|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Dec 28, 2010 13:51:21 GMT -5
I was just thinking this morning about some rules set for our "field" by my first companion. I'm not going to name him, because I still respect him, but I do view these arbitrary rules as problematic . . .
We were in a field not so far from where I grew up - in fact, we had often been in gospel meetings with many of these friends. At this point, several of my peers, as well as my brother Steve, were rooming together in a small apartment rented from a professing widow. We had several "studies" with them - I think on a weekly basis for awhile - because one of the boys with them was "interested," and I think did actually profess (for awhile) at the end of that year.
Anyway, during the course of these studies/visits, my companion "laid down the law" on two things: wearing Levis (or any denim I assume), and ice-skating. Both took me entirely by surprise, as I did of these things both myself.
Now, it would be easy to make some statement about how absurd these rules seemed, but that seems pointless to me. I'm really more interested in how I, to some degree, bought into this, going along with my companion, discussing with him whether they were still doing this stuff or not. I don't remember many details about conversations, but I do remember the feeling of wanting them to comply with my companion's "advice." I think it's interesting to see how much we can buy into things, kind of "swallowing" our own feelings.
I remember telling my companion while riding in the car once (I knew enough to not bring up even slightly dissenting opinions in front of the friends) that I really considered ice skating a rather "mellow" atmosphere. I had been in both ice and roller skating rinks, and they did have a very different atmosphere - at least the ones near our home. I mentioned to him that the roller rinks were loud, and had a definite "disco" atmosphere (this was in the late 70s!), while the ice rink we went to had a family atmosphere, playing music like the Carpenters. He listened respectfully, but my input didn't seem to make any difference in his opinion. But I still figured he knew best, or I wanted approval so much that I just stuffed my feelings . . .
Another interesting aspect of this was that he cited his own convictions as the reason for the rules, telling how he had once done these things, and at particular points had become very troubled about them, and quit doing them. He would also mention something Jack Carroll had said about the Levis.
Today, it strikes me as very strange to attempt to impose one's own convictions on someone else, particularly in regard to something like this. Here, we were preaching about the Spirit of God teaching people, yet felt they had to be told what it should be teaching them, I guess . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2010 17:50:06 GMT -5
Basically this way works by revelations to the individual from God as long as the Workers agree with the revelations. If the revelations meet with worker approval you know the revelations were from God.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Dec 28, 2010 21:18:46 GMT -5
Basically this way works by revelations to the individual from God as long as the Workers agree with the revelations. If the revelations meet with worker approval you know the revelations were from God. That's pretty much how I have it figured out, ram!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Dec 28, 2010 23:06:52 GMT -5
I think this imposition of rules is common enough territory for many of us, and I'm not really adding any new insight in bringing it up here. But a significant part of this for me is the way in which I, as a younger companion, felt uncomfortable with the rules, and yet went along with them - not just "keeping quiet" and refraining to voice any disagreement, but actually becoming concerned, along with my companion, with the "created" issues.
I can look back on my years in the work and see many points like this, concerning different "issues," where I sometimes went along with companions and other workers, while I at times expressed concern/disagreement, at other times just kept quiet while inwardly wondering why the big issue was being made. One of those points that now stands out to me was during my 2nd year in the work (1981-82), I believe, when Eldon Tenniswood held some "young people's meetings" in California, and a young brother worker - the same amount of time in the work as me - asked a question (written out beforehand) expressing great concern about some girls wearing bangs. It kind of blew me away that this was even an issue! I know there are lots of questions among workers and friends about women's hair, but this seemed a bit extreme, and hardly the greatest concern regarding young people.
I had lots of "wonderings" like this through the years - some about "rules," others more about the way some things were said and done. But most of them I just kept more or less quiet about, doing what seemed best to me in whatever situation. There was never a point where something just "snapped," and I got tired of all the rules, but it was always there - I know that I often felt something like, "It may not be right, but maybe I can be a help just by 'showing the right spirit.'"
When I left the work, I didn't see it as related to opposing or protesting any of these rules and inconsistencies - I really saw myself as "not fit" for the work - but maybe it really was a matter of too much tension between what I believed to be right and what I was seeing and feeling in many ways. Even being "unwilling" for the required celibacy was in a way a tension with an imposed rule, though at that time I understood it to be the way God had planned things.
When I quit attending meetings a little over a year ago, it was a conscious decision made because of inconsistencies over things of far more import than this - too much was being covered up, while at the same time people who were attempting to live honestly were being smeared.
Does this all relate? Some of it occurred a number of years after I left the work, and yet I began to see that I had always kind of quietly resisted, trying to live according to my own conscience, and a point finally came where that was no longer tolerated, because I tried to point out an issue that got too close to something, though I'm still not exactly sure what it was . . .
Bear with me while I try to bring this all together - in going back to the various rules imposed by some workers, it is of course up to the individual to do what they see to be "right." And I'm sure many people do quietly bear with injustices and wrongs. But I also have noted another thing that has disturbed me in recent years - many younger workers, some of them my contemporaries (well, we're not so young any more!) at one point were obviously making a genuine effort to be "real" and to connect with people. Then, I - and often my wife too - have noticed them beginning to "talk in circles" when confronted - even very kindly - with any meaningful question on an issue. This happened a lot when some extremely hurtful things were going on right here in Hawai`i. When the issue was brought up, workers would just "throw up their hands" (so to speak), saying, "It's all a big mess. No one can figure it out." Well, that wasn't really true. Solutions may not have been simple by that time, but it was pretty easy to know what had been done, if a person asked a few questions. It became very apparent there was something there that the workers did not want touched.
Does this relate to imposed rules? Maybe not directly, but my point is that many of us seem to acquiesce at many points, but then somewhere, somehow, we find ourselves meeting strong opposition, while others seem to kind of "cave in," becoming what I see as "system people." I'm not saying everyone does one or the other, but it has seemed to me that sometimes a real hurt forces us to make a decision one way or another - do we follow what we know to be true, or do we just continue to ignore things, changing the subject when it gets too close for comfort?
I'm not trying to accuse and stir up trouble here, but this is important to me, and it has sounded strange to hear people say, "well you have to do what you know is right, even when a worker tells you differently." Well, that is what we did, and we were made to feel very unwelcome! Are we to remain there, just "taking it"? Yes, Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," but neither do I see him seeking fellowship with certain people.
Just trying to throw out some points to ponder and discuss here . . .
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Dec 29, 2010 7:05:04 GMT -5
Al, I can sure relate to your experience and feelings regarding "rules". I had the same feelings and concerns (and still do) and it is nice to hear it from a former worker. I was at some of those "young peoples meetings" that Eldon had. Now when I go back and read the notes from those meetings, I just shake my head. I am trying to read the bible in the context it is written and have discovered many of the verses used to justify the "rules" are taken out of context. It would be nice if the workers would just let God do His work in people rather than defining God's work through "rules".
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Dec 29, 2010 8:26:35 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Al. I have heard similar things from other workers/ex-workers also. Being made to follow the rules imposed by a companion, regardless of any real spiritual guidance, plus being in the position of imposing/telling rules which have neither biblical guidance or church doctrine to back them up can't be a real fun position to be in. I am guessing that in many cases it is the mindset of 'this is the way I was treated so this is how you will be treated. Without any kind of real training on how to be a leader, I would think that such attitudes are quite common. Seeing how most often the older worker is in charge of the younger, I can see where it can be a real hardship to be paired with someone who simply because of age is placed in charge, even if they have no skills in leadership or responsibility as a spiritual leader. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Dec 29, 2010 10:57:18 GMT -5
The model for this is the 'old time' apprentice vs master relationship. I say old time because at that time the apprentice was like an indentured servant or even a slave to the master for a set period of time.
Modern apprenticeships are usually quite different with the work time being balanced with classroom learning, assignment to various masters and a reasonable payment for services.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Dec 29, 2010 14:02:38 GMT -5
It would be nice if the workers would just let God do His work in people rather than defining God's work through "rules". Thank you, Tex. I would like to add that it would be nice if believers would trust God to lead others as they trust him to lead themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Dec 29, 2010 14:13:21 GMT -5
It would be nice if the workers would just let God do His work in people rather than defining God's work through "rules". Thank you, Tex. I would like to add that it would be nice if believers would trust God to lead others as they trust him to lead themselves. But don't we give power to the workers and to other believers when we acquiesce to those rules? Will leaders stop making rules if people are still allowing them to make those rules?
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Dec 29, 2010 14:49:31 GMT -5
Thank you, Tex. I would like to add that it would be nice if believers would trust God to lead others as they trust him to lead themselves. But don't we give power to the workers and to other believers when we acquiesce to those rules? Will leaders stop making rules if people are still allowing them to make those rules? Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the wisdom. I am in a sore mood today and have beating other people up in my head... even my deceased mother-in-law. I sure hope this mood passes quickly. *sigh*
|
|
tex
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by tex on Dec 29, 2010 17:43:11 GMT -5
Thank you, Tex. I would like to add that it would be nice if believers would trust God to lead others as they trust him to lead themselves. But don't we give power to the workers and to other believers when we acquiesce to those rules? Will leaders stop making rules if people are still allowing them to make those rules? Yes, maybe we do give power to the workers when we acquiesce to those rules. But, on the other hand, sometimes there are consequences if we don't acquiesce to the workers rules. When we were young, we did acquiesce to their rules even though we knew some of them weren't based on scripture. They were just personal opinions. Later on, it came to a head for us. We were put in a position of being forced to comply with something that was not based on scripture. When we asked for the scripture to support what we were being told to do, none was provided. When we provided scripture to support our position, it was ignored. As a result, we were made to feel very unwelcome. So, sometimes the workers do exercise power themselves. As far as giving power to the friends, I think it is more of a fitting in and going along with peer pressure. I agree with you, Annan. It would be nice if the friends would trust God to lead others as they trust Him to lead themselves. I'm not so sure people are allowing workers (or giving them power) to make rules. From what I've seen, sometimes workers make and impose rules regardless of how the friends feel.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Dec 29, 2010 20:05:57 GMT -5
But don't we give power to the workers and to other believers when we acquiesce to those rules? Will leaders stop making rules if people are still allowing them to make those rules? Yes, maybe we do give power to the workers when we acquiesce to those rules. But, on the other hand, sometimes there are consequences if we don't acquiesce to the workers rules. When we were young, we did acquiesce to their rules even though we knew some of them weren't based on scripture. They were just personal opinions. Later on, it came to a head for us. We were put in a position of being forced to comply with something that was not based on scripture. When we asked for the scripture to support what we were being told to do, none was provided. When we provided scripture to support our position, it was ignored. As a result, we were made to feel very unwelcome. So, sometimes the workers do exercise power themselves. As far as giving power to the friends, I think it is more of a fitting in and going along with peer pressure. I agree with you, Annan. It would be nice if the friends would trust God to lead others as they trust Him to lead themselves. I'm not so sure people are allowing workers (or giving them power) to make rules. From what I've seen, sometimes workers make and impose rules regardless of how the friends feel. I agree, Tex! It is fear of the consequences that keep us following the rules. But what is going to make the leaders change, unless people are willing to be singled out. It's certainly no fun, but then Jesus - and many others we look to in the Bible - were willing for unpleasant consequences . . . but it seems we seldom do this until there are no other options remaining. I found myself trying to be "everybody's friend" until it became obvious that some weren't going to allow that, and I had to just take the consequences. I agree, too, as far as trusting God to lead others. But when it becomes A matter of us submitting to rules imposed by another, it seems like we love to ensure that the same thing is required of others! I really don't expect leaders - people "at the top" of any pyramid or pinnacle - to change. They have too much invested in things remaining the same. But can we change, regardless of the consequences? I personally can't see any other way to do things . . .
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jan 2, 2011 18:49:57 GMT -5
Reading some of these things brought to mind a tale of two sisters I once heard from the sisters themselves. These girls were biological/natural sisters, one a young exchange student in another country, the other a young sister worker in USA. The student girl reported to her sister that the older sister worker in their field had gotten all the young people together and told them that under no circumstances should they read the Harry Potter books, since said books were full of witchcraft and all sorts of ungodly nonsense. The worker girl -- who was at that time companion to perhaps one of the most well-known and well-traveled (as well as among the most loved and respected) sister workers ever -- reported that she and said companion were reading the HP books out loud to each other on their long trips through their field.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 2, 2011 18:55:52 GMT -5
Reading some of these things brought to mind a tale of two sisters I once heard from the sisters themselves. These girls were biological/natural sisters, one a young exchange student in another country, the other a young sister worker in USA. The student girl reported to her sister that the older sister worker in their field had gotten all the young people together and told them that under no circumstances should they read the Harry Potter books, since said books were full of witchcraft and all sorts of ungodly nonsense. The worker girl -- who was at that time companion to perhaps one of the most well-known and well-traveled (as well as among the most loved and respected) sister workers ever -- reported that she and said companion were reading the HP books out loud to each other on their long trips through their field. Scandalous.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jan 2, 2011 19:02:56 GMT -5
Thinking about Eldon T.'s youth meetings that were mentioned earlier in the thread brought to mind a rule that one of my companions (as well as overseer) made when we were together. His rule was that none of the notes from those meetings were to be passed around among the friends in our area, and if possible, they should be destroyed. Though not by any means a faultless man, he was certainly forward-thinking for his generation, and saw clearly the folly of creating a new set of extra-biblical written doctrines, which is what those notes seemed to become to a number of people back in that era.
Somehow, many years later when I became ET's companion for a few weeks, I wasn't particularly surprised when it became evident that the other man was not on his list of Top Ten favorites.
I should say that on a personal level I found many things to enjoy in my time with Eldon, many outstanding traits to admire, and a deep, sincere concern for what he believed was right and godly. However, I did learn that there were times I had to get up and leave the room when he got on certain subjects on which we were not in agreement, especially regarding his opinions about other workers I knew and loved so well whose perspective was somewhat different than his own.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jan 3, 2011 13:11:21 GMT -5
So, Eldon goes one way, sister workers another, John another still and is it any wonder that simple old guys like me (and a bunch of younger ones that I'm friends with) wonder at times who, if anyone, is actually running the show.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jan 3, 2011 14:14:34 GMT -5
Thinking about Eldon T.'s youth meetings that were mentioned earlier in the thread brought to mind a rule that one of my companions (as well as overseer) made when we were together. His rule was that none of the notes from those meetings were to be passed around among the friends in our area, and if possible, they should be destroyed. Though not by any means a faultless man, he was certainly forward-thinking for his generation, and saw clearly the folly of creating a new set of extra-biblical written doctrines, which is what those notes seemed to become to a number of people back in that era. Somehow, many years later when I became ET's companion for a few weeks, I wasn't particularly surprised when it became evident that the other man was not on his list of Top Ten favorites. I should say that on a personal level I found many things to enjoy in my time with Eldon, many outstanding traits to admire, and a deep, sincere concern for what he believed was right and godly. However, I did learn that there were times I had to get up and leave the room when he got on certain subjects on which we were not in agreement, especially regarding his opinions about other workers I knew and loved so well whose perspective was somewhat different than his own. I appreciate your thoughtful input, John. Having spent many years under Eldon's administration, I found much the same thing you did - I admire many of his personal qualities and the practical things he taught us, but he also - frequently - could "get on a roll" about particular workers and topics. As a California worker, I at that time felt he had the "correct" perspective on things. I now see things differently, and feel like a lot of divisions we're all aware of stem back to some personal conflicts. If we can only address things as such - mistakes made by imperfect people - and not create "monolithic" groups, or even make one person entirely "good" or "bad." Seeing things as mistakes to me does not mean to simply dismiss and ignore things, but neither does it mean to assume everything that person or group of people does is bad. Things must be addressed in their proper place, which usually means privately, and without the intention of humiliating anyone. Interesting about those notes too - I grew leery of them (and other sets of notes too) myself, for very similar reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jan 3, 2011 14:23:49 GMT -5
So, Eldon goes one way, sister workers another, John another still and is it any wonder that simple old guys like me (and a bunch of younger ones that I'm friends with) wonder at times who, if anyone, is actually running the show. Do we need to see any one person (or group of people) as running the show? We're all making choices as to what we allow, even as far as ceding "authority" to someone else. I can respect the feelings of each of the individuals you mention above - as far as they relate to their own lives and experiences. But I have serious trouble with them when they attempt to impose them on me or on anyone else. This doesn't mean I want to "go wild" and just "do what I want." I have standards of behavior too, but I find peace when I allow God to teach me. Doesn't seeing these people as "going one way and going another way" only apply when we take them as contradictory rules imposed on others? I'm well aware of being expected to follow implied rules, and I try to quietly do what I know I need to do. Some don't like this, of course, but I am finding that people eventually grow to respect a quietly made choice.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 3, 2011 16:38:36 GMT -5
So, Eldon goes one way, sister workers another, John another still and is it any wonder that simple old guys like me (and a bunch of younger ones that I'm friends with) wonder at times who, if anyone, is actually running the show. There's only one who should "run the show": Eph. 4:11-16 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jan 3, 2011 19:49:55 GMT -5
So, Eldon goes one way, sister workers another, John another still and is it any wonder that simple old guys like me (and a bunch of younger ones that I'm friends with) wonder at times who, if anyone, is actually running the show. There's only one who should "run the show": Eph. 4:11-16 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love. Emy, Our point here though is discussing our actual experiences in the work, not how it "should be."
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jan 3, 2011 22:13:52 GMT -5
Some people really seem to love rules, and they're probably attracted to groups that are rule based. It's humorous when their rules are supposed to be based on the bible, and then they pull them out of the air. My parents are huge rule people, and they love the safety of the workers' religion. They've lighted up a bit, but when I was a child they embraced every word that came out of the older brother workers' mouths. And then in case there weren't enough rules, they'd add a few of their own. One that I remember in particular is that we were not allowed to wear our collars flipped up (it was the 80's - when that was a fad), because that was too worldly. It was particularly funny when a professing friend their age started wearing her collars flipped up. I guess God hadn't told her about that rule yet.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jan 4, 2011 13:33:10 GMT -5
Rules are fine and necessary for any organization to run smoothly.
The problem is that there is the lack of consistency from one place to another. In times past, where there was almost no travel and little communication to the various parts of the world, such lack of consistency went largely unnoticed. Overseers could rule their little fiefdoms as they saw fit according to their own personal opinions and whims with little chance of it becoming an issue. Hence, the observation above that "they embraced every word that came out of the older brother workers' mouths" was a characteristic of those who felt a need to be a supporter of those they thought to be under the leading of the spirit.
The very fact that one was ruling one way and another a different way and still others setting rules in other ways makes one wonder how many spirits were being consulted.
I'm also beginning to wonder if it actually was Al Gore who invented the internet. :>) Perhaps God had a hand in it so that a searching soul would have available the resources to identify the whim based rules so they can be given the level of seriousness that they are truly worth.
On the other hand, rules that are solidly based on Scripture and those that are consistently directed by all workers should be seriously followed. It is wonderful to have the means to be able to make this discernment at this time. It is also sad that the whim based rules haven't already been cleaned out, identified where they originated and trashed yesterday!
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jan 4, 2011 15:18:50 GMT -5
Interesting that Jesus didn't leave behind a lot of rules. He did advocate the way to be a leader or master was by being a servant not a bossy overseer. A lot more important to feed than lead.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 4, 2011 16:11:30 GMT -5
Rules are fine and necessary for any organization to run smoothly. The problem is that there is the lack of consistency from one place to another. In times past, where there was almost no travel and little communication to the various parts of the world, such lack of consistency went largely unnoticed. Overseers could rule their little fiefdoms as they saw fit according to their own personal opinions and whims with little chance of it becoming an issue. Hence, the observation above that "they embraced every word that came out of the older brother workers' mouths" was a characteristic of those who felt a need to be a supporter of those they thought to be under the leading of the spirit. The very fact that one was ruling one way and another a different way and still others setting rules in other ways makes one wonder how many spirits were being consulted. ... Any chance that this is how it should be? Does God want a church (family) governed by rituals passed out by figureheads? I believe you do some traveling. Has the differences in overseer administrations hindered the fellowship you have in other meetings. My perspective - no, it does not.
|
|
|
Post by jgnorthern on Jan 6, 2011 2:46:21 GMT -5
Hello folks,
It isn't funny when all I have to read is a few lines of a post to figure out that you who are writing are living on the west coast under Eldon Tenneswood.
I grew up under Eldon Tenneswood and George Walker. My the problems!!
I went into the work under Murrey Keen and another older overseer who was well looked up to. Our overseer in the state I was in was Peter Hunter.
In Indiana, we had on one side, rules and regulations. On the other hand as time passed by we had a spiritual overseer who did away with all rules and regulation, forcing the folks to find their way with God. He did not get involved with the friends day to day lives and instructed his workers to do the same.
In the work, we were instructed the same. Rules were not given instead some questions were even side stepped so the friends had to go and pray about the matter.
This produced a wonderful spirit among the friends. They grew to love God because they ended up with their own walk with God learning and God was able to fill their hearts with eternal love.
Those that never figured out how to do that, lost out. They could always come to the meetings and learn but they never had a real love for it. These are the same folks that were offended when information came out about problems every in the west and the beginning of the truth.
Those that learned and depended on God themselves, are still standing today very much spiritually led people who are not judgmental.
This is what caused the west to be the way it is. Now, George Walker started out with rules but toward the end of his life, he stood on the platform and apologized for the way things had been handled and hoped that things would turn around and have more of a spiritual influence on people than natural.
Today, in the work, there are still less rules in the east. However, we see more of the influence of the rules and regulation workers appearing every where. IT is sad.
God needs to be the ruling and we need to trust that he will direct everyone in the way as they should go. Humans don't do that very well.
I live on the west coast now. I see so much of this and I see the lack in the meetings compared to what I'm use to.
How do I bring new people to Christ when those that I have brought before are given the same rules and regulations? AFter the meetings they say that it was strange that there was little love in the meeting. I had to agree, the real love for the souls of people was missing.
The control and rules and regulations that are made bind the Holy spirit so it can't work freely.
It says we are under the Law of Christ and of the spirit, not of the old law or the law of man.
jen
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jan 6, 2011 9:48:23 GMT -5
Rules are fine and necessary for any organization to run smoothly. The problem is that there is the lack of consistency from one place to another. In times past, where there was almost no travel and little communication to the various parts of the world, such lack of consistency went largely unnoticed. Overseers could rule their little fiefdoms as they saw fit according to their own personal opinions and whims with little chance of it becoming an issue. Hence, the observation above that "they embraced every word that came out of the older brother workers' mouths" was a characteristic of those who felt a need to be a supporter of those they thought to be under the leading of the spirit. The very fact that one was ruling one way and another a different way and still others setting rules in other ways makes one wonder how many spirits were being consulted. ... Any chance that this is how it should be? Does God want a church (family) governed by rituals passed out by figureheads? I believe you do some traveling. Has the differences in overseer administrations hindered the fellowship you have in other meetings. My perspective - no, it does not. Emy, I can't begin to answer that, especially with a simple yes or no. You might find a better explanation in the post above. I must say that a spiritual overseer seems like a novel idea.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jan 6, 2011 22:15:38 GMT -5
We're all doing what I've feared on this post - veering from the intent of (former) workers sharing their experiences. And I'm just as guilty as anyone! And yet, how can we separate the experiences of the friends from those of the workers? How can we separate doctrine from every day experience? Life isn't compartmentalized . . . Hello folks, It isn't funny when all I have to read is a few lines of a post to figure out that you who are writing are living on the west coast under Eldon Tenneswood. I grew up under Eldon Tenneswood and George Walker. My the problems!! I went into the work under Murrey Keen and another older overseer who was well looked up to. Our overseer in the state I was in was Peter Hunter. In Indiana, we had on one side, rules and regulations. On the other hand as time passed by we had a spiritual overseer who did away with all rules and regulation, forcing the folks to find their way with God. He did not get involved with the friends day to day lives and instructed his workers to do the same. In the work, we were instructed the same. Rules were not given instead some questions were even side stepped so the friends had to go and pray about the matter. Thanks for posting this, Jen. You have pointed out that it is really a matter of individuals = it is individuals who have imposed rules; it is individuals who have chosen not to impose them. It is individuals who have chosen to develop their own relationship with God, rather than trusting in conformity with rules. It's easy to begin drawing lines, which eventually end up hiding both hurts and kindnesses. This reminds me of Larry Taylor, who is currently the "older" worker here on O'ahu. Though we are no longer attending meetings, I do visit with some of the friends still, and one man has repeatedly told me of the calming effect Larry has had on the field. Larry and I were companions for two years in Micronesia (in the 80s and 90s), and I was happy when I first heard he was coming to this island, as I had confidence that he would not take part in some of the hurtful practices that have gone on here in recent years. I am happy for the friends here. I well understand where you are coming from here, and I do not criticize your position, but I do beg you to listen to and consider what some of us are saying. Because I am no longer attending meetings, I would be placed by many in this group of people who have "lost out." But I - and many in my position - do not consider myself to have lost anything. I do not mean this sarcastically - I gained much from my years in the work - and yet, I am still growing and gaining spiritually. Yes, many of us have struggled with some intense anger, because we have been hurt. But for me, I was actually able to lay that aside and to "move on" once I discontinued meetings. This may not be the right choice for everyone, but I felt God led me to it. I am not out to fight and destroy the fellowship, but neither am I interested in defending it. I am interested in individual connections - community and relationships. I am one of those that "leaned and depended on God," though I understand it may be difficult for many of you to see me as such. But God has taught me much - how to forgive, how to love . . . can we all lay down our defenses, not seeing someone else as wrong or lacking, simply because they are on the other side of a line humans have drawn? It's very difficult to ignore that line when we think in terms of groups, but it becomes very liberating - freeing from a burden - when we think in terms of individuals, and open ourselves to them. Can we make ourselves vulnerable - turning the other cheek - by simply listening, and by interrogating our own culpability in many issues? Let's be careful in saying "the west," or "the east." We each redraw the lines over and over. Individuals have made decisions that have brought results, whether hurtful or helpful. We must examine the past to understand these decisions, in order to make informed decisions ourselves. I might add too that I have "listened to" (in forums mostly) many people from "the east" who also have questioned rules laid down by workers there. Perhaps things have changed, but I would have to say that they have also changed in "the west," as different people have entered the scene. Again, it leads me to an analysis of individual choices, words and actions. I definitely agree that Eldon Tenniswood was quite a "lawgiver," and yet, as I (and John Wegter) mentioned earlier in this post, there was much we highly appreciated that he taught us. When we look at the individual, we even find that each of us is kind of a "mixed bag." I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking your post, Jen - I did find it very helpful, and it seemed like a good "launching pad" for some things I've been trying to articulate.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jan 9, 2011 22:27:14 GMT -5
When we look at the individual, we even find that each of us is kind of a "mixed bag." Al, Thanks so much for this very relevant comment. I can think of a number of things that both my companions and I suggested as practices during my years in the work, though I feel that in most cases "suggestion" would have been more appropriate than "rule", since very few that I can remember were actually give the emphasis of a rule. (Could it be that because of people's level of respect for the suggester, what was never intended as anything more than a suggestion is elevated to "rule" status?) Whatever the case, looking back it's easy to find some that I continue to feel were quite valid, and others that I feel were unwise or misdirected. As you point out, that's a pretty apt description of life in general; nearly everything we experience is a mixed bag to some degree, and life is a continual exercise in filtering and sorting. Paul perhaps had this in mind when he counseled to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." At this point in my experience, I choose to continue attending meetings. Yes, there are things spoken in meetings that are inaccurate, unscriptural, unedifying and/or discouraging. There are at times behaviors that can be frustrating and disappointing. However, in balance, I continue to feel that, for me, the positives outweigh the negatives, and my meeting participation is more blessing than burden. I hope it may ever be so. At the same time, I have known people who found themselves in situations where that was not the case; the mixture in the bag changed to the point that the positives no longer outweighed the negatives. While I mourn the loss to the fellowship when such individuals decide to separate themselves -- usually after long stretches of praying and crying and seeking for resolution -- I also understand a lot of the circumstances that can prompt such a decision, and attempt to respond with care and support instead of condemnation and shunning. I appreciate your effort to keep the discussion balanced, Al, and to refuse the temptation to blanket condemnation of people and practices in the fellowship, even when we find ourselves in direct disagreement with some things we've encountered. I'd like to pursue more the subject of how to deal wisely with the "mixed bag", but that'll be for another thread and another day.
|
|