|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 28, 2010 19:01:26 GMT -5
There's a conversation over on the main board regarding differences between Tharold Sylvester and Howard Mooney, and I found it interesting to read through the differing viewpoints a few days ago. Though some presented "opposing" opinions, I would have to say I agreed with all that I read - those men, like each one of us, are complex. After thinking about this for a few days, I'm going to try to present things I observed about these men, and I'm going to take it a bit further in scope by including Eldon Tenniswood, their contemporary and my overseer for a number of years.
I know the name of the thread - "Tharold vs. Howard" - wasn't necessarily intended to set up a binary opposition as much as to simply discuss their respective attributes, but I do want to recognize again the fact that many differing, yet not necessarily opposing, views were presented. For me, classifying things as "strengths and weaknesses" doesn't really help to understand the picture either. I love analyzing the complex relations of power, and where one may lead in one area while another one assumes more authority in another realm. Why can a person be helpful in some ways and hurtful in others? I found this to be true in all three of these men in my personal experience with them.
The Pacific, and Micronesia in particular, provide an interesting intersection of these three men's overseerships. Though Guam, Saipan, Pohnpei and the Marshall Islands have all been covered (under various groupings) on the California workers' list for years, a number of the brother workers, particularly through the 70s and early 80s, were from Washington state (Tharold's jurisdiction), and a number of the sisters were from Montana and Oregon, under Howard's jurisdiction. The sisters out there now are from California, and of course the first workers on Guam - Leo Stancliff and Harry Henninger, in 1966 - were from California. Leo went to Pohnpei in the early 70s.
Tharold was an outspoken man, and many were afraid of him. I liked to sit on the front row at convention (yes, they all had me designated for the work), and when I would ask friends to sit up there, their first question was often "Is Tharold speaking?" (I might add here that Tharold and Howard were always at our California conventions when I was young, even into my early years in the work.) Though I understood what they were referring to as far as Tharold's brusque mannerisms, I was never really afraid of him. Of the three, I preferred his speaking style, as he seemed to be "up front," and willing to explain things as he saw them, anyway.
I did chat with Tharold a few times when I was in the work, and always found him amiable. But there was another side to him too, that is maybe best expressed through discussions with one of my island companions who had worked within Tharold's jurisdiction: He could be extremely curt and sarcastic when dealing with the workers on his "staff." In my understanding, this seemed to led to a competition, particularly among brother workers, for Tharold's favor, which of course prevented any kind of cohesion among them.
As far as directing the workers in the islands, Tharold seemed to pretty much keep his hands out of it. Though some of his workers went out there, he pretty much left it up to Eldon, since they were then on the California list and thus part of that staff.
As others have mentioned, Howard was a very positive and loving person. Sometimes I did find his speaking to be a bit unrealistic, but he was a very kindly man. However, I did see things in the islands that allowed me to see a different side too - Howard didn't really like Eldon making plans for his sister workers, as far as conventions and other travels. This sounds okay in itself, but it became problematic at times when he didn't make plans for them either, and they were at times wondering until the last minute whether they would be flying to the continent for conventions or not. This isn't only a matter of just being "flexible." Tickets cost money, and they usually cost more when purchased closer to the flying date. We who worked out there were very conscious that we used large sums of money for flying (we sometimes joked that our "field car" was a Boeing 737), and we attempted to plan ahead for our annual "circuit" through Micronesia, between Guam and Hawai`i.
I remember one instance in which Eldon was talking (by phone) with the sister workers who were on Guam, and when they mentioned that they weren't sure of their summer plans, Eldon kindly let them know they would be welcome at Hawai`i convention the next November if things worked out that way. When the sister workers mentioned this to Howard, he let Eldon know that he did not appreciate his making plans for the Oregon workers. I was not there, and obviously do not know all the detail of what was spoken, etc., but I think it is safe to say at least that there was a rivalry between the two.
Another difference I saw is that Howard, though his staff regarded him as a wonderful administrator, did not really plan for anyone to take his place when he died. This led to Ralph Sines taking responsibility for awhile, and then Harold Bennett taking the lead in Oregon. I'm not reflecting on either of those men, but rather on the somewhat uncertain transition period in Oregon.
Eldon worked to "develop" men who could replace him - Sydney Holt, Dick Middleton, and other, younger workers. We were very aware of that in California, and it did lead to feelings. Some felt that certain younger brothers pretty much played up to what Eldon wanted. I suppose that's normal enough. It did provide more of a continuity in leadership, whether you view that as good or bad is your decision!
Eldon's speaking generally led to a couple of topics - divorce/remarriage and "loving your enemies." There are things I appreciate about Eldon, but I do feel he became obsessive about these things. I must admit that I never felt entirely comfortable around Eldon either - felt like I was being scrutinized all the time. His eyes were scary!
Eldon was quite formal about manners and dress too. When visiting Hawai`i convention, we younger brothers knew that if Eldon was going to be here we needed to bring our suit jackets for the worker picture. Those of us who worked in Micronesia just "parked" our suits at a Hawai`i home, never taking them farther out in the Pacific.
Tharold and of course Eldon were more outspoken on the divorce and remarriage question, while Howard seemed to take a more conciliatory attitude toward "the east."
Questions? Comments?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 19:15:22 GMT -5
Al, I think Eldon had one other standard topic: anger. Toward the end, it seemed like I heard that more often than the other two topics. As to being formal, I never thought about it but I know he would never call anyone by a nickname. Scott Rauscher's Mom went by Toby but he refused to call her anything but her given name--a name she didn't much are for. Quirks...we've all got 'em!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 19:18:56 GMT -5
Al, How are overseers picked? I've always wondered...
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 28, 2010 19:23:43 GMT -5
Al, I think Eldon had one other standard topic: anger. Toward the end, it seemed like I heard that more often than the other two topics. As to being formal, I never thought about it but I know he would never call anyone by a nickname. Scott Rauscher's Mom went by Toby but he refused to call her anything but her given name--a name she didn't much are for. Quirks...we've all got 'em! You're probably right on the anger topic. I think the formalism became problematic when others - younger workers in particular, as well as the friends - felt in bondage to his opinions. When things such as doctrinal issues and procedures aren't spelled out, people learn to look to others for cues on behavior, and Eldon at times made it very plain what he felt about specific things. Some of these I appreciate - like helping out in homes - but in others, like implying very strongly that we were to be dressed in a specific way, which was often kind of "over the top," I felt like he held a real power over others. Yes, it's our choice, but we all seek approval, and it is particularly not fun to have your overseer's disapproval.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 28, 2010 19:30:10 GMT -5
How are overseers picked? I've always wondered... It's probably different every time! I know that Uncle Richard (Middleton) worked hard to find someone the California workers could work with when he knew his days were short. He visited with the workers about different possibilities, had some from out of state visit California and made sure each California worker could be around him. This was the process through which Dale Schulz was chosen. I was no longer in the work at the time, but I was told this by a young California brother 3 or 4 years ago. Others have been "groomed." Eldon was preparing Sydney Holt to take the leadership in California, but they needed him rather suddenly to take responsibility in Washington when Tharold was no longer able. It was then that Uncle Richard began working more closely with Eldon - he had only a few years prior to that recovered from a several-year-long bout with shingles. It seems like sometimes an appointment is made, sometimes "grooming" for the position, sometimes a consensus - and I suppose a lot of them are combinations of these . . . I'm probably "not supposed to say" some of these things, but I do feel that openness in everything is the way to resolve issues. Note too that I do know more "facts," but withhold things that would be potentially embarrassing to those involved, just as I withhold names in many instances.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 28, 2010 19:54:42 GMT -5
What about Carson Cowan, Sam McCracken, Taylor Wood, Barry Barkley and other easterners? Anyone have any thoughts on their leadership styles? Or are we only speaking of the dead ones?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 29, 2010 1:59:02 GMT -5
What about Carson Cowan, Sam McCracken, Taylor Wood, Barry Barkley and other easterners? Anyone have any thoughts on their leadership styles? Or are we only speaking of the dead ones? I don't know these "eastern" men, but it would definitely be interesting to hear thoughts on them. I do believe, ts, that even considering the different ways in which deceased overseers worked can be instructive for us.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 29, 2010 11:17:48 GMT -5
Al -
Do the 3 main western states (CA, OR & WA) all send workers to Pacific islands/Hawaii - and said workers remain under the authority of that state and its overseer?
Or is there one state Overseer who has jurisdiction over all the Pacific Islands??
Or how does that work???
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 29, 2010 18:38:36 GMT -5
Do the 3 main western states (CA, OR & WA) all send workers to Pacific islands/Hawaii - and said workers remain under the authority of that state and its overseer? Or is there one state Overseer who has jurisdiction over all the Pacific Islands?? Or how does that work??? In the last few years, it has primarily been California workers out there. But in the earlier years I was speaking about, it seemed like they were "officially" under California's jurisdiction, though they often came from other states and generally went back to those states once they left the islands. Kind of an "on loan" situation. But, as I tried to briefly outline in my original post in this thread, things were a bit complex, as they always seem to do when people are involved! Official policy and the interplay of personalities can be two entirely different things . . . The Hawai`i and Guam conventions are also considered California's "territory," with most workers at Hawai`i convention coming from California, and others invited/arranged by California's overseers. Guam visitors are mostly those en route to the east Asian conventions - it's actually the first stop on that "tour." The Hawai`i brothers have been going out there the last few years for "preps," a week or two ahead of the other visitors.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 29, 2010 19:09:41 GMT -5
Guam was the first of the Micronesia islands that workers went to, in 1966. Leo Stancliff had been in the Philippines, but one of the workers there "bad-mouthed" him to the authorities, and Leo had to leave the country. Because he knew two of the Philippines languages (Tagalog and Ilocano), Leo was sent to Guam, which already had a large Filipino population. Harry Henninger joined him there.
Incidentally, the worker who caused problems for Leo was told by the other workers in the Philippines that they could no longer trust him, and he was asked to leave the country.
Sometime in the mid-70s Leo went out to Pohnpei, as a man who had been raised in meetings was married to a woman from Mokil Atoll (near Pohnpei), and she had been studying with the JWs, which this man didn't like. He asked for workers.
Anyway, it seems that Guam and Micronesia kind of began as "California fields," and have officially remained that through the years.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 2, 2010 3:19:15 GMT -5
There are of course noticeable differences when the overseership within a region is passed on too. When Eldon Tenniswood handed over responsibility to Dick Middleton, one thing that stood out to me was that lists and plans were no longer shrouded in such an aura of secrecy.
Throughout most of my years in the work, the California worker meeting was held on the Santee convention grounds, between the Buttonwillow I-Santee I and Buttonwillow II-Santee II conventions, with the Buttonwillow crew and visitors making a quick trip down to Santee. The worker meeting is a big event in the lives of many workers, but the "posting" of the new worker list is probably an even bigger, more significant event for each worker, telling as it does where and with whom a worker will tentatively be spending the next year of their lives.
The California list would be posted immediately after the worker meeting, with many friends gathered around, yet standing back from viewing the list until the workers had first opportunity to see it. This all created an aura about the list, and I found, as I've also heard other California workers say, that the anticipation of the list did sometimes affect a person's ability to focus on the meeting.
It seemed to me that the worker meeting would also be talked about with an air of mystery or secrecy - not as if things were being hidden, but more like there were some deep mysteries being talked about. I kind of wondered why, really. I appreciated the worker meeting, but they were simply a matter of each of us sharing a brief "testimony" of gratitude and/or purpose, and a few of the older brothers giving practical advice. It wasn't like doctrine was being explained or anything.
To me, an air of mystery like this serves to keep workers "on a pedestal." I'm not advocating a disrespect, but I strongly believe the pedestal also serves to protect people who should be questioned on things they've said or done.
When Dick Middleton became overseer, the worker meeting eventually was changed to earlier in the season - the entire summer schedule of west coast conventions had changed, with the California conventions being in May, when it is much cooler there. The schedule enabled them to have the worker meeting between the two Mtn. Ranch conventions, where all the workers were already gathered, and the list was put out before the worker meeting.
Some have told me that Dale Schulz now talks with each worker about the field and companion that is being planned for them. This takes away some of the air of mystery and authority surrounding the list, enabling a worker to visit with those who have been in the field before, and also to focus on the worker meeting.
Regarding another type of list, I was astounded one time, at Buttonwillow, when Uncle D.ick came up to me and asked me to help him on the speaking lists for several conventions. I wasn't being asked for "input," but to help him ensure that all workers were treated "fairly." California workers were to get a certain number of times to speak throughout the summer - and of course no one wanted extra speaking times!- and visitors were all given the same number of times too, with different "types" of meetings - Sunday morning, evening gospel meetings, and other meetings being the major differences. Uncle D.ick told me it could cause real feelings if a visiting older brother felt another one had more Sunday mornings than another. There's a real status and hierarchy thing there, with Sunday a.m. meetings ranking the highest, gospel meetings the lowest.
I greatly appreciated Uncle D.ick being so open about things, even some rather negative sides to the workers. For me, humanizing them like this didn't make me look down on them as much as it helped to remove some of the awe and paralyzing fear I had of some. I was surprised too because the worker list had often been treated with secrecy too, and it was real news if any of us got an advance "peek" at it and could tell any of the others when they were speaking. The meeting in which one spoke did of course to some extent determine the topic, as well as letting us know how soon we needed to be ready, and it would also allow us to plan with others in covering our various responsibilities at the conventions. Again, I was pleased when it began to be a little bit more openly discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 8, 2010 12:03:04 GMT -5
I'm going to move this question, posed on the Submitting as a younger companion thread, over here to the Overseers thread: With workers and ex-workers on this thread, I just have to ask: What qualifies a worker as an overseer? Is there another thread I should read? Quizzer's question brought to mind numerous discussions among workers (brother-worker quarters talk) concerning the varying merits of overseers and potential overseers. Where to start? Maybe I can mention a few that we saw as not having the qualities of an overseer, though I must also emphasize that I now have a great respect for these particular men. These are men like Clinton Heldstab and Don Fisher. Clinton was well known among the California staff as preferring to avoid speaking in funerals, and it was evident he had no aspirations to be in any kind of "responsible" position. I don't mean to say he was irresponsible - I'm just using "responsible" to refer to a certain, decision-making, leadership role. Clinton would often say, "I'll let the others do the preaching, and stick to doing the living." Though this was spoken in a jesting manner, I believe now there may have been some intended implications in his words. When Clinton died in 1988, I well remember visiting with some folks who were on the verge of "losing out" at that time - and yes, they did choose to no longer attend meetings. The woman in that home stated something to the effect that "It's too bad there aren't more like Clinton." At the time, I remember thinking - and discussing with my older companion - "It's a good thing they aren't all like Clinton, because there would then be no one to "take responsibility." What does this mean? Yes, it is true that there are abilities that are necessary to the position of an overseer, and not all overseers have them to the same degree. I'm speaking of things like an ability ("willingness"?) to communicate, an ability to make some kind of coherent plans for oneself and others - you can think of these various "leadership" skills. True, we can speak of qualities that generally are classified as "Godliness," and I'm not saying these things are unimportant, but I do know that talk among workers was often of other, much more "earthly" qualities. These qualities might have been thought of as included in "Godliness" by those discussing them, but it's also evident that different staffs admired different qualities, often in a competitive way, kind of "rooting" for their own overseer. When I referred to helping Uncle D.ick proofread convention speaking lists, I mentioned the he was so concerned about the feelings involved if one of the visiting brothers spoke in more Sunday morning convention meetings than someone else. Please remember that the men being considered here were often overseers in their own regions. This seems to me to present some problem in considering something like humility as a prerequisite for the position of overseer. I'm not saying that no overseer is humble, but just that it isn't always a required quality. I see a lot more maneuvering and positioning in attaining the position of overseer than we might care to admit. Sometimes choices are made in desperation - there's no one else who would be even remotely able to fulfill the role. Sometimes a certain person is "groomed" for years (and that can present a problem, as some of them have left the work or have been "drafted" to fill a need elsewhere. Some, like Dale S. in California, have been chosen through a long process of talking between various candidates and the workers in the region. Is the maneuvering bad? Maybe, and maybe not. It probably differs with every situation. Some can use it to humbly serve; others may use it to rule and to be served.
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Sept 8, 2010 18:02:22 GMT -5
Al, thanks for your thoughts about what qualifies a worker to be an overseer. I appreciate your perspective. I do have another question - something that has been on my mind for some time. Where did Jesus establish the position of overseer? It seems when the disciples began to strive among themselves who should be the greatest that Jesus said none of them. They were to serve each other and not exercise authority or lordship over others (Luke 22:24-26, Matt 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45). When I read these verses, it seems that Jesus is banning the position of overseer/head worker. Maybe I have missed the verse(s) where Jesus established the position of overseer. If there are such verses, I haven't been able to find them.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 9, 2010 9:47:33 GMT -5
tex, I agree that the position of overseer does not seem to agree with the Bible. Even in the Old Testament, the last thing God wanted was a king in Israel. (Hence, the time of the judges.) Also, even in Bible doctrine, there is the thought that all are equal before God, since all are made in the image of God. Therefore, as always, I find the concept of overseer questionable. Are overseers the only overseers with the Cooneyites? Isn't there (at least in the United States) a Gang of Four (best description that I have heard), of a smaller ruling body of overseers - one for each quadrant of the country (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest)? Thank you in advance for your thoughts and advice, quizzer
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Sept 9, 2010 15:43:38 GMT -5
Nathan, thanks for your thoughts. I know that Jesus told his disciples to feed his lambs and feed his sheep but to me that is quite different from the position of overseer. To me, an overseer is one who supervises, directs and controls others in his area of responsibility. My understanding is that is how the position of overseer functions in the fellowship. I am familiar with the scripture in Acts and Paul's writings. Even Paul did not specify any one or group had authority over another - they just had different callings or places within the body. I was specifically looking for where JESUS established the position of overseer which would be in one of the four gospels. In the scripture I quoted above, it seems Jesus specifically said they should not have any hierarchy but rather that they should serve each other. If you or anyone else knows where JESUS established the position of overseer in one of the four gospels, please let me know. I suspect there is no such scripture in one of the four gospels.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 9, 2010 16:25:51 GMT -5
tex, I tend to agree with you on this issue. Another problem that tends to arise from a hierarchial structure (overseer over workers over elder over friends) is that there is no need for the friends to have any thought or input into any discussion. They are automatically overruled by the overseer. Therefore, discussions and decision-making on doctrine/issues are in the sole realm of the overseer. Why try when you will lose? This is also a limiting factor, and only feeds the lambs/sheeps what the overseer would have them fed, perhaps not what the lambs/sheep need to be fed. Jesus's approach was to have the greatest serve the least, which upsets this system. In Jesus's approach, the overseer would poll the friends and workers, discuss the issue with all of them, and then have a final vote on the matters. In effect, the authority would rest with the friends, and the elders/workers/overseer would be the discussion leaders, not decision makers. Why do the friends and workers have the need for Jesus's system to be backwards? Just wondering, and thanks in advance for your thoughts, quizzer
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Sept 9, 2010 17:45:58 GMT -5
Thanks, quizzer. I appreciate your thoughts and agree with you. What I don't understand is why the workers and some friends can't acknowledge that they're not doing things exactly as Jesus established. It's hard to stand up to scrutiny when the system is different than what Jesus taught.
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Sept 9, 2010 20:10:00 GMT -5
Nathan, in Acts 20:28, Paul is writing to the elders to feed the church of God. It is not Jesus appointing apostles to be Overseers/Head Workers to supervise, direct and control workers and friends. Big difference!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Sept 9, 2010 21:33:42 GMT -5
Overseers are not sovereign. They are servants. If they are wrong, if they are arrogant, if they are childmolesters, if they are unanswerable to anyone, if they are rulers and not leaders of humility, then they are not leaders at all.
An overseer who was a child molester should have been confronted long before he was. He got away with it because of his lack of humility and people's fear of confronting "God's chosen". The people are at fault. The overseer is at fault. None of them are following the Spirit in that case. They need the gospel preached to them. The true gospel. Because the true gospel would not produce the fruit we see in them. The friends are afraid because they are listening to the wrong gospel. They are afraid to stand for truth, yet, they feel they are standing for truth. They are deceived. That deception does NOT come from God.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Sept 9, 2010 23:43:52 GMT -5
This isn't about skeletons in our closets. If we confess and repent, there are none. However, if a worker is preaching falseness and living falseness(preaching and living are one in the same) he is a false prophet that is causing little ones to stumble. Jesus never talked about good apples and bad apples. He didn't say that some of the pharisees were good apples and some bad. He didn't encourage them to continue in their way and "not forsake the assembling of themselves together".
You are holding to the workers being the only true preachers...even if they are wrong. And you deny that anyone "outside" the work or meetings could preach truth to them. Am I correct?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Sept 10, 2010 1:11:43 GMT -5
the workers who are true are true and the ones who are not are not. I am not saying anything that I did not learn in the work. I am only applying the sermons to the friends and workers that were once applied only to "false religion". They like it as much as the pharisees did. There were some true ones among the pharisees. Not many, but some.
So you are saying that the workers have an axe to grind when they preach the truth? They have an axe to grind when they protect the flock from falseness? If you call that having an axe to grind, well, I might fit into that category. If caring for God's people is the same as having an axe to grind, I accept the accusation wholeheartedly. You can be "not perfect" and still be honest. I am not so much concerned about the sins (immorality etc). It is the dishonesty that bothers me. With the dishonesty, there is no remedy, no repentance. Quit trying to pull that "nobody's perfect" routine. No one is without sin, but there are certainly honest people who are not calling lies truth and truth lies.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 10, 2010 9:45:42 GMT -5
Nathan9, Forgive me for intruding, but why do you seem to be stating that the friends have to "hope for" a good overseer? Why are the friends not part of the selection process? How should the friends hope to address the human abuse inflicted on them by the workers? God answers our prayers and loves us, but we, as members of the body of Christ, need to be able to stand and address these errors. The friends are a significant portion of the Cooneyites, and should be treated as such, not as an afterthought. Thank you in advance for your thoughts, quizzer
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 10, 2010 11:51:41 GMT -5
Nathan9, Forgive me for intruding, but why do you seem to be stating that the friends have to "hope for" a good overseer? Why are the friends not part of the selection process? How should the friends hope to address the human abuse inflicted on them by the workers? God answers our prayers and loves us, but we, as members of the body of Christ, need to be able to stand and address these errors. The friends are a significant portion of the Cooneyites, and should be treated as such, not as an afterthought. Thank you in advance for your thoughts, quizzer Have you seen the sketch of a machine put together by a committee? Someone posted one here not too long ago! As one of the f&w, I would much prefer that overseers are chosen by people who know what the position entails with plenty of prayerful help from the Holy Spirit. I believe this IS how it is done.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 10, 2010 13:56:37 GMT -5
tex, I tend to agree with you on this issue. Another problem that tends to arise from a hierarchial structure (overseer over workers over elder over friends) is that there is no need for the friends to have any thought or input into any discussion. They are automatically overruled by the overseer. Therefore, discussions and decision-making on doctrine/issues are in the sole realm of the overseer. Why try when you will lose? This is also a limiting factor, and only feeds the lambs/sheeps what the overseer would have them fed, perhaps not what the lambs/sheep need to be fed. Jesus's approach was to have the greatest serve the least, which upsets this system. In Jesus's approach, the overseer would poll the friends and workers, discuss the issue with all of them, and then have a final vote on the matters. In effect, the authority would rest with the friends, and the elders/workers/overseer would be the discussion leaders, not decision makers. Why do the friends and workers have the need for Jesus's system to be backwards? Just wondering, and thanks in advance for your thoughts, quizzer Actually when one considers how the fellowship developed out of a pool of all workers and having more workers then was needed at the time with little resources to help use them, the all worker list decided to develop a "friend" level and in doing so made them "secondary" or "auxilliary" members....not really anything more then some hog pen members to see to when time provided the need. The present fellowship is still being run just like the beginning one with the friends getting very little if any real powers in the makeup of the total body of membership....It's kind of like a multiple hive of ants or bees where you have the queen, who has her court of underlings who could step into her shoes IF something happened to her but then the ones who do the "support" work are the friends....the friends actually are the "least" in the fellowship. Though that probably will draw an argument, the same as the workers are not shepherds, they are hirelings for they do receive compensation for their labors though sometimes it perhaps is nothing more then gas money and a bed to sleep in, here and there!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Sept 11, 2010 15:33:10 GMT -5
Allow me to post these questions, for all posts and thoughts:
1) How are the friends to pray that the Holy Spirit guide the workers correctly in choosing an overseer, when the Bible shows that the words of God do not want a king in Israel, and the words of Christ want the greatest to serve the least? How is it possible that the Holy Spirit will lead us contrary to the Father and the Son?
2) How are the workers more capable than the friends in deciding which homes should have meetings, when conventions and special meetings are held, who should speak at conventions, and if overseers should exist? Most of the friends have more experience in these matters because of their careers. Also, given Biblical definitions, the friends are far better disciples than the workers.
3) How has the position of overseers helped the friends? Apparently, we now have overseers to overseers - the Gang of Four for each quadrant of the United States. Has this created greater fellowship for the friends, or simply created a greater disconnect between the workers and friends? (For example, are the workers more involved with obeying/climbing a growing chain of command, rather than caring for the needs of the friends?
4) Emy, I completely agree that a committee is a bad idea for the friends. This would farther segment the friends, making some even more "worthy" than they already feel they are. Should the friends and workers approach Christ's teaching of the greatest serving the lowest, all of the friends and workers would need to be involved. Any thoughts on this process?
Again, as always, thank you in advance for your thoughts and advice, quizzer
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 11, 2010 16:13:58 GMT -5
Allow me to post these questions, for all posts and thoughts: 1) How are the friends to pray that the Holy Spirit guide the workers correctly in choosing an overseer, when the Bible shows that the words of God do not want a king in Israel, and the words of Christ want the greatest to serve the least? How is it possible that the Holy Spirit will lead us contrary to the Father and the Son? 2) How are the workers more capable than the friends in deciding which homes should have meetings, when conventions and special meetings are held, who should speak at conventions, and if overseers should exist? Most of the friends have more experience in these matters because of their careers. Also, given Biblical definitions, the friends are far better disciples than the workers. 3) How has the position of overseers helped the friends? Apparently, we now have overseers to overseers - the Gang of Four for each quadrant of the United States. Has this created greater fellowship for the friends, or simply created a greater disconnect between the workers and friends? (For example, are the workers more involved with obeying/climbing a growing chain of command, rather than caring for the needs of the friends? 4) Emy, I completely agree that a committee is a bad idea for the friends. This would farther segment the friends, making some even more "worthy" than they already feel they are. Should the friends and workers approach Christ's teaching of the greatest serving the lowest, all of the friends and workers would need to be involved. Any thoughts on this process? Again, as always, thank you in advance for your thoughts and advice, quizzer I would never equate an overseer to a king. There were leaders before the Israelites chose a king. For the most part, maybe always, where there is a group of people, there will be a leader. If we believe what workers tell us, God calls them. They don't decide on the work as a career. That's how I see it. Many overseers do serve us all. I never have done this, but it could be enlightening for you to 'shadow' an overseer for a day or two, if you think they don't pull their fair share.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Sept 11, 2010 19:38:21 GMT -5
How can you uphold the sermon of ONE worker? What if I were to uphold the life of one overseer and he were child molester? You would tell me to not judge the whole group by one person. Yet, that one man was CHOSEN by the leadership to be a representative and leader with the EXPECTATION that everyone would believe him unquestionably.
I didn't read the sermon. How do you know that the worker who gave the sermon was not also a child molester who wanted to justify himself? Don't you think that this level of dishonesty would corrupt the sermons?
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Sept 13, 2010 6:53:36 GMT -5
Allow me to post these questions, for all posts and thoughts: 1) How are the friends to pray that the Holy Spirit guide the workers correctly in choosing an overseer, when the Bible shows that the words of God do not want a king in Israel, and the words of Christ want the greatest to serve the least? How is it possible that the Holy Spirit will lead us contrary to the Father and the Son? We have the perfect will of God and we have the permissive will of God. The bible clearly states what God has set in the church for the benefit of the church.2) How are the workers more capable than the friends in deciding which homes should have meetings, when conventions and special meetings are held, who should speak at conventions, and if overseers should exist? Most of the friends have more experience in these matters because of their careers. Also, given Biblical definitions, the friends are far better disciples than the workers. Frankly, I doubt that they are more capable. The body of Christ all have different giftings. If the friends and workers were allowed/enabled/encouraged to function in their giftings everyone could be involved. A career can enhance a gift but cannot replace spiritual gifting. 3) How has the position of overseers helped the friends? Apparently, we now have overseers to overseers - the Gang of Four for each quadrant of the United States. Has this created greater fellowship for the friends, or simply created a greater disconnect between the workers and friends? (For example, are the workers more involved with obeying/climbing a growing chain of command, rather than caring for the needs of the friends? I dont know. It sounds like a pyramid setup.4) Emy, I completely agree that a committee is a bad idea for the friends. This would farther segment the friends, making some even more "worthy" than they already feel they are. Should the friends and workers approach Christ's teaching of the greatest serving the lowest, all of the friends and workers would need to be involved. Any thoughts on this process? I think has become heresy in this movement. Spiritual authority that is God anointed is not a heirarchy system. It is lateral submission in love and preferring your brother, not lording it over anyone. It is humble men and women being teachable, approachable anointed for the work of the ministry equiping the saints for the work of the ministry.
Again, as always, thank you in advance for your thoughts and advice, quizzer
|
|