engagement with the scripture I cited.
The amount is irrelevant... how they use such charity is irrelevant...
How they use charitable offerings is irrelevant? I beg to differ!
Are you summing up your argument to a specific dollar amount? What relevance does "more upkee" have or have not?
I didn't think you'd want to answer this question.
No I am not saying economy - the "dollar amount" - is the clinching argument. Scripture is the last word and final authority on all things. But I ask this question in order to challenge your statement:
Just because there is a difference in their lifestyle choice does not mean there is a difference between the two preachers listed above... BOTH receive offerings/gifts/charity from the church to support their life and lifestyle...
I think there is a huge difference between the lifestyle of Workers and Pastors - as I explained in no uncertain terms previously - and this is reflected in the cost of upkeep. I will say what you so obviously want to avoid saying: Workers represent a significantly lesser financial burden on our numerous church congregations, than a Pastor represents for his one single congregation.
This reflects a very clear difference in life and lifestyle. The two modes of ministry are not the equivalent of each other, as you seem to want to prove.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 23, 2007 8:08:40 GMT -5
What you imply GIT is that we should take into account the cost-benefit ratio of workers and pastors, in view of chosing a church.
What about the spiritual content and repsonisbility/accountability ratio? Which church will be in the very low end?
|
|
|
Post by GIT DOESNT KNOW on Aug 23, 2007 8:15:13 GMT -5
GIT, you obviously do not know what you're talking about. You seem to think that all non-2x2 churches take collections during the service.
Well, you are wrong.
I attend a church which does not take a collection during the service. Nobody knows how much anyone else gives. However, we do know how the money is spent. That data is very open, and anyone can ask about it (why shouldn't they?) and receive a copy of the budget.
You seem to think openness is wrong. Why is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2007 8:19:54 GMT -5
GIT, it would appear, on the surface anyway, that the overhead burden of our church is lower than in mainstream churches. We don't know that that is true, as the lack of transparency with money makes it impossible for us to know the truth of that assertion. I tend to agree with you but we just don't know if it is true and never will with the current system of accountability.
We have some very big expenses. Overseas missions require funds for non-native workers traveling around, particularly back and forth from home. However, we may all be surprised about how much the convention system costs. There are travel costs for workers and huge amounts have been spent on upgrading the facilities to meet health and safety codes as well as comfort upgrades. I think if we ever knew the amounts involved in the convention system on an aggregate worldwide basis, we would all fall off our chairs.
Other expenses are not so obvious and not as easy to calculate. At our conventions, there is literally millions of dollars worth of motorhomes (caravans) parked there, many of which get used only for convention.
Many friends upgrade their homes for meetings. All friends provide accomodations for workers which often entails home upgrades for extra rooms for them which get used only on rare occasions. There are all kinds of hidden expenses.
Finally, because we are not registered as a church for tax purposes, the friends are donating from after-tax dollars. For many friends, they would be able to increase their donations by 50% with no extra cost to them if we were registered. That items alone is costing the friends vast amounts on an aggregate basis. Many exes diss the church for not being registered, thinking that we are beating the tax authorities out of money but in reality it is the other way around, we are paying more than our fair share in this regard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2007 8:39:55 GMT -5
When I was growing up, I was taught that the group I belonged to was poorer than all other groups. That it had a less expensive method of carrying the gospel to others. And that it only worked because of the love of God in the hearts of his people. All other groups had to take collections to exist, because God wasn't with them.
The comparison was alway made to the 'big fancy Church buildings' in our town. From the perspective I have now, it is quite clear that the 2x2 group is far from the poorest group (of course not the richest either). There are countless groups that exist with far less means than the 2x2s. There are many groups where the volountary input of personal membership is far greater than in 2x2 circles. So much of the impressions I was given as a child were quite untrue. --- However I am not trying to say that the organizational and ecconomic system the 2x2s are built on is particularly wrong.. It is just that their system cannot honestly be presented as unique. Recent years reveal a far greater pride in the pomp and size of the organization than many other groups would be able to brag about.
There is much about the organizational structure of the 2x2 group that is admirable --- except for the fact that it is so grossly misrepresentad in group progaganda.
Edga
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Aug 23, 2007 8:51:24 GMT -5
Well said, Edgar.
|
|
|
Post by N9 to on Aug 23, 2007 9:03:56 GMT -5
Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like unto a GRAIN of mustard seed, which is a man took, and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is GROWN! it is the greatest among herbs, and become a TREE! so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:31,32)
~~~ I say the 2x2 church like unto a mustard seed (very tiny) but it will continue to GROW! slowly and surely and become a GREAT tree (world wide) when Jesus returns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2007 9:39:39 GMT -5
Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like unto a GRAIN of mustard seed, which is a man took, and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is GROWN! it is the greatest among herbs, and become a TREE! so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:31,32)
~~~ I say the 2x2 church like unto a mustard seed (very tiny) but it will continue to GROW! slowly and surely and become a GREAT tree (world wide) when Jesus returns. I rather doubt that Jesus was refering to an organization .. More likely something in the hearts of men and women. (but I do recognize this kind of shallow 2x2 progaganda!-- The same ideology exists in the JW doctrine)
|
|
|
Post by N9 to Edgar on Aug 23, 2007 9:54:03 GMT -5
Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like unto a GRAIN of mustard seed, which is a man took, and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is GROWN! it is the greatest among herbs, and become a TREE! so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:31,32)
~~~ I say the 2x2 church like unto a mustard seed (very tiny) but it will continue to GROW! slowly and surely and become a GREAT tree (world wide) when Jesus returns. I rather doubt that Jesus was refering to an organization .. More likely something in the hearts of men and women. (but I do recognize this kind of shallow 2x2 progaganda!-- The same ideology exists in the JW doctrine) ~~ I say.... the 2x2 church is part of the mustard SEED! which become a TREE! when Jesus returns again in Matthew 24:29,30
|
|
|
Post by Another Color on Aug 23, 2007 10:01:06 GMT -5
I have no problem and can find no biblical issue with a local body of believers being good stewards of God and giving back to the ministry in hopes of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Neither do we. I don't think this issue is in contention by either the Friends or the exes. Ministers must be supported by the Church; a clear teaching of scripture. But the way in which that support is given is the issue in contention.
Because one gives in a form of hand to hand vs giving into a collection plate does not diminish the free will gift. Further all the amenities of a large non F&W church are also present when considering the large donations of large benefactors to a convention ground.
If we are to worship God with our all, does that somehow not include our time and energy, which is reflected in monetary funds?
Absolutely. In a sense - in a very limited sense, in my opinion - when we give freely to the Ministers we are giving something of our substance into the service of the Gospel and of God. There is blessing in giving "monetary funds", in our case, to the servants of the Most High God.
By the way the Workers do not like the word Ministers as was told me when they officiated at my Dads funeral. When I give to our Church, the "monetary funds," go to the servants of the Most High God also, who labor all over the world in missions.
Only the leadership of your fellowship, as recipients of your charity/offerings, know what you and other members give to them... Just as only the leadership in my fellowship knows what I give to my local fellowship...
In my personal view, I don't think the Church leadership - the Workers in unity with the Elders of the churches - have any idea who has given what to the ministry. It's not as if we keep Predator Drones flying overhead to monitor the extent of the donations given by individual congregants.
The whole point of alms-giving, according to Jesus, is that it should not be done "for to be seen of men". The reward comes from God knowing, not man.
They most certainly do. Not only that, they, "The Workers", make special attention to visit the ones who are well to, hence, they give more. Further, the friends and the workers should divulge the expenses in a manner that expenditures should be spent wisely. Better to upkeep the convention grounds then spend $5000 for a worker trip to Asia, right. Or is it feed the few and forget the many? Who keeps the books of all the expenditures when convention grounds are enhanced when there is over a $100,000 dollars spent? Do you really believe that books are not kept as to who gives what in terms of "monetary funds" or "services." Someone has to keep track?
I fail to see how the biblical verse above plays any roll in my fellowship or your fellowship, since we both give in secret and only those within the leadership know what we give...
A debatable point. No records are kept of personal contributions.
I fail to see the relevance in the verse either. If one is seen for the giving (maybe because it is a large gift-like providing machinery for construction at a convention ground) they also have a reward. Their giving was not done to be seen of men. For an individual who gives little you may not be seen but in all churches those that give much in "monetary funds"; They are known. You both kid yourselves.
If you argue that it's possible for the Friends to send a blank envelope to the Workers, not knowing who the money came from... so to can I give cash and not a check each Sunday during service.
Which, as I pointed out previously, is charity as a public act. Our alms-giving should be done in secret, so that God who sees all things, can reward us openly. This is a teaching of Christ.
Unless you believe that giving cash during your Sunday worship does not constitute alms-giving?
Do you believe that I do not see those that hand the workers money either by hand or by envelope and know who they are? Do you really believe that we do not know who the more affluents givers are of the friends in our area. By the way the most important act of Alms is PRAYER. Giving in any form is Charity. I have see more public flaunting of affluent givers with the friends than I do in other churches. They want to be seen and they want to be known for their good works. This is part of the makeup. Look - SEE ME and what I can do.
Since I do not know what other members of my fellowship give, nor do they know what I give, I fail to see the relevance of the verse you quoted.
It is relevant in the context of "the collection" in worship. And as it has been pointed out previously, honest denominational churches keep budgetary figures which are supplied to the church-goes. One of those figures will be compiled contributions given during the collection, as this constitues income. At least, this is how Roman Catholics Churches are instructed to operate.
As previously stated, So? The F&W should do this also since it would be well to understand where the money given goes. Better to give to the refurbishing of a convention ground then for a trip of worker to go on a $4000 trip to Asia. And as to the convention ground refurbishing. There are books since someone has to be accountable for where the monies and services came from. I am sure there is also a section in the assets sheet that says "free will gifts". In the USA you might be in beg do do if you cannot show the TAX man where the income came from when enhancing property to the tune of $150,000. Again someone is kidding themselves.
You assume this is the only way workers receive funds and charity... so too are anonymous offerings given to my local fellowship...
I am in full agreement with the concept of anonymous offerings. In my view this is the scripturally-consistent way of doing charity. That was the whole point of my previous post.
Only the little people are not known.
In addition important point here - often times the charity/giving in the fellowship is not limited to cash in unmarked envelopes... Charity toward the workers often take a very visible form, such as meals, cars, places to stay, and so forth... these are not hidden, and the right hand knows what the left hand does... so to speak...
A good point. And sometimes, no doubt, people are aware of who has supplied cars for the Workers, and most people are usually aware of where the Workers are staying. You make a very good point here - these are visible acts of charity.
However, in defence, I would point out that it is hard to hide a house, and no one publishes a list of car owners who contribute the use of their vehicle. And I also point out that lending a room, or a car is very different from supplying a house, and a car, and other necessities of life for a Pastor who expects to own the gear. Workers are merely borrowing the essentials.
I was discussing the act of the "collection" in church services. I feel these comments are a tanget from the original point.
My Pastor does not get a car given to him. My Pastor does not have a Church sponsored home. He purchased it like any other person. Never the less, even if he did, It is not any different then the many homes the workers stay in. A provided place to stay is a provided place to stay. And as to cars, Who takes care of the law suits if a worker has an accident with the loaned car. The friend who is held libel via the insurance. Would it not be better to protect the saint by a formal vehicle provided by a formal Church charter. Now again as the from of giving... Workers and church- by hand to hand, by letter, by envelope, by services. Pastor and church- by hand to hand, by letter, by envelope, by envelope and direct deposit into bank or collection plate, by services. NO differences. Except one. The Pastor has to be accountable to the Deacons and congregation as a whole on how the monies are spent. They Vote.
Staying at ones home is not free... driving ones car is not free... eating ones food is not free... all of these forms of offerings/charity to wards the workers are visible and cannot be hidden.
Correct. It is safe to say then that everyone in the Fellowship has at one time or other given food and shelter to the Workers. But how much has each individual spent? How much time and effort did each give? No one knows.
Humm now you are making a point which I have already addressed above. How much does one Give. I thought this was not an issue?
The women: And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
You see even Jesus could see who had and had not. Do you believe that workers do not know. For some the Giving is an honor even when they have little or nothing. When there is a visit to say a single mother of one child and they don't have much but still give--It is a great impact to their base line when they make a meal and then also make an offering. The workers still take.
I reject the idea that Christian churches, through offering times at services, promote money on public display... I also reject the assumption that workers only receive anonymous cash offerings and all gifts/charities within the fellowship cannot be traced back to the giver...
The trackability of a gift or donation is not an issue here! Of course some gifts and donations could be tracked back to the giver. That's hardly an argument against anonymous donations and freewill offerings, or a clinching argument against Christ's command to give alms privately rather than publically. Just because it is possible to trace them back, does not mean one should no longer bother with anonymous donations.
Yes the traceability is the whole point. That is the the biggest reason that the F&W reject the open freewill plate passing. You see it and because the F&W are led to believe it is unknown and secret in your gathering you denounce others as wrong. There is not one person saying to me that I must give. You have missed the exegesis of these verses in Matthew 6. You are assuming that those that give in open are doing it in a hypocritical manner just to be seen of men. You are assuming their hearts are not giving in secret. Because one sees another give does not mean they are wrong. If you continue in Matthew 6, you will also see the analogy of prayer. The hypocrites prays. I am not like others. Jesus did not say those that give in open will not have a positive reward. You assume it because you want to. No Trumpets sound when I give.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 23, 2007 15:31:47 GMT -5
Can you locate GIT?
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 23, 2007 15:42:03 GMT -5
|
|
I was forced to lie
Guest
|
Post by I was forced to lie on Aug 23, 2007 16:05:23 GMT -5
I am one of those who knew about the beginnings--my grandmother married into one of the first families to profess in the US and the history was just known in our family. We knew many of the original workers and could talk with them openly about the history (i.e. workers like Uncle Jack and Mr. George). But we were always warned to NEVER tell anyone the truth about the history who did not already know.
The kicker for me was when my parents brought an interested family to the meetings in the late 1980's. This family was extremely impressed by "The Truth" but flat out wanted to know the history of the group. Well my parents were in quite the pickle. We met with the workers--Uncle Eldon---and we were instructed to tell these people that there was an unbroken chain of workers going right back to the apostles you read of in the bible--and to Jesus--etc---the whole load of BS.
Well--we did it. Me included. I looked straight into the eyes of these people and told a baldfaced lie. Afterwards we discussed it amongst ourselves--and we felt GOOD about it because later they professed. Well--within a few months they got wind of the history and confronted us with some pictures. My mother said--that isn't us--that isn't our group--even when confronted with pictures of a young Uncle Eldon (thus proving very graphically to these good people how willing we all were to be boldfaced liars)! After catching us in our lies and basically humiliating us--these people left meetings never to return. Later all four of us children left it--and the deciding factor was the loss of respect for our parents and the workers that we suffered over this incident. I'm glad everyone didn't have such a bad experience--but in my experience this group is not very honest about their past!
|
|
|
Post by anon 4 now on Aug 23, 2007 17:57:34 GMT -5
And there it is folks.
"There is an unbroken chain of workers going right back to the apostles you read of in the bible, and to Jesus."
I heard this all the time growing up. It was worded just like this too. I heard it from my parents, my relatives, professing friends, and several workers. I heard it in meetings, conventions, and around the dinner table. We were taught to say this as part of our explanation to others when they asked about our religion. It was a regular theme.
"There is an unbroken chain of workers going right back to the apostles you read of in the bible, and to Jesus."
This started out as a pride thing. We were taught to be proud of it. I remember as a child, a worker speaking directly to me and saying "If we wanted to, we could trace the unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus. Do you have any idea how big this is?" This was one thing us humble Truthers could be proud of. It gave us notoriety. It made us better than the other "manmade" religions. It gave us the ability to stand in the glow of stardom as the rest of the world realized that we were in the only way and the one true way.
But our pride turned to poison. The "unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus" turned from pride to justification (aka a free pass to heaven) and eventually caused us to become spiritually lazy. We were in Truth which was the only way and we had proof in the form of an unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus. This meant that we were saved and all we had to do to stay saved was to stay in Truth. And here's the rub: To stay in Truth, all we had to do was profess, pray and take part in meeting, and follow the worker's rules (no radio, no TV, no movies, maintain proper appearance, etc.) To stay in Truth, we did not have to improve spiritually, we did not have to improve our relationship with God, we did not have to learn more about God, we did not have to improve our understanding, and we did not have to improve our relationship with God. So we stayed in Truth, as spiritual zombies, content with our salvation in our own little world of spiritual elitism, watching as the rest of the damned outside of Truth searched in vain for something we already had, all because of that neat little unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus.
I get so sick and tired of the people on this message board who insist that the truth about Truth and William Irvine is not a big deal. It is a big deal. A huge deal. For any friend or worker whose faith in their own salvation is based primarily on an unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus, learning the truth about Truth and William Irvine is an earth-shattering event. (And yes, placing faith in such a thing is sad and wrong, but I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people here simply have no clue how common it really is!)
|
|
|
Post by ah poo on Aug 23, 2007 18:03:03 GMT -5
And there it is folks. "There is an unbroken chain of workers going right back to the apostles you read of in the bible, and to Jesus." I heard this all the time growing up. It was worded just like this too. I heard it from my parents, my relatives, professing friends, and several workers. I heard it in meetings, conventions, and around the dinner table. We were taught to say this as part of our explanation to others when they asked about our religion. It was a regular theme. "There is an unbroken chain of workers going right back to the apostles you read of in the bible, and to Jesus." This started out as a pride thing. We were taught to be proud of it. I remember as a child, a worker speaking directly to me and saying "If we wanted to, we could trace the unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus. Do you have any idea how big this is?" This was one thing us humble Truthers could be proud of. It gave us notoriety. It made us better than the other "manmade" religions. It gave us the ability to stand in the glow of stardom as the rest of the world realized that we were in the only way and the one true way. But our pride turned to poison. The "unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus" turned from pride to justification (aka a free pass to heaven) and eventually caused us to become spiritually lazy. We were in Truth which was the only way and we had proof in the form of an unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus. This meant that we were saved and all we had to do to stay saved was to stay in Truth. And here's the rub: To stay in Truth, all we had to do was profess, pray and take part in meeting, and follow the worker's rules (no radio, no TV, no movies, maintain proper appearance, etc.) To stay in Truth, we did not have to improve spiritually, we did not have to improve our relationship with God, we did not have to learn more about God, we did not have to improve our understanding, and we did not have to improve our relationship with God. So we stayed in Truth, as spiritual zombies, content with our salvation in our own little world of spiritual elitism, watching as the rest of the damned outside of Truth searched in vain for something we already had, all because of that neat little unbroken chain of workers all the way back to Jesus. I get so sick and tired of the people on this message board who insist that the truth about Truth and William Irvine is not a big deal. It is a big deal. A huge deal. For any friend or worker whoseWilliam Irvine is an earth-shattering event. (And yes,!)Ah, poohie, I suppose you will go off the deep end when you learn that Wm. Shakespeare isn't who people thought he was. yet , does it really matter? NO, it really does not.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 18:15:21 GMT -5
What you imply GIT is that we should take into account the cost-benefit ratio of workers and pastors, in view of chosing a church. What about the spiritual content and repsonisbility/accountability ratio? Which church will be in the very low end?
You are free to interpret my posts in any way you choose.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 18:21:19 GMT -5
From the perspective I have now, it is quite clear that the 2x2 group is far from the poorest group (of course not the richest either). There are countless groups that exist with far less means than the 2x2s.
Edgar, I've got to give credit where credit is due. Thanks for your balanced opinion regarding my Church. Your statement just boosted my esteem for you greatly.
Just a question. Are you aware of any other international Church which regularly sends missionaries all over the world to operate missions sometimes in extreme conditions, who appear to operate on less funds than the Fellowship?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 18:24:51 GMT -5
I rather doubt that Jesus was refering to an organization .. More likely something in the hearts of men and women. (but I do recognize this kind of shallow 2x2 progaganda!-- The same ideology exists in the JW doctrine)
Be cautious about pronouncing something as "shallow propaganda" or "ideology". The interpretation posted on this thread agrees with the study notes in my NIV, written by a panel of world-class conservative theologians, and also the interpretations given in some of the commentaries.
|
|
|
Post by So on Aug 23, 2007 18:51:08 GMT -5
I rather doubt that Jesus was refering to an organization .. More likely something in the hearts of men and women. (but I do recognize this kind of shallow 2x2 progaganda!-- The same ideology exists in the JW doctrine)Be cautious about pronouncing something as "shallow propaganda" or "ideology". The interpretation posted on this thread agrees with the study notes in my NIV, written by a panel of world-class conservative theologians, and also the interpretations given in some of the commentaries. So does the teaching of "TRINITY" have a large body of world class theologians which agree in the "TRINITY" for which most of the F&W reject. And so (SO).
|
|
|
Post by shut up on Aug 23, 2007 22:24:21 GMT -5
Ah, poohie, I suppose you will go off the deep end when you learn that Wm. Shakespeare isn't who people thought he was. yet , does it really matter? NO, it really does not. When you have nothing to say, perhaps you shouldn't post it.
|
|