NZ worker speaks out against CSA

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 15:07:11 GMT -5 toffeecrumble said:

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.

I agree with that. I have no idea what Graham is supposed to apologize for. As far as we know, he didn't commit any of these crimes and we have no idea if he knows who did. He did go as far as criticizing the handling of CSA in Vic/Tas, but that may be the extent of his knowledge of offenses.

Furthermore, Graham is not the mouthpiece for those who do know about the offenses: the overseers. Given his position in the hierarchy (officially quite near the bottom....willingly I understand), he did a great job in speaking about this independently.

[sharonw]

Jun 8, 2012 17:16:40 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 8, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

I have never heard that Graham is guilty of any of that. To demand an apology is to accuse him of guilt.

I agree with that. I have no idea what Graham is supposed to apologize for. As far as we know, he didn't commit any of these crimes and we have no idea if he knows who did. He did go as far as criticizing the handling of CSA in Vic/Tas, but that may be the extent of his knowledge of offenses.

Furthermore, Graham is not the mouthpiece for those who do know about the offenses: the overseers. Given his position in the hierarchy (officially quite near the bottom....willingly I understand), he did a great job in speaking about this independently.

Kind of reminds me of Willis Crane, he was always willing to go forth alone and IF there was a companion it usually was Harold Hollingsworth OR Charlie Mitchell...they were the only two workers that could get along with Willis...of course that may well have been because they were his overseers as well. But anyway, Willis was really a pretty good preacher and not afraid to say it like he saw it!

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 8, 2012 11:36:15 GMT -5 @clearday said:

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.

Have you done this?

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.

I don't think your latter-day cynicism is justified. There are plenty of more likely and less sinister explanations than that. I suppose you don't trust it because with this type of statement they don't come right out and explicitly state that they know for a fact that there are other sincere believers who do things differently and yet have a true relationship with Christ? You've probably considered some of these possible explanations...

1) They know that there are other believers but they're either afraid or they believe that their words would be more effective if they state their position more... hesitantly... or less explicitly. Similar in fact to some of the defenses posted here (possibly including by yourself? I'm not sure) as to why Graham didn't talk about CSA more explicitly than he did -- he said what he thought would get the message through best, without having people reject it outright because of perceived errors in how it was delivered.

2) They believe that some other church groups are 'false' and the people in them generally insincere, however they believe that this does not apply to all church groups and that some of them contain true, sincere believers. However, since they don't actually know any of them on a close personal level they don't feel comfortable stating absolutely that they know those people are Christians.

3) They do believe all other church groups are doing some important things wrong in the way they conduct their meetings and ministry, but nonetheless they believe that some (or many) people in those churches can be and are saved despite the flaws in their organizational structure and methods ... so they don't want to speak too strongly for fear of giving the wrong impression about these (perceived) incorrect ways of conducting church business.

4) They believe there could be other believers but they don't know for sure. They understand that the true gospel of Christ is open to all who accept it but they don't want to do what they consider 'judging' of others' sincerity either in the affirmative or in the negative.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but we're talking about the human mind. Reality varies by individual and probably varying combinations of the above and other thoughts and motivations. This group is not some monolithic entity but a group made up of individual people.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2012 18:03:47 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 11:36:15 GMT -5 @clearday said:

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.

Have you done this?

You bet. I am now on the Twelve Step Program in recovery.

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.

I don't think your latter-day cynicism is justified. There are plenty of more likely and less sinister explanations than that. I suppose you don't trust it because with this type of statement they don't come right out and explicitly state that they know for a fact that there are other sincere believers who do things differently and yet have a true relationship with Christ? You've probably considered some of these possible explanations...

1) They know that there are other believers but they're either afraid or they believe that their words would be more effective if they state their position more... hesitantly... or less explicitly. Similar in fact to some of the defenses posted here (possibly including by yourself? I'm not sure) as to why Graham didn't talk about CSA more explicitly than he did -- he said what he thought would get the message through best, without having people reject it outright because of perceived errors in how it was delivered.

2) They believe that some other church groups are 'false' and the people in them generally insincere, however they believe that this does not apply to all church groups and that some of them contain true, sincere believers. However, since they don't actually know any of them on a close personal level they don't feel comfortable stating absolutely that they know those people are Christians.

3) They do believe all other church groups are doing some important things wrong in the way they conduct their meetings and ministry, but nonetheless they believe that some (or many) people in those churches can be and are saved despite the flaws in their organizational structure and methods ... so they don't want to speak too strongly for fear of giving the wrong impression about these (perceived) incorrect ways of conducting church business.

4) They believe there could be other believers but they don't know for sure. They understand that the true gospel of Christ is open to all who accept it but they don't want to do what they consider 'judging' of others' sincerity either in the affirmative or in the negative.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but we're talking about the human mind. Reality varies by individual and probably varying combinations of the above and other thoughts and motivations.

There is something admirable in your optimism. I fear though that you are not drilling down to the core, not yet anyway but I think you can get there! Start randomly asking some questions of your local elders and some of the long time friends. People are usually happy to say what they believe in friendly settings and if you get the runaround, it is usually pretty obvious.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 8, 2012 16:24:11 GMT -5 sharonw said:

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?

That is certainly not true.

Because that would make their convictions to have to be opposing what they really believe or convicted of.

I'm not sure what you mean by that... are you suggesting that anything truly convinced of the trinity would leave?

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 8, 2012 17:10:51 GMT -5 @clearday said:

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.

Except that you don't have to. Actually, doing so would mean compromising your integrity.

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.

I haven't heard of anyone having to attend for one or two years after gospel meetings before they can be "in fellowship" (by which I would guess you mean speaking in the meetings?). Typically they stand up in a gospel meeting or convention and from then on they start speaking. As to the rest of what could and should be done, I agree.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 8, 2012 18:11:34 GMT -5 @clearday said:

You bet. I am now on the Twelve Step Program in recovery.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean have you "ever invited a serious fellow Christian to attend a Sunday fellowship meeting with me to hear his testimony and take bread and wine together"?

There is something admirable in your optimism. I fear though that you are not drilling down to the core, not yet anyway but I think you can get there! Start randomly asking some questions of your local elders and some of the long time friends. People are usually happy to say what they believe in friendly settings and if you get the runaround, it is usually pretty obvious.

I wouldn't call it optimism, but realism. It should be obvious that beliefs on issues like this would vary between people. I am not even saying that the exclusive position is not held or even that it's not extremely common -- but I don't have reason to question the sincerity of those who speak against it. I think it unlikely they would make comments like that if they didn't believe them.

The comment that one would "never try to judge other Christians as being wrong just because they go to other churches" that was posted actually sounds more like a form of gentle criticism of those who do believe in the exclusivity and and attempt to encourage them to refrain from making such judgments.

[emy]

Jun 8, 2012 13:54:47 GMT -5 snow said:

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.

Many denominational churches have had major splits because the leaders tried to do the right thing (as they saw it). Just ask SharonW - it happened soon after she started attending a new church.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2012 18:25:48 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 17:10:51 GMT -5 @clearday said:

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.

Except that you don't have to. Actually, doing so would mean compromising your integrity.

I take comfort in the fact that I don't have to accept anyone else's faith as my personal faith. If I was forced to affirm all the informal tenets of faith of 2x2ism, I would have to leave. It is for that reason alone I could never become a member of the RCC. However, I do realize I have to acquiesce to certain systemic practices and avoid speaking in public space of meeting on certain tenets of 2x2 faith because it would be counter productive. Since none of those practices and tenets are deal-breakers for me, I have to let them be.

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.

I haven't heard of anyone having to attend for one or two years after gospel meetings before they can be "in fellowship" (by which I would guess you mean speaking in the meetings?). Typically they stand up in a gospel meeting or convention and from then on they start speaking. As to the rest of what could and should be done, I agree.

Again, I think you need to drill down a little deeper on these issues. Watch the process for outsiders if you have new people starting to come in your area. Keep in touch with the workers or the folks who brought them and follow their progress. Try to make your sample size as large as possible so that you can draw some reasonable conclusions. Your local workers will probably tell you all you need at least indirectly.

Your questions you asked tank regarding his previous baptism indicates to me that you are just scratching the surface of how many things operate.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 8, 2012 18:56:59 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 8, 2012 18:25:48 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Except that you don't have to. Actually, doing so would mean compromising your integrity.

I take comfort in the fact that I don't have to accept anyone else's faith as my personal faith. If I was forced to affirm all the informal tenets of faith of 2x2ism, I would have to leave. It is for that reason alone I could never become a member of the RCC. However, I do realize I have to acquiesce to certain systemic practices and avoid speaking in public space of meeting on certain tenets of 2x2 faith because it would be counter productive. Since none of those practices and tenets are deal-breakers for me, I have to let them be.

I haven't heard of anyone having to attend for one or two years after gospel meetings before they can be "in fellowship" (by which I would guess you mean speaking in the meetings?). Typically they stand up in a gospel meeting or convention and from then on they start speaking. As to the rest of what could and should be done, I agree.

Watch the process for outsiders if you have new people starting to come in your area. Keep in touch with the workers or the folks who brought them and follow their progress. Try to make your sample size as large as possible so that you can draw some reasonable conclusions. Your local workers will probably tell you all you need at least indirectly.

Your questions you asked tank regarding his previous baptism indicates to me that you are just scratching the surface of how many things operate.

I'm seeking information about a particular case because I acknowledge that things don't always happen the same way everywhere and I've known first-hand of other situations that went differently (regarding baptism).

I've seen a pretty wide variety of experiences. I've seen one new-comer who was treated pretty badly by a 'worker' and ended up leaving. I've also seen a situation in which a worker made himself available for questions on one occasion but the new person wasn't questioned about baptism or told that he or she had to be baptized again.

I'm familiar enough with one of the local 'workers' that I have a pretty good idea anyway of what his or her position would be -- and it's not good. Anyway, speaking with the 'local workers' doesn't give you a full picture the beliefs of all workers anywhere because they are just one or two individuals with their own opinions. Your point about a large sample size is valid.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2012 18:43:04 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 18:11:34 GMT -5 @clearday said:

You bet. I am now on the Twelve Step Program in recovery.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean have you "ever invited a serious fellow Christian to attend a Sunday fellowship meeting with me to hear his testimony and take bread and wine together"?

Oh, sorry. Yes. It wasn't allowed. She was expected to wait at least until the workers got back from convention rounds four months hence, and then attend gospel meetings after that. I haven't invited any others under those circumstances since in spite of the interest.

There is something admirable in your optimism. I fear though that you are not drilling down to the core, not yet anyway but I think you can get there! Start randomly asking some questions of your local elders and some of the long time friends. People are usually happy to say what they believe in friendly settings and if you get the runaround, it is usually pretty obvious.

I wouldn't call it optimism, but realism. It should be obvious that beliefs on issues like this would vary between people. I am not even saying that the exclusive position is not held or even that it's not extremely common -- but I don't have reason to question the sincerity of those who speak against it. I think it unlikely they would make comments like that if they didn't believe them.

The comment that one would "never try to judge other Christians as being wrong just because they go to other churches" that was posted actually sounds more like a form of gentle criticism of those who do believe in the exclusivity and and attempt to encourage them to refrain from making such judgments.

Yes, there are variances. Among the friends there are definitely non-exclusivists, soft exclusivists and hardline exclusivists.....and probably a few other categories. Among the workers though, there are none who are known active non-exclusivists. If there were any, or any who did not hide it, we would know about it. As I have asked, please name one worker (on this forum or privately) that you know is non-exclusive. That's where the realism emerges.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2012 19:30:25 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 18:56:59 GMT -5 @clearday said:

I take comfort in the fact that I don't have to accept anyone else's faith as my personal faith. If I was forced to affirm all the informal tenets of faith of 2x2ism, I would have to leave. It is for that reason alone I could never become a member of the RCC. However, I do realize I have to acquiesce to certain systemic practices and avoid speaking in public space of meeting on certain tenets of 2x2 faith because it would be counter productive. Since none of those practices and tenets are deal-breakers for me, I have to let them be.

I haven't heard of anyone having to attend for one or two years after gospel meetings before they can be "in fellowship" (by which I would guess you mean speaking in the meetings?). Typically they stand up in a gospel meeting or convention and from then on they start speaking. As to the rest of what could and should be done, I agree.

Watch the process for outsiders if you have new people starting to come in your area. Keep in touch with the workers or the folks who brought them and follow their progress. Try to make your sample size as large as possible so that you can draw some reasonable conclusions. Your local workers will probably tell you all you need at least indirectly.

Your questions you asked tank regarding his previous baptism indicates to me that you are just scratching the surface of how many things operate.

I'm seeking information about a particular case because I acknowledge that things don't always happen the same way everywhere and I've known first-hand of other situations that went differently (regarding baptism).

I've seen a pretty wide variety of experiences. I've seen one new-comer who was treated pretty badly by a 'worker' and ended up leaving. I've also seen a situation in which a worker made himself available for questions on one occasion but the new person wasn't questioned about baptism or told that he or she had to be baptized again.

I'm familiar enough with one of the local 'workers' that I have a pretty good idea anyway of what his or her position would be -- and it's not good. Anyway, speaking with the 'local workers' doesn't give you a full picture the beliefs of all workers anywhere because they are just one or two individuals with their own opinions. Your point about a large sample size is valid.

Observing your local workers is a good start though. I suggested that because from my vantage point, it's a random observation since I have no idea who they are or what country you are in. If you wanted to do a proper evaluation of the whole worker group, others could be enlisted in the evaluation process.

In the case of baptism, the overwhelming worker belief is that you have to be baptized by a worker for a valid baptism. Any exceptions would be so rare as to render their mention meaningless as a representation of the whole group. I would like someone to tell me that the workers mostly (or even a large minority) believe that baptism prior to meeting the workers is as valid as a worker baptism and therefore not required after professing. It just isn't so according a multitude of witnesses.

[snow]

Jun 8, 2012 18:52:11 GMT -5 emy said:

Jun 8, 2012 13:54:47 GMT -5 snow said:

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.

Many denominational churches have had major splits because the leaders tried to do the right thing (as they saw it). Just ask SharonW - it happened soon after she started attending a new church.

Not sure what you mean Emy. Are you saying that maybe it's okay for leaders to hide those who are undermining the stability and credibility of their organization?

[emy]

Jun 8, 2012 20:48:24 GMT -5 snow said:

Jun 8, 2012 18:52:11 GMT -5 emy said:

Many denominational churches have had major splits because the leaders tried to do the right thing (as they saw it). Just ask SharonW - it happened soon after she started attending a new church.

Not sure what you mean Emy. Are you saying that maybe it's okay for leaders to hide those who are undermining the stability and credibility of their organization?

No, I am saying that openly handling problem situations does not keep people from leaving.

[JO]

Jun 8, 2012 22:42:03 GMT -5 emy said:

Jun 8, 2012 20:48:24 GMT -5 snow said:

Not sure what you mean Emy. Are you saying that maybe it's okay for leaders to hide those who are undermining the stability and credibility of their organization?

No, I am saying that openly handling problem situations does not keep people from leaving.

People leaving is not necessarily a bad thing - as long as people are not leaving to distance themselves from ungodliness.

Those who are unwilling to be made accountable for sexual immorality, and for child sexual abuse, are doing the fellowship more harm than good.

If fellowship is not helping us get victory over our sinful human nature then God is not in it.

A gospel of words, not accompanied by the power of God and the spirit of God, is futile.

-------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------

1 Thess 1:4 For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you,

5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.

[jhjmr]

Maybe openly handling things are causing people to leave because it removed their rose colored glasses. How much is feared that if the truth comes out about abuse or anything that is dfferent than taught, then there will be a leaving. So fear of losing the fellowship should be a policy of keeping things under wrap so as to fool the people? Who is fooling who??

[snow]

Jun 8, 2012 22:42:03 GMT -5 emy said:

Jun 8, 2012 20:48:24 GMT -5 snow said:

Not sure what you mean Emy. Are you saying that maybe it's okay for leaders to hide those who are undermining the stability and credibility of their organization?

No, I am saying that openly handling problem situations does not keep people from leaving.

No that's very true. Some people will still leave. However, I think there would be fewer of them if people saw something genuine being done, don't you agree? Keeping from doing something because they are afraid people will leave is not a very good reason for allowing assaults to continue. People need to know there is a genuine effort being made and that effort needs to be visible in order to have an effect. jmo of course.

[sharonw]

Jun 8, 2012 18:17:32 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 8, 2012 16:24:11 GMT -5 sharonw said:

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?

That is certainly not true.

Because that would make their convictions to have to be opposing what they really believe or convicted of.

I'm not sure what you mean by that... are you suggesting that anything truly convinced of the trinity would leave?

Why would they want to stay because the fellowship does NOT accept the trinity concept...that concept is adverse to the 2x2 religion's view of Jesus.

[sharonw]

Jun 8, 2012 18:52:11 GMT -5 emy said:

Jun 8, 2012 13:54:47 GMT -5 snow said:

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.

Many denominational churches have had major splits because the leaders tried to do the right thing (as they saw it). Just ask SharonW - it happened soon after she started attending a new church.

Emy, this is partly true with my experience with the new curch...however it doesn't quite cover the whole issue. The issue was never about money says the offended minister, it was about recognizing his responsibilities to the duties he had acquired since first being hired.

As it turned out, actually the finance committee should have NEVER put the okay to the residential minister's advice to increase the youth minister's salary. It should have come before the board of directors as a suggestion to vote on...but the residential minister bypassed all of that, and it turns out by intentional purposes....he knew the whole ramifications of what his suggestion would be...thus it ended up being a way for him to get rid of the youth minister without him having to say a public word about it.....his suggestion to the finance committee turned up sour grapes all the way around and the way the youth minister learned all of this was AFTER the salary was already sealed by said finance committee but the board still had not voted on it and when it came up, then everyone wanted to complain that other staff members had not been granted a raise either....this hurt the youth minister to the utlimate degree, I know, for I sat there where I could see the pain turn him inside out. So he and some of the more affluent members took off and developed their own little fellowship.....the church lost a number of very good members....the church is not doing so good now...they cannot retain an organist and they don't have a youth minister anymore...etc.

The residential preacher knew what he surely was doing in tryin to get rid of the youth minister, but he sure was dumb in what that would cost the whole church......even I have not been back but one time since that all fell apart. Furthermore I don't think I will...there's been more troubles brought about an uncaring residential minister...they need to replace him or that church will go down....

[emy]

Keeping from doing something because they are afraid people will leave is not a very good reason for allowing assaults to continue.

I totally agree. However, where we may disagree is that I don't think this is why situations are handled quietly.

[snow]

Jun 9, 2012 14:00:26 GMT -5 emy said:

Keeping from doing something because they are afraid people will leave is not a very good reason for allowing assaults to continue.

I totally agree. However, where we may disagree is that I don't think this is why situations are handled quietly.

In some ways I do understand why they would be handled quietly. For the victims sake. However, I think sometimes it was also done to protect the aggressor and that I think is a problem. It's a hard issue and I do feel for anyone who is in the position of having to make these calls. Leadership is tough sometimes, but if you choose to be a leader, you need to realize you also choose to handle and make tough decisions in that position.

[sharonw]

Jun 8, 2012 22:42:03 GMT -5 emy said:

Jun 8, 2012 20:48:24 GMT -5 snow said:

Not sure what you mean Emy. Are you saying that maybe it's okay for leaders to hide those who are undermining the stability and credibility of their organization?

No, I am saying that openly handling problem situations does not keep people from leaving.

But that was not the issue in the church I witnessed. Going secretly behind the board of directors to get someone a raise was not the way to do such business in this church...things like that are to be voted on by the board of directors, period!

So my experience does not hold up your thought.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 9, 2012 9:23:26 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Why would they want to stay because the fellowship does NOT accept the trinity concept...that concept is adverse to the 2x2 religion's view of Jesus.

I don't see why anyone would leave a Christian church group specifically because they believe one of the doctrines of that group (for example, about the trinity). If some member decided he didn't believe in the trinity then he might decide to leave if he didn't see any reason to be in a church group that served a God he didn't believe in.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 9, 2012 9:32:23 GMT -5 sharonw said:

The issue was never about money says the offended minister, it was about recognizing his responsibilities to the duties he had acquired since first being hired.

Well, recognizing them with money, of course.

As it turned out, actually the finance committee should have NEVER put the okay to the residential minister's advice to increase the youth minister's salary. It should have come before the board of directors as a suggestion to vote on...but the residential minister bypassed all of that, and it turns out by intentional purposes....he knew the whole ramifications of what his suggestion would be...thus it ended up being a way for him to get rid of the youth minister without him having to say a public word about it.....his suggestion to the finance committee turned up sour grapes all the way around and the way the youth minister learned all of this was AFTER the salary was already sealed by said finance committee but the board still had not voted on it and when it came up, then everyone wanted to complain that other staff members had not been granted a raise either....this hurt the youth minister to the utlimate degree, I know, for I sat there where I could see the pain turn him inside out. So he and some of the more affluent members took off and developed their own little fellowship.....the church lost a number of very good members....the church is not doing so good now...they cannot retain an organist and they don't have a youth minister anymore...etc.

Our church doesn't have either one and we're doing fine.

Sounds like a pretty bad situation all around.

By the way, what's a residential minister? Is that the head pastor or one of many or a specific role having to do with the word 'residential' somehow?

[sharonw]

Jun 9, 2012 18:19:52 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 9, 2012 9:23:26 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Why would they want to stay because the fellowship does NOT accept the trinity concept...that concept is adverse to the 2x2 religion's view of Jesus.

I don't see why anyone would leave a Christian church group specifically because they believe one of the doctrines of that group (for example, about the trinity). If some member decided he didn't believe in the trinity then he might decide to leave if he didn't see any reason to be in a church group that served a God he didn't believe in.

I think that all depends on what or who is most important to tha person as in a spiritual life. When trinitarians believe that concept, Jesus in all His glories is the most important person to them in their spirituality....the love of God is very strong for those believers because they've begun to understand just ALL that it did cost Jesus to leave His glory on high and come down and made into something lower then the angels. WOW! Is often most of our feelings! It is almost impossible to describe what Jesus does mean to us.

And I'm not trying to knock other thoughts in regards to their spirituality.....

[sharonw]

Jun 9, 2012 19:47:28 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

Jun 9, 2012 9:32:23 GMT -5 sharonw said:

The issue was never about money says the offended minister, it was about recognizing his responsibilities to the duties he had acquired since first being hired.

Well, recognizing them with money, of course.

As it turned out, actually the finance committee should have NEVER put the okay to the residential minister's advice to increase the youth minister's salary. It should have come before the board of directors as a suggestion to vote on...but the residential minister bypassed all of that, and it turns out by intentional purposes....he knew the whole ramifications of what his suggestion would be...thus it ended up being a way for him to get rid of the youth minister without him having to say a public word about it.....his suggestion to the finance committee turned up sour grapes all the way around and the way the youth minister learned all of this was AFTER the salary was already sealed by said finance committee but the board still had not voted on it and when it came up, then everyone wanted to complain that other staff members had not been granted a raise either....this hurt the youth minister to the utlimate degree, I know, for I sat there where I could see the pain turn him inside out. So he and some of the more affluent members took off and developed their own little fellowship.....the church lost a number of very good members....the church is not doing so good now...they cannot retain an organist and they don't have a youth minister anymore...etc.

Our church doesn't have either one and we're doing fine.

Sounds like a pretty bad situation all around.

By the way, what's a residential minister? Is that the head pastor or one of many or a specific role having to do with the word 'residential' somehow?

Yes, it means that the church is responsible for this minister's having a home...and yes, he is lead pastor or senior pastor though that doesn't really fit either for we have a pastoral pastor who is much older then the head pastor. But the residence of the top official is part of his salary.

[calleduntoliberty]

Jun 9, 2012 19:53:06 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Jun 9, 2012 18:19:52 GMT -5 calleduntoliberty said:

I don't see why anyone would leave a Christian church group specifically because they believe one of the doctrines of that group (for example, about the trinity). If some member decided he didn't believe in the trinity then he might decide to leave if he didn't see any reason to be in a church group that served a God he didn't believe in.

I think that all depends on what or who is most important to tha person as in a spiritual life. When trinitarians believe that concept, Jesus in all His glories is the most important person to them in their spirituality....the love of God is very strong for those believers because they've begun to understand just ALL that it did cost Jesus to leave His glory on high and come down and made into something lower then the angels. WOW! Is often most of our feelings! It is almost impossible to describe what Jesus does mean to us.

And I'm not trying to knock other thoughts in regards to their spirituality.....

Sure...... but none of that explains why someone who believes in the trinity would cease to have fellowship with a group of other people who believe in the trinity.

[JO]

Jun 9, 2012 19:53:06 GMT -5 sharonw said:

I think that all depends on what or who is most important to tha person as in a spiritual life. When trinitarians believe that concept, Jesus in all His glories is the most important person to them in their spirituality....the love of God is very strong for those believers because they've begun to understand just ALL that it did cost Jesus to leave His glory on high and come down and made into something lower then the angels. WOW! Is often most of our feelings! It is almost impossible to describe what Jesus does mean to us.

None of that is exclusive to trinitarians.