|
Post by StAnne on Oct 22, 2009 21:59:05 GMT -5
Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church for people outside the church? I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 22, 2009 22:06:11 GMT -5
What is the difference between 'B' and 'J'? Angels, Elect & Evil - Doctrine of AngelologyAngels are referenced in the Scriptures no less than 300 times. No. 6: What is the F&W's belief about Angels? Which of the following statements best describe the beliefs of the F&W? Your beliefs? This first group pertains mainly to Holy or Elect AngelsA. We believe that God created an innumerable company of spiritual beings known as angels. Although they are a higher order of creation than man, they are created to serve God and to worship Him, and are not to be worshiped We believe that man was made lower than angels; and that while he was in his human body on earth, Christ took a lower place (Heb 2:6-10). A great company of angels are before the throne of God, and are sent as ministering spirits to minister for believers. B. We believe Angels are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him, though created higher than man. Some, the good angels, have remained obedient to Him and carry out His will, while others, fallen angels, disobeyed, fell from their holy position, and now stand in active opposition to the work and plan of God. C. We believe Angels are spiritual beings created by God who help carry out His work as agents and messengers and to glorify Him. The Bible presents no specific doctrine of Angels, and assumes that God is attended by a company or host of heavenly beings who are subordinate to Himself and who share His company and reflect His glory and majesty. Angels always appear in relation to God and humanity in the role of servants. There are both good and bad angels, but because bad angels are allied with the devil, or Satan, they have considerably less power and authority than good angels. D. We believe Angels are a supernatural, heavenly being, a little higher in dignity than man. Their creation was before the creation of man. They are described as “spirits.” E. We believe Angel is the term applied in Scripture seven different ways: to human messengers, human messengers with a divine message, impersonal providences, bishops, the beings who revolted with Satan, heavenly beings, and the being of pre-eminent excellence known as the "Angel of the Lord." F. We believe angels are created beings who are spirit in nature. They can take physical form and have intelligence. The following activities are attributed to angels; they praise and glorify God, they communicate God's message to humans, they minister to believers, they execute judgment on the enemies of God, and they will be involved in the Second Coming of Christ. G. We believe God created beings called angels as beings of praise and as His messengers; one third of these angels rebelled against God, led by an angel called Satan and was cast out of heaven and is now the enemy of the righteous and good; and he will be cast down to hell at Christ's last judgment. (Luke 10:18; I Pet. 5:8; Rev. 20:2) H. We believe Angels are spirit beings whose office is to do service to the Father and Son in heaven and by His command to intervene in man's affairs upon the earth. They are messengers of God and are not to be worshipped or prayed to. They are not assigned dominion in the Millennial Kingdom. Jesus said in 1Cor.6:3 that the redeemed will reign with Him over the angelic host and judge them. The nature of man is different from that of angels. Mankind is described as "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:5-7). J. We believe in the existence of specially created beings called angels. These spirit beings are generally invisible and from a human standpoint they are innumerable. They possess separate personalities and bear the image of God. They are basically superior to man, yet inferior to God. There are holy, elect angels and unholy, fallen angels (demons). The elect angels minister in behalf of God to believers, the nations of the world, and to unbelievers. They also had significant ministry to Christ. The fallen angels were persuaded to do so by the fallen angel, Satan. Satan now uses his gifts and abilities to attempt to oppose God at every level and by every possible means. The fallen angels or demons assist Satan in his scheme. Eventually, Satan and all his demons will be cast into the lake of fire. This second group pertains mainly to Fallen or Evil Angels, Satan, etc.K. We believe there are angels who were created by God who sinned and became evil. The chief of all evil angels is Satan. He is the great deceiver and opposes God and the work of Christ. His power is limited and can be resisted. L. We believe the word “angel” has basically the same meaning in both the Old Testament and New Testament i.e., “messenger.” Angels are created spirit beings. They do not have bodies of flesh and blood and sometimes appear as humans. Angels were created perfect and holy but Satan, who was once a holy angel, rebelled against God and a third of the holy angels rebelled with him against God. These rebellious angels are called demons or evil spirits. M. We believe that Satan was judged at the cross, and that he, a usurper, now rules as the "god of this world;" that at the second coming of Christ, Satan will be bound and cast into the abyss for a thousand years, and after the thousand years he will be loosed for a little season and then "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone," where he "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Col 2:15; Rev 20:1-3, 10). N. We believe that God created an innumerable company of spiritual beings known as angels; that one, "Lucifer, son of the morning"–the highest in rank–sinned through pride, thereby becoming Satan; that a great company of the angels followed him in his moral fall, some of whom became demons and are active as his agents and associates in the prosecution of his unholy purposes, while others who fell are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6). O. We believe in a devil called Satan, who along with all his angels, called demons or evil spirits, are destined to spend eternity in hell, and now seek to deceive the world, defeat the believers, and destroy the work of God. They can, however, be resisted by believers, who are protected by God and the intercession of Jesus Christ. P. We believe that Satan is a created angel who rebelled against his Creator and incurred the judgment of God (Is 14:12-17; Ez 28:11-19). He took numerous angels with him in his fall (Mat 25:41) and introduced sin into the human race by his temptation of Eve. Q. We believe that Satan is the open and declared enemy of God and man; the prince of this world, who has been defeated through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom 16:20); and that he shall be eternally punished in the lake of fire.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 22, 2009 22:11:53 GMT -5
Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church for people outside the church? I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy?It isn't. The church as an organization won't stand before the king in the judgment. Jesus was talking about individuals. Perhaps I should ask the question slightly differently: Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church (as an organization) for people outside the church?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 22, 2009 22:51:23 GMT -5
Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church for people outside the church? I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy?The question isn't around giving to those outside the church. The question is this - when we as Christians do give to those outside the church, should we do that through our church, or directly (where directly includes non-church aid organizations). That particular piece of Scripture supports the latter interpretation. That is, administer aid directly. We don't need to give the money to the church and let them take care of carnal aid. In your particular case, do the priests administer charitable relief or is it done by other agencies? Any rules around who does what?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 22, 2009 22:57:03 GMT -5
I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy? It isn't. The church as an organization won't stand before the king in the judgment. Jesus was talking about individuals. Perhaps I should ask the question slightly differently: Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church (as an organization) for people outside the church? I don't understand your point exactly. The church is comprised of individuals.
Many, most, of the charities, or works of mercy, are provided by individuals within the church. Food is brought for the community food pantry, monies are donated to Daily Bread/Milk fund.
The church coatroom is a drop-off for clothing, blankets, food items for homeless which go to a "pantry" run by a Carmelite nun who feeds homeless on weekends when the souplines aren't open. Our women's organization delivers these items using their own cars and gasoline.
Diapers, baby clothes and maternity items are brought for Birthchoice. Magazines are delivered to nursing homes. Veterans are remembered from the Angel tree at Christmas...all by individuals...loaded up and delivered by individuals.
Individuals contribute to St Vincent de Paul society or Walk for the Poor. We are made aware of these and many other opportunities at church, but they are acted upon by individuals.
So it isn't necessarily "the church" doing, rather individuals within the church coming together to do what needs to be done. If you notice, Mt 25 says "Lord, when did we see thee hungry...?" When Jesus replies, it must be a plural "you" not an individual one.
As scripture is often multi-layered, I think it is reasonable to understand that we all, as individuals or as the Body of Christ, are called to do acts of charity, acts of mercy.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 22, 2009 23:11:02 GMT -5
Care must be taken that the "action" or looking after carnal needs is not given only to those who are or become Christians. It has to be given without partiality. That's one more reason why it's best for workers/ evangelists to not be involved directly and that taken care of by the deaconship.Not sure I can follow this thinking what. Take the group I put the link to above. They take in orphans and widows. These aren't Christians, but they may BECOME Christians. How would one know whether they are going to become Christians? That sentence just doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I am being dense. Kind of like putting up a sign at a soup kitchen run by a Christian organization that says "You can only eat here if you are a Christian or become one." Never heard of that being done. Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 22, 2009 23:20:49 GMT -5
I think this is the key point, Stanne.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 22, 2009 23:25:15 GMT -5
I think this is the key point, Stanne. You know, I amended that statement. I don't know but what there are charitable donations made with church funds to others who are not Catholic. There may be. I also added the statement that as the Body of Christ we are called to acts of charity and acts of mercy. Cooperating with the God-given grace that is so mercifully extended to us.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 22, 2009 23:54:01 GMT -5
Individuals can work together to minister aid in either a religious or a secular organization.
I have no concerns whatsoever that the 2x2 church is not an aid administering organization.
I am quite happy to support non-denominational charitable groups.
I would tend to speak out if I heard workers condemning religious groups for their charitable works though.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Oct 23, 2009 0:04:00 GMT -5
This is what the early church seemed to be doing. From: St Justin Martyr on The Eucharist
"The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need." St Justin Martyr 100AD-165AD
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 23, 2009 4:08:05 GMT -5
jesusonly I hope you read my post ... I bolded the words We being unorganized, got nothing! for a purpose... to show you that being organized is a Good thing... Don't you think Willie Jamieson, Leo Stancliff, Cecil Barrett and Ernest Stanley and my Dad would have been better off if the 2x2s had been organized... what if they had starved to death... what would God's Judgment of the 2x2s be... I can only assume. They were in that POW camp because of 2x2 work... don't you think the 2x2s should have been able to help them... would that be God's will? Why should the Red Cross have to do all the work? 1 Timothy 6:18.. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. this IMO does not just apply to an individual... it also applies to a church that has much... and is able to give to the needy. What does it say about those "organized" Christians that they wouldn't share basic food necessities with those who got nothing?? (You don't have to answer, just pointing out that there are different ways to read any situation.) I will answer your question... the items sent were given to the ministers/priests ... they were expected to share... this is what Christians do.... and some did. There is one thing about starvation that many do not understand... it is like being very ill... most people only think of themself during these times... they are not very Christian. All they can think about is how to survive. It is the lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.... which is physical. A key aspect of the model is the hierarchical nature of the needs. The lower the needs in the hierarchy, the more fundamental they are and the more a person will tend to abandon the higher needs in order to pay attention to sufficiently meeting the lower needs. For example, when we are ill, we care little for what others think about us: all we want is to get better. One thing I have discovered through my study of this model is that the Friends.. do well to get above the third level.. the workers are often at the bottom level... I assume this is why so many of them have health related issues. Really it is very unhealthy to be a member of the 2x2 church... take a look at the women... Ever noticed how some professing women look martyred? Washed up, worn out? Well this is why... their psychological/physical needs are not being met. ..................... what church? ;D Body of Christ.... or 2x2church? I asked this question and you completely ignored it... that is so ;D to me. The Body of Christ is describe as the believers in Christ in these verses Romans 12:5,1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 3:6 and 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and Colossians 1:24. Jesus Christ is seen as the "head" of the body, which is the church, while the "members" of the body are seen as members of the Church. Only Jesus knows who the members are.... but I would assume that they come from all churches. So with this viewpoint how do you define people outside the church.... how do you know if they are a part of the body or not... when you see a person on the street do you look at them as being saved or unsaved... how do you know what work God has done in their heart. Think of the man on the Cross that Jesus saved... he became a part of the Body of Christ... no one else had mercy for him but Jesus did. I think we should be careful... when we judge people as being worthy of our help or not... they may just be one of Jesus' chosen ones.... and when we refused to give them drink or feed because they are on the outside of our exclusive group... it is the same thing as refusing to give food or drink to Jesus' body.... the real church.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:28:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly what kind of evidence you're looking for....but in Jesus' teachings He spoke of the parable of the "Good Samaritan"...which was someone the Jews never thought could do ANY good at all. Then Phillip had to have had an open loving heart to have been drawn to the "ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH" didn't He. The "overlap" of the Jews' idea that anyone outside their race was beneath them and not worthy of notice seems to have permeated the truth's fellowship and I think that is totally against the teachings of Jesus....we have already had it mentioned on this thread that Jesus ate with the publicans and sinners....He consorted with the demon-possessed, Jesus had NO fear of Himself being spiritually molested by those whom others felt repulsed by or avoided at all cost. Jesus' work in the Israeli ghettos is quite well told in the gospels. Yes, its clear from scripture that as individuals we should love everyone and reach out to help people in need. But can you point me to scripture referring to corporate giving other than to our fellow believers? It sure seems to me that if we "Love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our soul and with all our strength AND Love our neighbor as ourself. That surely within that is born the love of "charity"....reaching far beyond ourselves and loving as God loves. For all mankind are God's creation and He provides for the just and the unjust. Perhaps there are no exact words, but if one incorporates "God's" kind of love into their lives then they're going to love ALL of God's creation!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:31:50 GMT -5
Matt 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." vs. 47, "if you salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?" KJV I think what jo is getting at is that we don't find support in Scripture for ministry being directly involved in aid effort. It's pretty easy for a church to get around this. You have separate people who look after each. But people who have dedicated their lives to ministering spiritually should not be encumbered with the 'physical' needs of either the congregation or the population. Refer to Acts 6. I don't see that this constrains the church in any way, collectively. Collectively the church, or the people in the church can still minister to those with needs. Whoops, crossed posts. JO can correct me if I am wrong. It sure seems to me that only the churches often are the leaders into charitable deeds/works though I do credit atheists here and there in singular form particularly because they have no fellowship place......it's the spiritual place that teaches us the Love we should want to have for God and His creation, isn't it? Isn't the church serving as the law did for the Jews? As a schoolmaster to keep one reminded or even in some cases knowledgeable about what "love" is really all about?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:37:16 GMT -5
The Jews are God's chosen people and we must never forget that. It is also true that God has turned from them to the Gentiles "to make them envious" so that they will return to loving the Lord God as they should. The Jews were like unfruitful branches that have been pruned away from the "vine" which is Jesus and the Gentiles that have faith in the blood of Jesus Christ are "grafted" into the "chosen people of God"...never can the grafted take on a "nature" of the Gentile because they then will be pruned away as well. But they must bear the fruit of "God's chosen people" or face elimination as well. HOWEVEAR we cannot forego or prevent the "grafting" back in of the Jews...that will come to pass...we must ALL bear the "nature" of the Jews as God's chosen people...and that is through the blood of Christ we will cease to be as Canaanites and be as Jews! It is a type of what God chooses as His chosen people and there can never be a doubt that God chose the Jews, the children of Israel. NO WHERE did I say we were returning to serve the Law because the Law has been completed by Jesus Christ...every Jot and Tittle was filled by Jesus Christ. ONLY through believing on Jesus Christ can either Gentile or Jew come before God, and know salvation through faith. That scripture you referred to was to the JEWS in Paul's day, they could NOT turn loose of the Law....they were DEPENDING on the outward manifestation (form) of salvation! They were not "believing on Jesus Christ." IT IS JESUS CHRIST and BELIEVING ON HIM that nets salvation by grace through faith! PERIOD! The Jewish Law of Moses is a schoolmaster, as is the Gentile Christian church denominations. Those end right there....bringing people into knowledge of being fair to their brethren, loving their neighbor as themself. The commandments will always be essential to "christian" life....,Jesus said so. So is the Vine we are all part of or grafted into the Jewish people? I don't see it that way. God had chosen people BEFORE the children of Israel. Abraham was one. Noah was another. We read in the NT that it was their belief in a Savior that saved them. Thus the Vine, God's chosen ones - or, as I would rather think of it, Jesus - are those who believe in Jesus. Gentiles are grafted in to the Vine of believers and when Jews believe, they are re-grafted after being cut off when they rejected Jesus. Here's another thought (not mine - it was shared): Present-day, non-believers who get cut off for unbelief or unfruitfulness (see John 15) can also be re-grafted if they are grafted in again and draw from the source, the Vine. I feel for certain we ALL will know for a certainty the "chosen People of God" are the Jews....in Revs. it says "There will be no Canaanite in the courts of God." SO if that is to be fulfilled and with all we read about God choosing the children of Israel as His chosen people, then we will be "grafted" or "adopted" into as "children of Israel"....and most people think of those 12 tribes as the backbone of the Jews. Right? Just think that the "gates" in the New City are the 12 tribes of Israel! Which tribe do you suppose the Gentiles will come through? The King of Kings of course, and that tribe is Judah! We'll be much like the "strangers" who were incorporated into the children of Israel because those strangers chose to stay and worship as children of Israel.....the OT is definite on that....and that which was "Jesus" in the OT is "Jesus" in the NT...and that is still God's chosen people are the Jews...Jesus was one by birth, or at least the "man" part of Him was.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:41:32 GMT -5
I think the simple example that there were 7 men picked out by the Apostles to take care of the physical needs is example enough...Now we see some evidence that these 7 men were also "ministers" in the spiritual sense....Phillip/Ethiopian eunuch and Stephen's sermon before the unbelievers. So they were ministers...but they held a different office to the JESUS-SELECTED APOSTLES. Were those deacons not chosen to distribute aid to the needy members of the church? I can't think of any precedent for a church organization to distribute aid to people outside the church. I'm not suggesting its wrong to do that - just that its wrong to put the 2x2s on a guilt trip for not replicating the work of the Red Cross, World Vision, etc. Now to be perfectly "literal" in interpretation of the "complaint" that had come before the Apostles was that there was "widows and orphans" who were not taken care of....NOW I do not read that it was necessarily "church's members" That were the "widows and orphans", do you? Paul wrote about IF we were to have a pure and undefiled religion it was to visit the widows and orphans...." No where did Paul indicate that these were those particularly members of the church. In that culture, widows and orphans often did not have a recourse for sustaining simple life's needs, now did they? If those who had didn't share with them, they often starved to death and that alone was repugnant to God.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:46:24 GMT -5
I might agree with some of the rest of your post on this subject, but I don't think the above is true at all. I daresay a higher proportion of the friends have travelled abroad, to the Third World, Eastern Europe, Asia and the Arabian countries than any other sub-group of the population. At least around here. It seems every other day I'm talking to someone else about another trip taken overseas. This is only the "affluent" result within the fellowship....the friends are "feeling" their oats so to speak...NOW IF the friends were to take an overseas trip JUST to work the needy countries, then that would be a totally different ball of wax...the majority of Overseas trips is the friends "catching" up to what affluent people all over the world have done for years!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:48:23 GMT -5
Can you point me to the scripture that refers to charitable works being done by the church for people outside the church? I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy?Thanks, Stanne...I was headed there sooner or later but glad you brought this out...there is NO word within Jesus' words to indicate that a church membership had to be had by the needy.....He said "the least of these"....seems we as affluent humans tend to think of the needy as less then ourselves most the time.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 23, 2009 9:52:37 GMT -5
Ithascome, Your analysis is bizarre to say the least. Most people within our society operate at the 'achievement' level within the hierarchy. To put this into a spiritual context, achievement = recognition by others = the broad way. That includes workers, friends, the people you work with, almost everyone. The whole concept of a heierarchy of needs is questionable anyway. A person can be achievement-oriented and still feel a lack socially. True, if you're hungry you don't think of much else. But as you move up Maslow's heierarchy the categories become blurred. Maslow's concept of self-actualization is also controversial. For example, consider Van Gogh who was self-actualized if anyone ever was, and yet was quite deficient in satisfying his social and achievement needs. And it's really hard to put your finger on what Maslow means by "self-actualization". All that is a round about way of saying that I've heard more stupidity come out of that theory than any other. " Ever noticed how some professing women look martyred? Washed up, worn out?" -- ithascome Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 9:53:48 GMT -5
I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy? The question isn't around giving to those outside the church. The question is this - when we as Christians do give to those outside the church, should we do that through our church, or directly (where directly includes non-church aid organizations). That particular piece of Scripture supports the latter interpretation. That is, administer aid directly. We don't need to give the money to the church and let them take care of carnal aid. In your particular case, do the priests administer charitable relief or is it done by other agencies? Any rules around who does what? AAArrrrrrgh! What, is it not common horse sense that says a "number" of people contributing to a cause can do more? Goodness, my piddling bit of money I can afford to give wouldn't get Jack out of Jail at all....but if a few more people contribute the same amount of money, Jack can post bond...NOW I am not trying to infer that all people in jail need to have bond posted, but there are cases where people need to be out of jail to prepare their defense and/or they didn't do anything to have been put in jail, etc. Organizations who do charitable works are so much more effective because of the "reach" they obtain by the multitude of members contributing. That said, since the truth's fellowship has become an affluent membership and moneys are piling up in overseas bank accounts, is it not time to utilize that affluency for the sake of the "least of these"? Yes, there was a time the fellowship was a very"poor" fellowship, but no more.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 23, 2009 9:59:56 GMT -5
I think what jo is getting at is that we don't find support in Scripture for ministry being directly involved in aid effort. It's pretty easy for a church to get around this. You have separate people who look after each. But people who have dedicated their lives to ministering spiritually should not be encumbered with the 'physical' needs of either the congregation or the population. Refer to Acts 6. I don't see that this constrains the church in any way, collectively. Collectively the church, or the people in the church can still minister to those with needs. Whoops, crossed posts. JO can correct me if I am wrong. It sure seems to me that only the churches often are the leaders into charitable deeds/works though I do credit atheists here and there in singular form particularly because they have no fellowship place......it's the spiritual place that teaches us the Love we should want to have for God and His creation, isn't it? Isn't the church serving as the law did for the Jews? As a schoolmaster to keep one reminded or even in some cases knowledgeable about what "love" is really all about? I don't think the churches are the leaders at all. A glance across the top charities and relief organizations shows only a small number run by churches. Many more under the auspices of government, the UN, or various NGOs.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 10:13:33 GMT -5
I realize you originally addressed this to Sharon...but..."Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40 Where is it indicated that it must be a member of your own church in order to be provided charity or to receive an act of mercy? The question isn't around giving to those outside the church. The question is this - when we as Christians do give to those outside the church, should we do that through our church, or directly (where directly includes non-church aid organizations). That particular piece of Scripture supports the latter interpretation. That is, administer aid directly. We don't need to give the money to the church and let them take care of carnal aid. In your particular case, do the priests administer charitable relief or is it done by other agencies? Any rules around who does what? What, I think the real issue is this: Simply BECAUSE we profess to be Christians we SHOULD behave as such and the verse that Stanne quoted is about a good a reason as any...BUT I have NOT found the "fellowship" as a whole to be much into charitable deeds...honestly there was a time I, too, looked the other way because I thought it all had to be given to the workers! But when I found out that the workers were not really go out in faith anymore, then I felt like it was time to put what little I had somewhere else, if any at all.....I can give my time a whole lot easier then I can give a mite...but manage to do a little of both at times...not any big deal or reason to gloat...just the way it is, is all!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 23, 2009 10:13:49 GMT -5
The question isn't around giving to those outside the church. The question is this - when we as Christians do give to those outside the church, should we do that through our church, or directly (where directly includes non-church aid organizations). That particular piece of Scripture supports the latter interpretation. That is, administer aid directly. We don't need to give the money to the church and let them take care of carnal aid. In your particular case, do the priests administer charitable relief or is it done by other agencies? Any rules around who does what? AAArrrrrrgh! What, is it not common horse sense that says a "number" of people contributing to a cause can do more? Goodness, my piddling bit of money I can afford to give wouldn't get Jack out of Jail at all....but if a few more people contribute the same amount of money, Jack can post bond...NOW I am not trying to infer that all people in jail need to have bond posted, but there are cases where people need to be out of jail to prepare their defense and/or they didn't do anything to have been put in jail, etc. Organizations who do charitable works are so much more effective because of the "reach" they obtain by the multitude of members contributing. That said, since the truth's fellowship has become an affluent membership and moneys are piling up in overseas bank accounts, is it not time to utilize that affluency for the sake of the "least of these"? Yes, there was a time the fellowship was a very"poor" fellowship, but no more. Don't agree. I don't want to give money to workers for direct aid. I would give money to a separate deaconship within the fellowship or any other informal deacon effort. Most churches that are smart about this keep the two efforts distinct and separate. I can't think of a church that doesn't have completely separate accounts and registered charity numbers for various foreign aid and assistance efforts. On another note, I personally prefer and do support various secular, non-religious groups because I believe that we as human beings are all in this together, and I would like to work on problems shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow man or woman regardless of race, religion or creed. The workers have always been concerned about the issue of mixing the gospel message with natural gifts, and Acts 6 clearly indicates that they should not be concerned with these kinds of issues. That those issues should be taken care of by the friends. I'm not saying we shouldn't get together as friends to help those in need. That is only fitting and we're seeing more of that, but keep the workers out of it.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 10:16:52 GMT -5
I think this is the key point, Stanne. You know, I amended that statement. I don't know but what there are charitable donations made with church funds to others who are not Catholic. There may be. I also added the statement that as the Body of Christ we are called to acts of charity and acts of mercy. Cooperating with the God-given grace that is so mercifully extended to us.
Stanne, I do know for a fact that certain areas of Catholic churches are what "funds" the Catholic non-profit hospitals/clinics, etc. If it weren't for those churches, there'd be times the hosps. and clinics would have NO money to operate. We see the same thing within our own Samaritan Clinic...if not for the Episcopal church, we couldn't pay our bills either.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 10:18:36 GMT -5
Individuals can work together to minister aid in either a religious or a secular organization. I have no concerns whatsoever that the 2x2 church is not an aid administering organization. I am quite happy to support non-denominational charitable groups. I would tend to speak out if I heard workers condemning religious groups for their charitable works though. The "non-denominational charities" that I've looked into are run by "denominational" people! They have branched on outside their particular denomination and often they work "inter-denominational".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 23, 2009 10:19:35 GMT -5
The question isn't around giving to those outside the church. The question is this - when we as Christians do give to those outside the church, should we do that through our church, or directly (where directly includes non-church aid organizations). That particular piece of Scripture supports the latter interpretation. That is, administer aid directly. We don't need to give the money to the church and let them take care of carnal aid. In your particular case, do the priests administer charitable relief or is it done by other agencies? Any rules around who does what? What, I think the real issue is this: Simply BECAUSE we profess to be Christians we SHOULD behave as such and the verse that Stanne quoted is about a good a reason as any...BUT I have NOT found the "fellowship" as a whole to be much into charitable deeds...honestly there was a time I, too, looked the other way because I thought it all had to be given to the workers! But when I found out that the workers were not really go out in faith anymore, then I felt like it was time to put what little I had somewhere else, if any at all.....I can give my time a whole lot easier then I can give a mite...but manage to do a little of both at times...not any big deal or reason to gloat...just the way it is, is all! The flip side of Acts 6, which I've used as Scriptural basis for keeping the workers out of aid efforts, is that we also have an obligation as church members to provide for those in need. I've seen various initiatives taken by individuals for specific issues within the kingdom. And I think that the friends are charitable people in general. However, there are definitely those who think we should give only for kingdom needs and that is out and out wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 10:30:45 GMT -5
Ithascome, Your analysis is bizarre to say the least. Most people within our society operate at the 'achievement' level within the hierarchy. To put this into a spiritual context, achievement = recognition by others = the broad way. That includes workers, friends, the people you work with, almost everyone. The whole concept of a heierarchy of needs is questionable anyway. A person can be achievement-oriented and still feel a lack socially. True, if you're hungry you don't think of much else. But as you move up Maslow's heierarchy the categories become blurred. Maslow's concept of self-actualization is also controversial. For example, consider Van Gogh who was self-actualized if anyone ever was, and yet was quite deficient in satisfying his social and achievement needs. And it's really hard to put your finger on what Maslow means by "self-actualization". All that is a round about way of saying that I've heard more stupidity come out of that theory than any other. " Ever noticed how some professing women look martyred? Washed up, worn out?" -- ithascome What, don't debunk Maslow's hierarchy for IF you ever worked as a health care worker with ALL kinds of patients, you would understand that there is very much real truth in that hierarchy. Point in fact.....When Kenneth Dissmore went to Madygascar, an island off the eastern coast of Africa, he testified that those people were so poor and starving that there was little to NO interest in "spiritual" things...learning of Jesus, their Savior, etc. Their little dab of strength they had left was used in finding a bite of food for that day or maybe for several days if it could be harvested, found or stolen. IF people can not have their basic needs of food, drink, rest and elimination they WILL never get beyond that level....and When they do they may move up to the next level BUT if they've spent a long time in the lower level, their pyschological fears will hound them often back down into the lower level and it works that way all the way up. I could never reach the top level of that hierarchy for myself as long as I remained under the tutelage of the 2X2's....so after I left the fellowship as a young adult and finally became acquainted with who I am, faults and all...then I could move on. The fellowship tends to keep the membership beat down on the "sins" and "unworthiness" so much they cannot reach the top level of actualization and that means "accomplishments as an individual". The control issue is much to hinder the development of those B&R in the fellowship, so much so that their self-awareness is so far out of kelter they cannot really know who they are. Many of the females in the fellowship become nurses because it is a good wage but mainly because it is "honorable" to do so. Many other female career goals are debunked as "sin".
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 23, 2009 10:36:12 GMT -5
Also if you have ever worked as a teacher... you would find out that before any learning can take place... the lower level needs have to be in place. I found that out when I taught homeless ex-cons... we had to feed them before we could teach them.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 23, 2009 10:38:37 GMT -5
AAArrrrrrgh! What, is it not common horse sense that says a "number" of people contributing to a cause can do more? Goodness, my piddling bit of money I can afford to give wouldn't get Jack out of Jail at all....but if a few more people contribute the same amount of money, Jack can post bond...NOW I am not trying to infer that all people in jail need to have bond posted, but there are cases where people need to be out of jail to prepare their defense and/or they didn't do anything to have been put in jail, etc. Organizations who do charitable works are so much more effective because of the "reach" they obtain by the multitude of members contributing. That said, since the truth's fellowship has become an affluent membership and moneys are piling up in overseas bank accounts, is it not time to utilize that affluency for the sake of the "least of these"? Yes, there was a time the fellowship was a very"poor" fellowship, but no more. Don't agree. I don't want to give money to workers for direct aid. I would give money to a separate deaconship within the fellowship or any other informal deacon effort. Most churches that are smart about this keep the two efforts distinct and separate. I can't think of a church that doesn't have completely separate accounts and registered charity numbers for various foreign aid and assistance efforts. On another note, I personally prefer and do support various secular, non-religious groups because I believe that we as human beings are all in this together, and I would like to work on problems shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow man or woman regardless of race, religion or creed. The workers have always been concerned about the issue of mixing the gospel message with natural gifts, and Acts 6 clearly indicates that they should not be concerned with these kinds of issues. That those issues should be taken care of by the friends. I'm not saying we shouldn't get together as friends to help those in need. That is only fitting and we're seeing more of that, but keep the workers out of it. I totally disagree because of experience perhaps....when my Mom was suddenly widowed by her husband's own hand, in the hospital with a leaking aneurysm and all that goes with it...and there was NO way I could access her husband's bank account and No way I could even determine the validity of their marriage because I could NOT get into that Bank account and the strong box that went with it....one of the workers who is now long gone, came to my Mom's sister and handed her several hundred dollars to help out. Neither my Mom nor I were members of the fellowship at that time. Where he got the money, he would not say...nor when I finally was able to get money for my Mom's needs with backpay....and I went to give him the money, he did not want it.....I felt very beholden to him and whoever donated to the cause....so I insisted he take it and give it to someone else in dire need. If that isn't how it is supposed to work with workers and/or friends involved, then I'm not knowing anything. To ask a worker to take what you give him and give it to someone that he knows of who is needy is not wrong. Most workers will do what you ask with the money you give. And this particular worker had NO qualms of helping someone outside the membership, though there was a relative within the membership.
|
|