|
Post by someguy on Aug 9, 2010 17:37:50 GMT -5
This is a discussion board. Who brought this discussion to the board?According to what I read, Wings. If the workers are taking care of this issue within,why is it here.It seems as long as the discussion goes along party lines,it's great. If not you pay. I appreciate anything that can be done to eradicate CSA. I don't think it will be done here. except that workers haven't been taking care of the issue within. Not in the past unless this has suddenly changed. It is brought up here because there is no safe forum to discuss this with the workers. If people could discuss this with the workers in an open manner not some clandestine like secret meeting then there would be no need to discuss it here. Matter a fact we would probably find if there was more open honest discussions and we did away with the secret stuff most of the topics on here would dry up.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Aug 9, 2010 17:45:32 GMT -5
All I am going to say is this. As this plays out we will see what's fact and what's fiction. This is not the only source of information.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2010 17:53:37 GMT -5
They brought it to WINGS to get the information. Incidentally, it was NOT the women that brought this to WINGS. They were husbands. They did not have issues with the workers. (other than the one that has now confessed about it) When contacted, it was for information on how to be put in contact with various workers. I contacted the workers asked about and put them in contact with the professing folks that contacted WINGS. Through that contact other overseers were contacted and got involved. No witch hunt. None of those actions had anything to do with WINGS. The workers themselves have been dealing with all of this. WINGS simply passed on information as requested. Scott Thanks for that info, Scott.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2010 18:09:57 GMT -5
except that workers haven't been taking care of the issue within. Not in the past unless this has suddenly changed. It is brought up here because there is no safe forum to discuss this with the workers. If people could discuss this with the workers in an open manner not some clandestine like secret meeting then there would be no need to discuss it here. Matter a fact we would probably find if there was more open honest discussions and we did away with the secret stuff most of the topics on here would dry up. someguy did you read this letter from 1991? Click -> Excerpt of a letter written by a young Sister Worker to Tharold SylvesterThe times things go right are likely the ones you don't hear much about but that does mean they didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2010 18:08:46 GMT -5
All I am going to say is this. As this plays out we will see what's fact and what's fiction. This is not the only source of information. Very true Lin! Very little of what I have heard is posted here actually, so we will see what all comes out during the next couple of weeks. There is a lot of focus on what is going on over there, and only some of it is being discussed here on the board. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2010 20:53:15 GMT -5
The times things go right are likely the ones you don't hear much about but that does mean they didn't happen. I try to post about the good that is done when I hear about it. Not all overseers are covering things up and ignoring the issues that come their attention. It should be noted when this happens. Scott
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 9, 2010 20:59:51 GMT -5
I think Lin's reference is to this: 1 Cor.14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.However, if these women are married, it's very possible that the discussion with husbands has already been done, and they are on the next step. Would it be better if the husband handled it? Maybe with the senior workers, but not according to most modern law. It does appear as though a group of women have chosen to exert some pressure on head workers. I don't see any problem with that IF they have the support of their husbands. Actually since the ladies perhaps represent the victims, husbands need to support them as they seek to address the issue. One would think that some do not believe in women having any thing to do or say in the church! If that is the case, I'd have to ask, do these same people respect the sister workers? If that is the case, I'd have to ask, do these same people respect the sister workers?I'm glad you asked that. It seems glaringly obvious that the F&W set aside 1 Cor 14:34 a long time ago (except for the odd time it seems convenient to allude to it, as Lin may be doing now). Otherwise there would be no sister workers in what should be man's role, or to the extent that they're permitted to fulfill a man's role.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2010 21:09:44 GMT -5
Actually since the ladies perhaps represent the victims, husbands need to support them as they seek to address the issue. One would think that some do not believe in women having any thing to do or say in the church! If that is the case, I'd have to ask, do these same people respect the sister workers? If that is the case, I'd have to ask, do these same people respect the sister workers?I'm glad you asked that. It seems glaringly obvious that the F&W set aside 1 Cor 14:34 a long time ago (except for the odd time it seems convenient to allude to it, as Lin may be doing now). Otherwise there would be no sister workers in what should be man's role, or to the extent that they're permitted to fulfill a man's role. I think a distinction should be made between bringing the gospel and bringing accusations against males. There is scriptural support for women carrying a message, and there is scriptural warning about women making accusations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 21:14:53 GMT -5
And it's equally glaringly obvious that those who push no voice of women in the church have long decided that 1Cor11:5 is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Aug 9, 2010 21:30:26 GMT -5
I think a distinction should be made between bringing the gospel and bringing accusations against males. There is scriptural support for women carrying a message, and there is scriptural warning about women making accusations. I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 9, 2010 21:37:31 GMT -5
I think a distinction should be made between bringing the gospel and bringing accusations against males. There is scriptural support for women carrying a message, and there is scriptural warning about women making accusations. I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too. Sounds like an institution tailor-made for men!
|
|
|
Post by pinky on Aug 9, 2010 21:58:13 GMT -5
I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too. Sounds like an institution tailor-made for men! Al, you're spot on! Ask any former female member, and chances are they would agree with you. I think for this reason also women find the post-exiting recovery period more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 9, 2010 21:58:47 GMT -5
And it's equally glaringly obvious that those who push no voice of women in the church have long decided that 1Cor11:5 is invalid. There is a significant difference in participating in the prayers of a Mass or an F&W Bible study and that of being in the presiding pastoral role. We do not read of any women being ordained bishops or priests to fulfill pastoral duties or to confer the sacraments. There were no women included at the Passover when Jesus instituted Sacrament of the Eucharist including the words of the consecration. There are no women mentioned in Acts 1 -- 1 In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught 2 until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 8 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." We do not read of Jesus sending out any women in these passages: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have command you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20) Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after he had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:14-16) Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:46-49) Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)" (Ironically these are from a Lutheran's writings on why the pastoral office should be men only--who knows if all Lutheran conferences are allowing women now...or not.) www.christforus.org/Papers/Content/PastoralOffice.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 22:22:37 GMT -5
You deftly ignored the part about women prophesying in the church StAnne which was happening in the 1st century church.
Definition of prophesying:
"An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will."
Is that the job of a priest or a bishop?
The 1st century church did some inspirational things which went against the paternalistic society of the day. The RCC reversed that progress and set it backward for centuries. Interestingly, the F&W church was one of the most advanced groups around to re-establish women prophesying in the church, based on the sound practices of the Faith Mission which preceded it.
Some early examples of 1st century inspiration can be seen in Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and Phillip's four daughters, some who taught and some who prophesied.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 9, 2010 23:07:52 GMT -5
You deftly ignored the part about women prophesying in the church StAnne which was happening in the 1st century church. Definition of prophesying: "An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will." Is that the job of a priest or a bishop? The 1st century church did some inspirational things which went against the paternalistic society of the day. The RCC reversed that progress and set it backward for centuries. Interestingly, the F&W church was one of the most advanced groups around to re-establish women prophesying in the church, based on the sound practices of the Faith Mission which preceded it. Some early examples of 1st century inspiration can be seen in Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and Phillip's four daughters, some who taught and some who prophesied. You deftly ignored the part about women prophesying in the church StAnne which was happening in the 1st century church. No, I didn't ignore it at all. I said that there is a significant difference in (women) participating in the communal prayers of the Mass or an F&W Bible study as compared to the role of the pastoral celebrant. "While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38)." Some early examples of 1st century inspiration can be seen in Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and Phillip's four daughters, some who taught and some who prophesied.Were they ordained bishops or priests as successors of the Apostles as we read of Scripturally? Do we read of women conferring the sacraments? Did Jesus send women out as we read of him sending out the others? No. Interestingly, the F&W church was one of the most advanced groups around to re-establish women prophesying in the church, based on the sound practices of the Faith Mission which preceded it.Yes. Interesting indeed. Women have been praying the communal prayers and responses for hundreds and hundreds of years--right along with the men...in one regard, well ahead of the F&W I would say. OTOH, the role of F&W women preachers seems blured between that of a participant in the service to that of assuming certain teaching and pastoral duties which are not Scripturally sound as to teaching and/ or having authority over a man. You may want to dig a little deeper CD. You have a fine mind. This may be one of those things you accepted at face value as you so aptly explained in another thread: Faith can be a scary thing. Once you believe you are in the One True Church and your leaders are God's True Servants, you'll believe everything you're told. It's a natural progression. I think that explains why absurd preaching results in a lot of people smiling and nodding their heads in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by mod3 on Aug 9, 2010 23:15:13 GMT -5
Just a friendly reminder: please keep this thread on topic.
Discussions on Catholic church practices and discussions on the role of women in the church belong in a new thread.
Off-topic posts may be deleted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 23:33:36 GMT -5
The discussion remains on topic Mod3. The place of women in the church is relevant to this thread on the reporting/non-reporting of CSA. If this topic is going to be understood properly, the origins of the practice of women being subjected to a non-equal place in the church is important to understand.
It's rather horrifying to realize that women were not long ago practically powerless when victims of CSA because it was a man's world and a man's church. Men had the authority, women had none. And Mod3, where do you suppose this became established in church and culture? If we don't understand our past, our future will be hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2010 23:55:08 GMT -5
I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too. No, I certainly did not mean that. Women have an obvious outlet - their husbands or fathers or even their elder (in cases where the man who should be defending them is actually abusing them). I guess that's why it says, let them ask their husbands..etc.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 10, 2010 0:24:24 GMT -5
I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too. No, I certainly did not mean that. Women have an obvious outlet - their husbands or fathers or even their elder (in cases where the man who should be defending them is actually abusing them). I guess that's why it says, let them ask their husbands..etc. Frankly, I'm pleased the authorities know about this. Its evident from attitudes on this thread that the church is not yet capable of giving victims a fair hearing. I can hardly believe all I'm reading here regarding what CSA victims should or should not do. Paul's advise concerning a few women in his day who disturbed the meetings has nothing to do with CSA. I applaud these women for getting together to sort this out. At least they understand what they've been through.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 10, 2010 0:37:33 GMT -5
Frankly, I'm pleased the authorities know about this. So am I. I started out to just explain the reference Linford was referring to, but I must say that I am thankful to have a husband who would give me a fair hearing and do the right thing in the church - as Scott has said these women's husbands did. I speak from experience in saying that women have a tendency to stir up a hornet's nest - sometimes for good, sometimes not. I am not objecting to what was done by the women in this situation, just adding in another perspective.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Aug 10, 2010 5:12:33 GMT -5
No, I certainly did not mean that. Women have an obvious outlet - their husbands or fathers or even their elder (in cases where the man who should be defending them is actually abusing them). I guess that's why it says, let them ask their husbands..etc. I guessed you didn't mean that emy I don't necessarily understand the scripture that you are using in the way you do. But it's not important that we see eye to eye on such disputable matters. What is important is that we draw the line that CSA is completely unacceptable in a Christian ministry. I feel that it's an issue for women and men together to tackle. There are things that you as a woman will see and understand very differently from me in these matters. We need each other and we work together, complementing strengths and weaknesses, to eradicate if possible the evil of CSA from amongst the workers. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Aug 10, 2010 6:27:27 GMT -5
landdownunder wrote What is important is that we draw the line that CSA is completely unacceptable in a Christian ministry.
CSA is unacceptable anywhere. I don't think we should just concentrate on the workers. Some of the worst cases have been from parents,which is much easier to cover up. The hardest part of conquering this problem anywhere is the delay of reporting.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 10, 2010 7:02:01 GMT -5
I hope you're not suggesting what this could be taken to mean. That women being subservient in the church to men, should just put up with being used as sexual chattels by men with power in the church. They cannot make accusations against such "godly" men because scripture warns against it (you say). So what are they to do? Simply put up with the hypocrisy of men preachers railing in meeting against their "worldly dress" and other appearance issues that affect women only, then sleeping with them afterwards? Or bring an accusation before the church? Or take it to the civil authorities (police in matters of sexual coercion)? I don't doubt some women are angry. Many men are too. Sounds like an institution tailor-made for men! YEP! More and more of the good ole' boys' society is coming out! The effect of the Masons has built until no one remembers where it started, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 10, 2010 7:04:14 GMT -5
Thanks, Scott. You obviously have lots more insight to this than anyone here, but just a sideline from me... In the USA, a Sunday morning union meeting would not be an informational meeting about CSA. The "gospel meeting" format would be a more likely venue. Any thoughts from WAY down under? As I have posted previously, the workers have asked my relatives who live south of hobart if they can use their house for this union meeting on sunday. I will be able to give more information about the format and what was said (from the horses mouth) following it Thanks, Ian...IF the workers holding that meeting feel what is coming down the pike is so very important and they want to use the bible's recommendations, I see NOthing wrong with them using a Sun. a.m. mtg. for didn't Jesus say if 2 or 3 are gathered in my name.....and this was when Jesus was speaking about bringing matters before the whole church?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 10, 2010 7:05:57 GMT -5
Sounds like an institution tailor-made for men! Al, you're spot on! Ask any former female member, and chances are they would agree with you. I think for this reason also women find the post-exiting recovery period more difficult. Yes, simply because the females have to become acquainted with their own self-identity. But in the long run, is far more freedom esp. in the spirit. But I want to say this, that in all appearance the female victims who have brought this CSA issue to light in Aust./Tas. have certainly begun to make the females free within the fellowship...to do that which is morally right and legally correct.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 10, 2010 7:16:27 GMT -5
landdownunder wrote What is important is that we draw the line that CSA is completely unacceptable in a Christian ministry. CSA is unacceptable anywhere. I don't think we should just concentrate on the workers. Some of the worst cases have been from parents,which is much easier to cover up. The hardest part of conquering this problem anywhere is the delay of reporting. Again, this is where the workers taking full responsibility to help eradicate such horrible practices OUT OF THE FELLOWSHIP, can be fully cognizant of these things going on in the homes of the friends and be fully aware that the children are being abused by their parents/ or other family members. Then the worker goes to the authorities pronto and tells them what they have seen or have heard and then the authorities can investigate it and sift out the real facts within the homelife. And yes, this could go the other way and workers get into it with someone and break up a healthy family unit by false allegations...BUT we're going to give the workers the space to be honorable and honest people!
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 10, 2010 8:45:39 GMT -5
landdownunder wrote What is important is that we draw the line that CSA is completely unacceptable in a Christian ministry. CSA is unacceptable anywhere. I don't think we should just concentrate on the workers. Some of the worst cases have been from parents,which is much easier to cover up. The hardest part of conquering this problem anywhere is the delay of reporting. Again, this is where the workers taking full responsibility to help eradicate such horrible practices OUT OF THE FELLOWSHIP, can be fully cognizant of these things going on in the homes of the friends and be fully aware that the children are being abused by their parents/ or other family members. Then the worker goes to the authorities pronto and tells them what they have seen or have heard and then the authorities can investigate it and sift out the real facts within the homelife. And yes, this could go the other way and workers get into it with someone and break up a healthy family unit by false allegations...BUT we're going to give the workers the space to be honorable and honest people! So, are the workers going to be issued uniforms and badges? Are you suggesting that adding policeman responsibilities to the workers will somehow make things any better? Even without direct ties to the local police establishment, workers tend to be viewed by the friends as someone who is watching to make sure they have all their t's crossed and i's dotted with adverse comments on hair length, attire, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Aug 10, 2010 9:47:30 GMT -5
I would think it would be the parents job to go to the authorities.
|
|