Attention Tasmanian/Victorian friends!

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2010 14:03:32 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Aug 31, 2010 8:02:40 GMT -5 @ram said:

It may not be likely to happen by their own volition, but in time they may be forced down that route. As far as I'm concerned they have been given plenty of warning and advice. I deliberately steered away from suggesting a "risk assessment" although I did provide what I thought were sound proposals. To do a risk assessment would probably mean carrying one out for the whole of worker operations and I think the head bummers would be wanting to steer well clear of that.

In time they will catch up, simply because they will have to, but at what cost.

With people voting with their feet, there is the chance that there'll be NO need to accomodate laws by the workership because there'll be few to none left of the membership. Thern all active workers will retire....almost have to if there's no membership to keep them going.

Our group appears to be following the pattern of the RCC. First, the membership hollowed out, ie people stopped going to mass and being actively involved in the church. That appears to be the stage we are at now.

Today, it is the priesthood which is being hollowed out. The average age of priests in Europe has steadily increased and some priests are looking after as many as 15 parishes in one case. This is just beginning amongst the F&Ws. We are beginning to see fields being chopped up and absorbed into larger territories. It is occurring so steadily that it is hardly noticeable yet. I expect this to continue for the foreseeable future. There won't be an enmasse movement of workers away from the church....it will ones and twos steadily.

Interestingly this is corresponding with the combining of meetings. Up until now, the hollowing out of the friends has had little noticeable change in the number of meetings because many meetings were 20 people and were still viable at 10-12. Now however, as meetings drop below 10 active friends, meetings are combined if there are multiple meetings in an urban area.

It has been the CSA issue which was a large part of the RCC impetus for people to stop going to church and potential priests to start. CSA could have the same effect with the F&Ws. Priests and bishops lost the respect of the laity by sitting on their hands on this issue, and the workers will be in the same boat. By announcing that they now follow the law is nowhere near enough even though that is shocking for people to now realize that the workers have been breaking the law for years by not reporting CSA.

At some point there will have to be some serious self-examination within the church but there is no sign of it yet. A teenager just told me a few minutes ago: "when I get bogged down in my struggles, I just stop, meditate and become brutally honest with myself and then things start to become right again." I said, "Yes, a famous guy once said 'The truth will set you free'. The truth isn't always pretty but it reveals what you need to know to get out of bondage". This teenager "gets it", why can't the wise leaders get it?

[emy]

The latest church membership statistics are in, and the trend is clear: declines for Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, and across-the-board losses for mainline Protestant denominations.

Of the nation’s 25 largest denominations, only four reported growth: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an increase of 1.6 percent, to 5.9 million members); the Assemblies of God (a 1 percent increase, up to 2.9 million); Jehovah’s Witnesses (rising 2 percent, to 1.1 million members); and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (an increase of 2 percent, up to 1 million members).

The figures are the latest reported by the “Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches,” which tracks church membership and is considered a reliable source of statistics on church growth and decline. Denominations collected the membership numbers in 2007 and reported them to the yearbook in 2008. ... www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/8658-church-statistics-slide-downward-pcusa-down-28-percent-.html

New York, February 12, 2010 -- The National Council of Churches' 2010 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches reports membership gains in the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Assemblies of God, among others. ... www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html

And what is the reason for mainstream losses? I think some might be barking up the wrong tree for causes.

[sharonw]

Aug 31, 2010 16:29:42 GMT -5 emy said:

The latest church membership statistics are in, and the trend is clear: declines for Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, and across-the-board losses for mainline Protestant denominations.

Of the nation’s 25 largest denominations, only four reported growth: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an increase of 1.6 percent, to 5.9 million members); the Assemblies of God (a 1 percent increase, up to 2.9 million); Jehovah’s Witnesses (rising 2 percent, to 1.1 million members); and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (an increase of 2 percent, up to 1 million members).

The figures are the latest reported by the “Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches,” which tracks church membership and is considered a reliable source of statistics on church growth and decline. Denominations collected the membership numbers in 2007 and reported them to the yearbook in 2008. ... www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/8658-church-statistics-slide-downward-pcusa-down-28-percent-.html

New York, February 12, 2010 -- The National Council of Churches' 2010 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches reports membership gains in the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Assemblies of God, among others. ... www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html

And what is the reason for mainstream losses? I think some might be barking up the wrong tree for causes.

Since the Church of Christ denomination has had a 3 way split, the numbers of growth above really are not indicative of true growth. IF the "Church of Christ" has grown one percent and above, then the growth of the other 2 wings of that church is not mentioned. In 1968 the last of the 3 break-a-ways became complete and is considered a denomination of their own, yet are call Christian Church, Disciples of Christ and since it allows female ministers, etc. it is growing quite steadily. There still remain a male priority to some extent...but there is acceptance of female ministerial staffs, etc.

And the most important thing of all, is the safety within the sanctuary rules...children are considered priority concerns, there is a board of directors which are elected by the membership that keep checks and balances on all aspects of the church. CSA is really considered ugly within that denomination and totally abhored.

[Scott Ross]

At some point there will have to be some serious self-examination within the church but there is no sign of it yet.

Well..... I've seen some sign of it.

The recent workers meeting brought out some changes. In the interview by Barry with the newspaper reporter Barry is quoted as saying:

Barkley said his ministry does not tolerate child abuse and reports any allegations to authorities Workers participate in an online training program called MinistrySafe on being alert to and responding to signs of sexual abuse, Barkley said, and are trying to become more proactive.

Now I know that Barry's words have been picked apart by others in a manner suggesting that some of the things he stated to the reporter were either false or misleading.

This statement of his will tell whether or not he is being truthful. If you are professing then why not mention to your workers that you read the article, and then discuss it with the workers. Ask them if they have taken or been offered to take the MinistrySafe course. My guess that if you are in 'Barkley country' then they will respond in the affirmative.

Also, where he mentioned that they are "trying to become more proactive", is pretty much admitting that they haven't been in the past.

Personally, I have heard quite a bit about what Barry has done over the last couple of years, and I am impressed with his willingness to tackle some pretty tough issues. I have also been impressed with how he understands his role as a 'head overseer'. He isn't running around imposing 'Barry's rule' over the other overseers, but has been working with them in trying to become better educated about the issues within the church and seeking ways to correct them. He has also been looking into some past issues with other overseers and making amends where he can and within the authority of one in his position.

As someone mentioned, he hasn't been in his position for very long, but perhaps he is there at the right time. Scandals seem to be hitting the church in various areas, and it takes someone willing to tackle the issues openly and honestly in order to help heal the wounds of the church.

I wish him nothing but the best in his efforts.

Scott

[Deleted]

I agree Scott, BB seems to be saying a lot of the right words and I also wish him well if he is serious and sincere in his efforts, both in regard to CSA and the hierarchial issue.

Also, the fact that he is identifying our group as "Christian" (like any Christian) gives the general public the impression that we are not exclusive. There's no knowing if he intended to deceive or if this is a change in tack from the old exclusive line. I can confirm that exclusivity is still alive and well in BB territory amongst the friends but of course a change at the top will take time to filter down to the rank and file.

[Deleted]

Personally I just can't envisage workers anywhere accepting other Christians and promoting non-exclusivity. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

However on the other issues I give a hearty welcome to Scott's post above (#427). The culture of the sect is to be insular and to show a reluctance to be proactive in just about anything. Time is needed to see where things go. Unfortunately I think the pressure has to be kept up or things might just slip into the background.

I will say this again. If they want to show they are truly sincere about CSA matters they should be introducing immediate controls in the domestic environment pending the formulation of properly prepared measures. It's not difficult. These matters are about common sense, proper reasoning and logic. Unfortunately I feel they are very much in the game of self preservation. They have not been used to self examination and accountability and probably feel they don't want to or cannot manouevre from their present methods of operation. It would be better to grab the bull by the horns now and bring in some controls which the fellowship can see, otherwise the gathering storm clouds will bring a greater downpour.

[Deleted]

Sharon - today.

With people voting with their feet, there is the chance that there'll be NO need to accomodate laws by the workership because there'll be few to none left of the membership. Thern all active workers will retire....almost have to if there's no membership to keep them going.

Quote #525 (written 2007 - anonymous)

Will not survive beyond the next ten years

Quote # 908. Sharon - Dec 2009
with me in reply.

I think in another 15 yrs. the fellowship will likely be about gone.

(Bert) Sharon, how can I follow you up on this one? I mean, can I contact you in 15 years and ask for a comment? Do you have a permanent address?

Hey Sharon, here are two quotes on a similar theme. I am sorry I wasn't recording who were the authors back in 2007. You want to answer this one now?

[Learning Patience]

Aug 31, 2010 21:52:31 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

At some point there will have to be some serious self-examination within the church but there is no sign of it yet.

Well..... I've seen some sign of it.

The recent workers meeting brought out some changes. In the interview by Barry with the newspaper reporter Barry is quoted as saying:

Barkley said his ministry does not tolerate child abuse and reports any allegations to authorities Workers participate in an online training program called MinistrySafe on being alert to and responding to signs of sexual abuse, Barkley said, and are trying to become more proactive.

Now I know that Barry's words have been picked apart by others in a manner suggesting that some of the things he stated to the reporter were either false or misleading.

This statement of his will tell whether or not he is being truthful. If you are professing then why not mention to your workers that you read the article, and then discuss it with the workers. Ask them if they have taken or been offered to take the MinistrySafe course. My guess that if you are in 'Barkley country' then they will respond in the affirmative.

Also, where he mentioned that they are "trying to become more proactive", is pretty much admitting that they haven't been in the past.

Personally, I have heard quite a bit about what Barry has done over the last couple of years, and I am impressed with his willingness to tackle some pretty tough issues. I have also been impressed with how he understands his role as a 'head overseer'. He isn't running around imposing 'Barry's rule' over the other overseers, but has been working with them in trying to become better educated about the issues within the church and seeking ways to correct them. He has also been looking into some past issues with other overseers and making amends where he can and within the authority of one in his position.

As someone mentioned, he hasn't been in his position for very long, but perhaps he is there at the right time. Scandals seem to be hitting the church in various areas, and it takes someone willing to tackle the issues openly and honestly in order to help heal the wounds of the church.

I wish him nothing but the best in his efforts.

Scott

I agree with you as well, Scott. However, I still wonder about the "we go by Christians" part of the interview. I know that I have written a thread that seriously questioned the extent of the meaning in that statement. My concern is that this new found era of honesty will only extend to CSA (because it is illegal and causing them great grief at the moment) and not to other types of abuses by the Workers- but we'll see.

[sharonw]

Aug 31, 2010 22:33:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

I agree Scott, BB seems to be saying a lot of the right words and I also wish him well if he is serious and sincere in his efforts, both in regard to CSA and the hierarchial issue.

Also, the fact that he is identifying our group as "Christian" (like any Christian) gives the general public the impression that we are not exclusive. There's no knowing if he intended to deceive or if this is a change in tack from the old exclusive line. I can confirm that exclusivity is still alive and well in BB territory amongst the friends but of course a change at the top will take time to filter down to the rank and file.

I have known Barry for some time...he was overseer of MO/AR for several years...he is a very gentle, kind and merciful man but yet has the purpose to stick to the rules that benefit the people best. I think I remember that he is one of the few workers that do NOT look down his nose at other denominations...I do not remember him ever preaching about the "false churches of the world and their false prophets". I remember him always speaking about the love and mercy of our Lord and Saviour. And in no way am I trying to say he is infalliable...but I think his heart is in the right place. However, I also have known him to pull back when he felt out of his realm and sometimes that is a good thing. He knows his own limitations.

[ts]

When in the work we were taught to "be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." I specifically remember the application of that verse in regard to how to answer a worldly person when asked if we were "Christian". The worker idea of being "WASAHAD" is to engage in double speak. It goes something like this: "Yes, we are 'Christians' in the truest sense because we are followers of Christ, so do not hesitate to tell the worldly people that we are Christians. However, we do not tell them that they are not Christians and we do not believe they are following Christ. Let them come to gospel meeting first and the Holy Spirit will convict them of that."

However, the outsiders are not fooled by that. My unprofessing brother was not fooled. They know they are not getting direct answers to direct questions. They know in short order that the friends feel they are exclusive. It is an exercise in futility to try to corner and pin them down to saying that they actually believe they are the only true way. (oh, excuse me. We were taught to say, "We are not right. Jesus is). I know from talking with my brother(who got a visit from the sister workers) that he didn't see them as "wise as serpents". He saw a snake in the grass. He didn't see doves. He saw vultures hovering over his lost carcass rather than people trying to get to know him for who he is.

The fact is, the workers know they are placing double meanings on words when they answer questions from outsiders. They answer "truthfully" according to their internal definition. However they know that the "outsider" is asking the question according to another definition. Such tactics are not only dishonest but condescending, adolescent, not clever and insulting to people's intelligence. Very off putting. The alternative is to state plainly and openly what you believe. "Mr Newspaper reporter, thank you for this opportunity to share with a greater audience the precious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the only truth and way and we are the true ministry." That is what they believe. If they can't say it openly without looking like a cult, perhaps they should re-think their stance on the issue.

[kencoolidge]

Sept 1, 2010 11:48:39 GMT -5 ts said:

When in the work we were taught to "be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." I specifically remember the application of that verse in regard to how to answer a worldly person when asked if we were "Christian". The worker idea of being "WASAHAD" is to engage in double speak. It goes something like this: "Yes, we are 'Christians' in the truest sense because we are followers of Christ, so do not hesitate to tell the worldly people that we are Christians. However, we do not tell them that they are not Christians and we do not believe they are following Christ. Let them come to gospel meeting first and the Holy Spirit will convict them of that."

However, the outsiders are not fooled by that. My unprofessing brother was not fooled. They know they are not getting direct answers to direct questions. They know in short order that the friends feel they are exclusive. It is an exercise in futility to try to corner and pin them down to saying that they actually believe they are the only true way. (oh, excuse me. We were taught to say, "We are not right. Jesus is). I know from talking with my brother(who got a visit from the sister workers) that he didn't see them as "wise as serpents". He saw a snake in the grass. He didn't see doves. He saw vultures hovering over his lost carcass rather than people trying to get to know him for who he is.

The fact is, the workers know they are placing double meanings on words when they answer questions from outsiders. They answer "truthfully" according to their internal definition. However they know that the "outsider" is asking the question according to another definition. Such tactics are not only dishonest but condescending, adolescent, not clever and insulting to people's intelligence. Very off putting. The alternative is to state plainly and openly what you believe. "Mr Newspaper reporter, thank you for this opportunity to share with a greater audience the precious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the only truth and way and we are the true ministry." That is what they believe. If they can't say it openly without looking like a cult, perhaps they should re-think their stance on the issue.

TS
I think you are shockingly honest and am sure there will be those who criticise what you have plainly and TRUTHFULLY said. I particularly appreciate your alternate to Barrys newspaper answer.
The alternative is to state plainly and openly what you believe. "Mr Newspaper reporter, thank you for this opportunity to share with a greater audience the precious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the only truth and way and we are the true ministry." That is what they believe. If they can't say it openly without looking like a cult, perhaps they should re-think their stance on the issue.

[Deleted]

I recall in John 1 when the Jews asked John the Baptist what name he came in. And in John 6 those who became angry with Jesus when they wanted him to be their leader.
And the reason why John and Jesus were rejected at the very moment when the Jews reached out to them? - EVASIVE BEHAVIOR AND AN INABILITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

[ts]

Sept 4, 2010 8:37:01 GMT -5 bert said:

I recall in John 1 when the Jews asked John the Baptist what name he came in. And in John 6 those who became angry with Jesus when they wanted him to be their leader.
And the reason why John and Jesus were rejected at the very moment when the Jews reached out to them? - EVASIVE BEHAVIOR AND AN INABILITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

So you admit that the BB was being evasive and engaging in double talk. You admit that the reporter was given a different impression of the fellowship than the workers actually believe and teach.

[Deleted]

home.iprimus.com.au/pruephillip/Evasion Bible and Jesus.jpg[/img]

[sharonw]

Bert, I worry wholeheartedly about you and your sacriligeous spoutings! If you represent the "fellowship" then no wonder.......everything wants to head south. This is offensiveness in the highest category, IMO

[JO]

When Jesus spoke plainly, folks like Bert didn't get it

Matt 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2010 8:36:41 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Bert, I worry wholeheartedly about you and your sacriligeous spoutings! If you represent the "fellowship" then no wonder.......everything wants to head south. This is offensiveness in the highest category, IMO

Sharon. If we truly had a non "evasion" bible, would you accept it?


home.iprimus.com.au/pruephillip/Evasion Bible and John.jpg[/img]

[Deleted]

Bert, we must all remember that the Bible is used just as much by Satan as it is by the Holy Spirit to convict people.

That is why we need you to show us what the right interpretation is.

[Deleted]

Well, glad we got that one sorted out!

[Gene]

So, Bert, in your estimation, the bible is evasive?

[sharonw]

IMO, evasive and crude expressions are two different things!

[ts]

Are there any workers reading here who would like to comment on Bert's posts? Do you approve of "The Way" being defended in this manner?

Others of the professing people on this site have enjoyed Bert's vigorous and often lewd defenses of "the truth".

It reminds me of Acts 17:5

"But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort..."

[Rob Sargison]

Nah, Bert's just from the sticks. It's the old story, You can take the boy out of the bush, but you can't take the bush out of the boy.


Bert's 106. He's not going to change.

[Deleted]

Sept 6, 2010 7:41:55 GMT -5 Gene said:

So, Bert, in your estimation, the bible is evasive?

Here's an example: for about one thousand years the Jews argued over whether there was a heaven and hell.
Try finding these in the Old Testament.
Jesus said the Sadducees "erred greatly" in not believing in eternity. Why did they get it wrong?

[ts]

Sept 7, 2010 6:28:43 GMT -5 bert said:

Sept 6, 2010 7:41:55 GMT -5 Gene said:

So, Bert, in your estimation, the bible is evasive?

Here's an example: for about one thousand years the Jews argued over whether there was a heaven and hell.
Try finding these in the Old Testament.
Jesus said the Sadducees "erred greatly" in not believing in eternity. Why did they get it wrong?

Because they were artists?

[Linford Bledsoe]

What happened to this story?

[pinky]

I was wondering the same thing myself.

So, for those on the ground in Tas/Vic, now that the worker has confessed to the authorities, is that widely known and conveyed to those who may be affected in any way?

[sharonw]

Jury must still be out for deliberations?