|
|
Post by quizzer on Jun 8, 2012 9:10:48 GMT -5
Indeed, Abraham Lincoln was in favor of universal sexual abuse. You gotta watch that ram, he can be very witty. CSA = Confederate States of America Yesss! The South shall ride again! |
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jun 8, 2012 9:13:44 GMT -5
When the rules against electronic devices were lifted in my area, the overseer made the announcement at the end of the Saturday afternoon meeting at convention. Highest population, highest authority. Interesting. What did he say? "Rule number 382 has been repealed?" Or what? Hey, remember this was convention! After a couple of days, none of us professing folk can count that high! I don't remember the exact wording, but to paraphrase: In the past, we have had concerns about electronic devices such as computers, television sets, cell phones. We are going to lay these concerns to rest, and leave the usage of these devices to the individual conscience. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 8, 2012 9:46:34 GMT -5
Interesting. What did he say? "Rule number 382 has been repealed?" Or what? Hey, remember this was convention! After a couple of days, none of us professing folk can count that high! I don't remember the exact wording, but to paraphrase: In the past, we have had concerns about electronic devices such as computers, television sets, cell phones. We are going to lay these concerns to rest, and leave the usage of these devices to the individual conscience. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 8, 2012 10:05:21 GMT -5
Let's not beat around the bushes and try to fool one another on that issue with a biblical vs un-biblical argument. Workers all believe they are in the only right ministry and associated with the only right fellowship.....plain and simple. If it was any other way, it would be plainly obvious in both their words and their actions. There is a form of Biblical exclusiveness and there are forms of un-Biblical exclusiveness. Acknowledging that fact and stating it to clarify one's point has nothing to do with any of the implied accusations you're throwing around. You said "strongly opposed". That implies actively working to spread the exclusivity belief, not simply that they're not making it "plainly obvious" that they don't believe in it. The fact is, it's fairly uncommon for it to be spoken on in a highway suggestive manner and very uncommon for it to be stated explicitly. That doesn't mean that there's not 95% (or 100%) that believe it, but most of them are not very strongly teaching it. How many are out there that don't believe in the exclusivity but don't talk about it either because they're afraid of the intimidation or retribution so often talked about on these boards? Sure, you might make a case against their integrity, but you can't say that they "strongly oppose" inclusiveness, nor can you claim you really have any idea how many are out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 10:11:53 GMT -5
So let's say believe in the trinity and the vast majority of preachers in the group are preaching the trinity and this worker were preaching against it. You'd be more trusting of him because he's a heretic? .......... What a few people don't understand is that it is most important to get your integrity right first and foremost, then you work on getting your beliefs and teachings right. It is a disaster if the second tries to go before the first. In fact, it is a soul-killer. That's an interesting way to put it, but I agree. If what you believe is the result of what you've been told to believe and nothing more, all you have is a mantra. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 10:13:40 GMT -5
You gotta watch that ram, he can be very witty. CSA = Confederate States of America Yesss! The South shall ride again! The South shall ride again? I love horses...I'm moving South~ |
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 8, 2012 11:14:14 GMT -5
The belief in the exclusive ministry and fellowship in the form of the Friends and Workers meetings and conventions is a bedrock belief of all known workers at this time. Let's not beat around the bushes and try to fool one another on that issue with a biblical vs un-biblical argument. Workers all believe they are in the only right ministry and associated with the only right fellowship.....plain and simple. If it was any other way, it would be plainly obvious in both their words and their actions. There may be some who don't believe it but they don't talk about it so they cannot be identified if they exist. I have heard one worker - at convention - say that, while he believed "this" was right, and that's why he was in the work, he would never try to judge other Christians as being wrong just because they go to other churches. So, I am certain you are wrong when you say the belief in the "exclusive" ministry is a bedrock belief of "all known workers." (I don't remember who it was...he was an older visiting brother worker that I don't know.) So what you mean is you trust that person to be speaking what he truly believes...not that you trust him to be right. At least, I hope that's what you mean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 11:26:42 GMT -5
Individuals on TMB often like to believe that CSA is a problem of bad apples in the work and bad apples are in all religions, and THAT IS TRUE. Many of them deny that there has been a culture of secrecy that has allowed victims to suffer and perps to be promoted to "places of responsibility in God's Way". They blame the individuals and will NOT blame the system that has allowed problems to be hidden for years if not decades. There are a few here who will defend any efforts of the workers to hide, cover up, and keep the fellowship low profile and secretive. It is in dark secretive places that abuse can thrive and survive. Change the CULTURE. The workers who warned their friends to be secretive so notes, lists, convention photos (help us), and speaking lists out of wrong hands created a culture of silence and secrecy.
Overseers need to be the ones to blaze the path of honesty and openess. And accountability and accessibility. Thanks to the evil internet and enemies of truth websites, there has been a small amount of openess and accountability. And if we listen to one or two here and get worker's permission on everything we say and do, we will go backwards and not forwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 11:28:26 GMT -5
Let's not beat around the bushes and try to fool one another on that issue with a biblical vs un-biblical argument. Workers all believe they are in the only right ministry and associated with the only right fellowship.....plain and simple. If it was any other way, it would be plainly obvious in both their words and their actions. There is a form of Biblical exclusiveness and there are forms of un-Biblical exclusiveness. Acknowledging that fact and stating it to clarify one's point has nothing to do with any of the implied accusations you're throwing around. You said "strongly opposed". That implies actively working to spread the exclusivity belief, not simply that they're not making it "plainly obvious" that they don't believe in it. The fact is, it's fairly uncommon for it to be spoken on in a highway suggestive manner and very uncommon for it to be stated explicitly. That doesn't mean that there's not 95% (or 100%) that believe it, but most of them are not very strongly teaching it. How many are out there that don't believe in the exclusivity but don't talk about it either because they're afraid of the intimidation or retribution so often talked about on these boards? Sure, you might make a case against their integrity, but you can't say that they "strongly oppose" inclusiveness, nor can you claim you really have any idea how many are out there. While it is true that the preaching of an exclusive 2x2 ministry and church in the home is not as obvious as it once was, the "strong opposition" to non-exclusivity has hardly abated. I am strongly opposed to many issues but I don't go around mouthing it off unless it is an appropriate time and place. In fact, this is an even worse condition: to be strong exclusivists who believe that you must profess through a worker but won't come right out and disclose that to new people who are examining your beliefs. This occurs all the time under the auspices of "they aren't ready for that yet". It is a deceptive practice All exclusiveness should be disclosed early on in any relationship between workers and seeking outsiders who are listening to the message. Workers don't need need to wear an exclusivist sign on themselves, but it is appropriate and should be essential that they tell people they must profess through a worker to be saved, then participate in the fellowship of the F&Ws only. I would like to hear the name (either here or in private) of one active worker who recognizes valid Christian faith in people who are active in churches other than the meetings.....and accept them fully as fellow Christians. Just one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 11:36:15 GMT -5
The belief in the exclusive ministry and fellowship in the form of the Friends and Workers meetings and conventions is a bedrock belief of all known workers at this time. Let's not beat around the bushes and try to fool one another on that issue with a biblical vs un-biblical argument. Workers all believe they are in the only right ministry and associated with the only right fellowship.....plain and simple. If it was any other way, it would be plainly obvious in both their words and their actions. There may be some who don't believe it but they don't talk about it so they cannot be identified if they exist. I have heard one worker - at convention - say that, while he believed "this" was right, and that's why he was in the work, he would never try to judge other Christians as being wrong just because they go to other churches. So, I am certain you are wrong when you say the belief in the "exclusive" ministry is a bedrock belief of "all known workers." (I don't remember who it was...he was an older visiting brother worker that I don't know.) Actually, the statement of "we don't judge" is not uncommon. However, if I ever invited a serious fellow Christian to attend a Sunday fellowship meeting with me to hear his testimony and take bread and wine together, all of a sudden, we do judge......and quite harshly I might add. I have floated the idea around that the line of "we don't judge" is an indicator of a softening of the exclusive stance and thought that might be the case. However, I'm more inclined now to believe that it is used as a deflector to hide the exclusivity rather than real evidence of acceptance of Christian faith outside the meetings. Absolutely. It means I am seeing markers of honesty, that's all. We should never automatically trust anything we hear, we should always test it for soundness as well as honesty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 11:40:20 GMT -5
.......... What a few people don't understand is that it is most important to get your integrity right first and foremost, then you work on getting your beliefs and teachings right. It is a disaster if the second tries to go before the first. In fact, it is a soul-killer. That's an interesting way to put it, but I agree. If what you believe is the result of what you've been told to believe and nothing more, all you have is a mantra. I speak from experience of getting it backwards. It really is something that requires repositioning and healing. The interesting thing is that the search for inner integrity is a life long process and it is manifested by a continual readjustment of beliefs, sometimes small, sometimes large. However, changing one's beliefs is not traumatic as long as it comes from an inner integrity. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 8, 2012 12:03:07 GMT -5
CSA happens in many organizations, religious or otherwise. The reason why we hear about the religous side of it more it that we all think they should be above this kind of thing. Of course that's ridiculous for all organizations are made up of humans. It should never be hidden, always exposed and have repercussions and those in positions of authority must learn how to deal with it in their organizations if they think they are leaders. It is a responsibility. Maybe it is worse in the religions because of the mindset held within these institutions. Somehow they are believed to be 'above' that sort of thing and it's a long way to 'fall' so it needs to be denied and hidden so no one thinks 'badly' or their 'reputation' isn't tarnished to the outside world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 12:10:55 GMT -5
It is worse in exclusive sects because people are told that "this kind of thing doesn't happen in God's way". Which is silly because like you say, HUMAN are in the fellowship and work. Again, the culture of secrecy must change. Overseers need to be accessible and accountable. The old way of "keep it quiet so worldlings won't think God's people are just like the false churches" BS needs to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 8, 2012 13:41:05 GMT -5
Actually, the statement of "we don't judge" is not uncommon. However, if I ever invited a serious fellow Christian to attend a Sunday fellowship meeting with me to hear his testimony and take bread and wine together, all of a sudden, we do judge......and quite harshly I might add. Are the people who talk about not judging the same people you see judging? Also, I'm not convinced that not wanting visitors to take part in meeting and take wine together is a conscious judgement in all cases, so much as "that's how things have always been done." I've been in situations where the elder of the meeting at first followed the more common practice of excluding visitors from the bread and wine, but later changed his actions once it was discussed and he actually thought about what he was doing. I did think that the brother worker I heard was more specific and sincere sounding than that, but it has been long enough that I can't really remember enough of what he said to say for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 8, 2012 13:45:44 GMT -5
I've seen situations where this belief was discussed fairly early on (probably still not early enough - the visitor was pretty perplexed by the treatment she received from the workers before this was explained).
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 8, 2012 13:47:53 GMT -5
Marches to his own drummer, or to the Spirit of God? I hope it's the latter. Very well said! |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 8, 2012 13:54:47 GMT -5
It is worse in exclusive sects because people are told that "this kind of thing doesn't happen in God's way". Which is silly because like you say, HUMAN are in the fellowship and work. Again, the culture of secrecy must change. Overseers need to be accessible and accountable. The old way of "keep it quiet so worldlings won't think God's people are just like the false churches" BS needs to change. Yes I agree, secrecy is not an option. It must become transparent around these issues. Zero tolerance in the end is always a win win. It's when the leaders hide things that people leave. If they see them doing the right thing they are more inclined to stay and help the leaders weed out the ones causing the problems. It truly is in their best interests to quit protecting those that are causing the problems. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 13:57:58 GMT -5
Actually, the statement of "we don't judge" is not uncommon. However, if I ever invited a serious fellow Christian to attend a Sunday fellowship meeting with me to hear his testimony and take bread and wine together, all of a sudden, we do judge......and quite harshly I might add. Are the people who talk about not judging the same people you see judging? Also, I'm not convinced that not wanting visitors to take part in meeting and take wine together is a conscious judgement in all cases, so much as "that's how things have always been done." I've been in situations where the elder of the meeting at first followed the more common practice of excluding visitors from the bread and wine, but later changed his actions once it was discussed and he actually thought about what he was doing. I think that it is pretty universal that we expect anyone, no matter their faith background, to attend a series of gospel meetings, then stand up and profess their faith in Christ. Any exception to this is extremely rare. We simply don't accept the validity of the Christian faith of people outside the meetings, no matter what they say or how deep is their understanding. It is not acceptable anywhere. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if we accepted the faith of Christians outside the meetings, it would be abundantly clear by what we say and do. There wouldn't be any doubt about it. Instead, we are grasping at straws to try to explain that we aren't so exclusive by saying "we don't judge". Obviously, the goal of "we don't judge" is admirable. However, our words and actions prove otherwise. I want it to be true, but it just isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 8, 2012 14:48:38 GMT -5
Clearday, I think you are using "we" rather vaguely, as your statements don't seem to be descriptive of yourself. And not me either! I think that what you are describing is common, but I would not say it is universal. Maybe extremely rare, as you said, but that is kind of hard to say, since it isn't explicitly discussed much.
One of the things the visitor I referred to earlier was perplexed about was why she was told she had to wait for gospel meetings, which weren't able to start for a couple of months. She was interested in coming to start with because she wanted to go to the fellowship meetings in the home!
|
|
|
|
Post by toffeecrumble on Jun 8, 2012 15:07:11 GMT -5
Can't believe so many applauding this speech! Where does this Graham whoever say that workers will be immediately dismissed from the work and reported to the authorities if involved with abuse of children? Where is the apology for abuse which has been denied/ swept under the carpet over the years?
The whole speeh is too vague and not specific enough.
Head workers need to be seen and heard condeming abuse against children in the clearest and strongest terms with sincere promises of uncompromising action against offenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 8, 2012 16:20:47 GMT -5
yea, yea, some of the rest of us found kiwi's words a bit negative!  What do you expect when you are sitting in your ivory seat pointing you big finger at others from one who does no wrong? Even if I were proclaimed Queen of all time, I would not want or keep an "ivory seat"....unless you're talking of skin tones!  |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 8, 2012 16:24:11 GMT -5
So let's say believe in the trinity and the vast majority of preachers in the group are preaching the trinity and this worker were preaching against it. You'd be more trusting of him because he's a heretic? My explanation was pretty clear but I will try again since it was not clearly received. A person who is willing to stand up for what they believe is more trustworthy. It speaks of their integrity, not their intelligence, wisdom or ability to discern right from wrong doctrine. The belief in the exclusive ministry and fellowship in the form of the Friends and Workers meetings and conventions is a bedrock belief of all known workers at this time. Let's not beat around the bushes and try to fool one another on that issue with a biblical vs un-biblical argument. Workers all believe they are in the only right ministry and associated with the only right fellowship.....plain and simple. If it was any other way, it would be plainly obvious in both their words and their actions. There may be some who don't believe it but they don't talk about it so they cannot be identified if they exist. Certainly if that's what really influences and motivates them, yeah. But I don't think a person is more credible for teaching a false doctrine that opposes the majority. It might 'prove' that he's not merely following the crowd, but he's still a false teacher. [/quote] Again, at the risk of repeating myself, standing up for what you believe in the midst of a crowd that believes otherwise speaks very highly of your integrity. It speaks nothing of whether or not your belief is nutty or righteous. What a few people don't understand is that it is most important to get your integrity right first and foremost, then you work on getting your beliefs and teachings right. It is a disaster if the second tries to go before the first. In fact, it is a soul-killer.[/quote] Looking at that in that way seems to say to me that no one really believes in the Trinity and stays in the fellowship! eh? Because that would make their convictions to have to be opposing what they really believe or convicted of. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 8, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5
Where is the apology for abuse which has been denied/ swept under the carpet over the years? I have never heard that Graham is guilty of any of that. To demand an apology is to accuse him of guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 8, 2012 16:32:12 GMT -5
Marches to his own drummer, or to the Spirit of God? I hope it's the latter. Very well said! Don't make war over it..."marching to one's own drummer" is actually an old saying that the person so described is comfortable in their own skin and their own convictions...if you have to make it all come in religious words! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jun 8, 2012 16:37:04 GMT -5
Can't believe so many applauding this speech! Where does this Graham whoever say that workers will be immediately dismissed from the work and reported to the authorities if involved with abuse of children? Where is the apology for abuse which has been denied/ swept under the carpet over the years? The whole speeh is too vague and not specific enough. Head workers need to be seen and heard condeming abuse against children in the clearest and strongest terms with sincere promises of uncompromising action against offenders. I think that the above comments are the very reason Graham's sermon is so very well thought out. Graham was speaking to a wide collection of believes and practices that say anything to do with "sex" is never spoken about on the platform.....nor is the word "abuse" to be spoken of above a whisper...so putting the two of them together in a non-offensive way is certainly the beginning of paving the right way to bring things out into the open that have been held in secret for many years. I suspect if Graham had been more explicit in his sermon, he migth well have been hung by supper by those listening to him...he certainly might well have been kicked out of the work. Graham knew just how explicit he could take it without offending his superiors in the work as well as those in the audience...if he'd been more explicit many would have swooned and swore that such words should not be spoken in the hearing of innocent children...regardless it being something that was to protect them. |
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jun 8, 2012 17:05:16 GMT -5
Hey, remember this was convention! After a couple of days, none of us professing folk can count that high! I don't remember the exact wording, but to paraphrase: In the past, we have had concerns about electronic devices such as computers, television sets, cell phones. We are going to lay these concerns to rest, and leave the usage of these devices to the individual conscience. Thanks. Sure! However, the aftermath of this was interesting. Several professing folks immediately embraced the idea. Some of the hearty professing families did not. When these hearty professing families would have professing visitors from other areas, there was often the whispered, "Welll...they have teeeveees, so you don't want to associate with that..." As a result, the statment had a strange impact. You could still be shunned for having a TV set even when the overseer and workers were fine with TV sets. Then, the overseer was changed and the next overseer had no clue or care about what was said. So, the best practice would be for a series of overseers to make announcements at the same time when the rules change. Maybe that will have a more lasting impact. That being said, I'm preparing to enjoy summer reruns. Maybe we can all discuss them at convention when the overseers make those long-overdue announcements. |
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 8, 2012 17:06:25 GMT -5
Can't believe so many applauding this speech! Where does this Graham whoever say that workers will be immediately dismissed from the work and reported to the authorities if involved with abuse of children? Where is the apology for abuse which has been denied/ swept under the carpet over the years? The whole speeh is too vague and not specific enough. Head workers need to be seen and heard condeming abuse against children in the clearest and strongest terms with sincere promises of uncompromising action against offenders. It is valuable in addressing the issue that the friends and workers are not immune from this sort of crime, and that people shouldn't be absolutely trusting of other friends and workers just because they are in the fellowship |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 17:10:51 GMT -5
Clearday, I think you are using "we" rather vaguely, as your statements don't seem to be descriptive of yourself. And not me either! I think that what you are describing is common, but I would not say it is universal. Maybe extremely rare, as you said, but that is kind of hard to say, since it isn't explicitly discussed much. Yes you're right, "we'' was probably not the perfect word for what I was trying to convey. When I said "we" I meant more like "our church policy", but since we don't have a formal policy, it becomes an informal policy that everyone has to buy into whether they like it or not. So "we" does include me indirectly since I am a participating member of the meetings and I have to acquiesce to it. I have seen that and run into it time and time again. I see a need for a series of gospel meeting necessary for people who don't believe in Christ and want to know the story. However, there is good reason for a believer whose beliefs are effectively the same as F&Ws to be perplexed about waiting months for gospel meetings and then having to attend for one or two years before they "get it" and can be in fellowship with the friends. It really makes no sense at all. A couple of workers or an elder can vet those people by checking their understanding and disclosing our beliefs and practices. A couple of hours at the most perhaps, and they would have an existing believer in harmony with the friends, ready to share in our house meetings. For those who don't know about Christ and/or haven't accepted his teachings and spirit, sure, a gospel meeting or 50 gospel meetings might be necessary to bring them up to speed on the faith.....then they can decide if it is for them. |
|
