|
Post by sacerdotal on Jun 22, 2012 10:08:55 GMT -5
As my chicken farmer friend and I talked the other day about Christ and the scriptures, he mentioned how disgusted he had became with religion and churches. The church that he had attended had an annual budget of $1,000,000. He said the budget was a hoax, there was no way that they would ever bring in $1,000,000 to cover the budget and they didn't. So, the next year the budget was $800,000. $200,000 went to the preacher. The rest went to paying the salaries of a large staff, and some to building upkeep and installment payments. That left NONE for helping anyone in the church that might need help. Or anyone in the community that might could use some help. He found the whole thing wholly corrupt and self-serving. He did say that the church donated $500 to the Baptist food bank and felt pretty good about themselves for that contribution.
So, he left. And he and a doctor and a lawyer in the area, that also hunger and thirst after righteousness, started up a food bank to distribute food to the poor. And they personally deliver the food directly to the poor in the worst parts of the city. They knock on the door, and give them as much food as they want. And if the person asks why they do what they do, then they share a little bit about Christ out of the scriptures. He told me that even if they do not purchase any more food, they have enough in the warehouse today to cover giving food out for all of next year. They do not get 1 cent from doing what they do. No one is even reimbursed for gas mileage for driving to deliver the food. No money is collected.
He and his two friends started to meet in a local restaurant on Sundays at 10am. They invite the drug addicts, alcholics, prostitutes, the poor, and ANYONE that wants to come, come. They serve breakfast and then at 10:30 they have a meeting where they share what God had laid upon their heart during the week. He showed me pictures- it looked as if about 12 people were there. To me, this is what true religion is. Helping the widows, the fatherless, the poor, the needy, our neighbors without judgement or condemnation. Let him that is athirst, come.
I am as disgusted as him about Christian denominations that profit off the name of Jesus. Drawing a $200,000 salary is profiting off of Jesus.
I am glad that there are still folks that are moved by the Holy Spirit to be a help, with no thought of gain for themselves or even accept any glory for what they do. As my chicken farmer friend likes to say, I became a Christian not because I could, but because I couldn't. I think that that says it all.
|
|
bulsi
Junior Member
WHAT WE DO IN LIFE ECHOES IN ETERNITY !
Posts: 197
|
Post by bulsi on Jun 22, 2012 14:54:06 GMT -5
No surprise.... When MONEY is involved you need transparency
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jun 23, 2012 8:08:06 GMT -5
Sad - the love of money is the root of all evil... $200K would support a lavish lifestyle - or several missionaries in areas of need. Very Sad...
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Jun 23, 2012 8:52:52 GMT -5
Our pastor's total compensation package, including the parsonage (housing) is a little over $70k. Pretty sure he tithes 10% back. This past year he initiated a program with the school lunch department and the local ministerial association to send food home for the weekend for needy kids where through no fault of the kids' (though perhaps fault of the parents') they'd go hungry. It's funded through donations.
One can always find scattered examples to prove their point -- either way. It's silliness. If you want to pick out a few examples of corruption in denominations and extrapolate to damn the whole, then apply the same standard to the workers. Think their are a few bad apples there? Should you extrapolate from that to damn the whole bunch? If not, then why do you do so for pastors outside your group. It's silliness, either direction.
Love God. Love your neighbors. Pretty sure #2 implies keep your trap shut.
BTW, I also raise chickens, so I should be qualified to render such sage advice as was the OP's friend. :-)
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Jun 23, 2012 9:28:17 GMT -5
Our pastor's total compensation package, including the parsonage (housing) is a little over $70k. Pretty sure he tithes 10% back. This past year he initiated a program with the school lunch department and the local ministerial association to send food home for the weekend for needy kids where through no fault of the kids' (though perhaps fault of the parents') they'd go hungry. It's funded through donations. One can always find scattered examples to prove their point -- either way. It's silliness. If you want to pick out a few examples of corruption in denominations and extrapolate to damn the whole, then apply the same standard to the workers. Think their are a few bad apples there? Should you extrapolate from that to damn the whole bunch? If not, then why do you do so for pastors outside your group. It's silliness, either direction. Love God. Love your neighbors. Pretty sure #2 implies keep your trap shut. BTW, I also raise chickens, so I should be qualified to render such sage advice as was the OP's friend. :-) Yes, my ex-elder loved to tell about a crazy church he attended once and then apply that to all churches. It's like saying all workers are child molesters or rape sister workers. Yes, it is disgusting to profit like that off the name of Jesus. It's a good thing that $200k preacher wasn't hiding the finances so your friend you could see the corruption and make the choice to leave. What a wonderful thing he is doing in his community to care for the desperate, wounded and hurting. May Jesus been seen by those he helps!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 23, 2012 9:47:37 GMT -5
Our pastor's total compensation package, including the parsonage (housing) is a little over $70k. Pretty sure he tithes 10% back. This past year he initiated a program with the school lunch department and the local ministerial association to send food home for the weekend for needy kids where through no fault of the kids' (though perhaps fault of the parents') they'd go hungry. It's funded through donations. One can always find scattered examples to prove their point -- either way. It's silliness. If you want to pick out a few examples of corruption in denominations and extrapolate to damn the whole, then apply the same standard to the workers. Think their are a few bad apples there? Should you extrapolate from that to damn the whole bunch? If not, then why do you do so for pastors outside your group. It's silliness, either direction. Love God. Love your neighbors. Pretty sure #2 implies keep your trap shut. BTW, I also raise chickens, so I should be qualified to render such sage advice as was the OP's friend. :-) Anyone qualifies to do what Jesus said. From the rich young ruler all the way down to the widow with two mites. "Give and it shall be given to you..." "Whoever has this world's goods and sees someone in need and does not have compassion, how does the Holy Spirit dwell in him?" The men whom Sacerdotal described are going out in faith more than many(most) of the workers. The gospel that I preached as worker and heard others preach does not render what I see those three men doing. I have NEVER even KNOWN of any of the friends or workers making such a concerted effort to meet the needs of the poor and hungry and compromised people (like those drug addicts). I did have a companion who said that preaching in prison was the nearest he had ever seen to "casting pearls before swine." He is an overseer now. I truly hope he repents of that attitude and can respect other preachers who have a special calling to do what he cannot(or will not?)
|
|
bulsi
Junior Member
WHAT WE DO IN LIFE ECHOES IN ETERNITY !
Posts: 197
|
Post by bulsi on Jun 23, 2012 10:04:51 GMT -5
That's good Will. Looks like your Church has full disclosure with it's members Here's an example if a Worker is in charge of a State he could set up a Swiss bank account. During his time in that State many older friends could have left money to the "Truth". Now what if that Worker leaves like getting kicked out .........No one would know!! No kidding its run like the Mafia no one knows except those giving and receiving. Big problem because if these men are getting kicked out for short comings for Sex, Money is not far behind! MMMMMMMMMMMMM PS. Just an example not implying no names to this.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 23, 2012 10:49:07 GMT -5
If an overseer is wanting to raise money for himself, it is easy. No one knows what the next is giving. Everyone wants to help out if there is a "need" and it is the overseer whom they trust to know about the needs.
So if an overseer says that the convention grounds needs an upgrade, thousands of dollars to skim from will pour in.
But if an overseer were doing such a thing, the other friends, elders and overseers would surely detect that and he would lose his place in the work and perhaps even be put out of the meetings. Especially if there was any chance he "robbed widows' houses" or robbed the poor.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 23, 2012 10:56:04 GMT -5
Our pastor's total compensation package, including the parsonage (housing) is a little over $70k. Pretty sure he tithes 10% back. Now what's the point of that? Why not just pay him 10% less? Who is doing that? You're pretty wrong.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Jun 23, 2012 11:09:13 GMT -5
I'm not in the mood for CUL today. Or, any day for that matter.
Yes, the pastor nets 90%. However, there was/is nothing in his compensation agreement that bound/binds him to tithe 10% nor was there an expectation that his offering would be 10%.
Clearly, the OP was implying the argument that paid preachers are bad. The workers from the platform often preach of paid preachers as hirelings who do not care for the flock.
|
|
bulsi
Junior Member
WHAT WE DO IN LIFE ECHOES IN ETERNITY !
Posts: 197
|
Post by bulsi on Jun 23, 2012 11:37:00 GMT -5
But if an overseer were doing such a thing, the other friends, elders and overseers would surely detect that and he would lose his place in the work and perhaps even be put out of the meetings. Especially if there was any chance he "robbed widows' houses" or robbed the poor.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2012 12:07:36 GMT -5
I'm not in the mood for CUL today. Or, any day for that matter. Yes, the pastor nets 90%. However, there was/is nothing in his compensation agreement that bound/binds him to tithe 10% nor was there an expectation that his offering would be 10%. Clearly, the OP was implying the argument that paid preachers are bad. The workers from the platform often preach of paid preachers as hirelings who do not care for the flock. I didn't read it that way. I read it that overpaid preachers are bad. But many churches do fit sacerdotal's description. They're an end to themselves, and no real good to anyone else except themselves. That's not a terrible thing, but you might as well join a country club, fraternity or gymnasium as join a church like that, in my view.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Jun 23, 2012 12:49:47 GMT -5
If the OP did not mean to generalize this situation to all preachers who are not in the F&W institution, then I apologize. It was a conditioned response because I was so used to hearing that done by the F&W. I may have jumped to the conclusion "here we go again".
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jun 23, 2012 14:51:21 GMT -5
If the OP did not mean to generalize this situation to all preachers who are not in the F&W institution, then I apologize. It was a conditioned response because I was so used to hearing that done by the F&W. I may have jumped to the conclusion "here we go again". Hi Will, the intent of the post wasn't to imply that all paid preachers were bad, I apologize for being unclear. What interpreted my intent, some churches are run as self serving entities. They seem to only take in money to fund salaries. I have the same issue with charities that keep over 50% of monies collected for "overhead", ie, salaries. Some charities keep upwards of 80% for salaries- these are self-serving entities. Thankfully there are charities and churches that give more than take. I also agree with others, the workers need to implement open accounting standards whereby monies collected are tracked and reported to the members. If my instincts are good, I believe that this will lead to more giving, than less. Especially if the workets can demonstrate how the money is going to help others, rathet than the system, or themselves.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 23, 2012 14:51:30 GMT -5
I'm not in the mood for CUL today. Or, any day for that matter. Yes, I understand that you don't like when others object to your prejudiced opinions about others' prejudiced opinions. Clearly, the OP was implying the argument that paid preachers are bad. I'm not so sure. Maybe you should ask him if that's what he believes. It might be and it might not be. We've got quite enough of people presuming to know what each other believe around here already.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 23, 2012 14:58:47 GMT -5
Hi Will, the intent of the post wasn't to imply that all paid preachers were bad, I apologize for being unclear. You weren't unclear. Many around here are too quick to jump to conclusions about other people's beliefs. Are you sure? According to some around here, the overseers have millions of dollars sitting around in bank accounts. If these claims are true and if this information starts being reported to members, I would suspect that some would decrease their giving to bring it more in line with the need and decrease surpluses. Not that this would be a bad consequence -- after all, the members might as well keep their money and/or divert it to useful, active projects.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 23, 2012 15:00:28 GMT -5
If the OP did not mean to generalize this situation to all preachers who are not in the F&W institution Even if he had meant "all paid preachers are bad", that wouldn't generalize to "all preachers who are not in the F&W [non-]institution". The "2x2s" are not the only unpaid preachers.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 23, 2012 16:33:15 GMT -5
If the OP did not mean to generalize this situation to all preachers who are not in the F&W institution Even if he had meant "all paid preachers are bad", that wouldn't generalize to "all preachers who are not in the F&W [non-]institution". The "2x2s" are not the only unpaid preachers. I must say that I was in the worker system for 12 years and did not dream that overseers would hold millions of dollars in surplus. I thought the needs of the moment were met and each overseer had a BIT in store for emergencies. Perhaps a few thousand dollars(not $50,000 but much less). I realize now that the workers have access to much more than that. The underling workers only see less than $5000 per year of that and they are always talking about not wasting the friends' food, money, hot water...etc. Use of money is a real guilt trip for the younger workers. And then they turn in the surplus to the overseers. I didn't think overseers would misuse the money, but I was wrong about that, also. Workers are human. They are just as prone to be self serving as any other preacher out there. The workers are in a different society than other preachers and have different commodities that are valuable to them. The greedy workers vie for those commodities and try to make it look as righteous as they can in the process.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 23, 2012 17:17:22 GMT -5
ts, you say that during your 12 years in the 'worker system' you didn't think the overseers had millions in surplus. If you didn't see any evidence of surpluses during your time in the system, what convinces you now that they do? The underling workers ... are always talking about not wasting the friends' food, money, hot water...etc. This is commendable.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 23, 2012 20:02:03 GMT -5
ts, you say that during your 12 years in the 'worker system' you didn't think the overseers had millions in surplus. If you didn't see any evidence of surpluses during your time in the system, what convinces you now that they do? The underling workers ... are always talking about not wasting the friends' food, money, hot water...etc. This is commendable. The Alberta mess was quite convincing to me. that was an issue over money...among other things, if I understand correctly. Here is another EXAMPLE of things that can and do happen: I heard recently of an elder(my friend talked to him) who expressed great concern for an overseer going around getting people to give money to building projects at convention. The elder was concerned that it was just like any other church taking collections for buildings(which it was). (Meanwhile the overseer was flying to other parts of the country for immoral reasons...all covered up by the overseer overseers). The lack of transparency is a big problem in the work. It is easy for an overseer to get money out of the friends because they are given the benefit of the doubt. (though, in this case, the elder protested...But there is no recourse if the overseer is in error...especially if it is not something illegal they are doing like collecting money from the friends). Perhaps the above overseer is the only one doing that...but who knows? We know from past experience that an overseer can be dishonest enough to be an unrepentant and unapologetic child molester(IH). If an overseer is so dishonest in one area of life, then what makes you think he is going to be honest with money when the handwriting of his demise is on the wall? An overseer might even claim to have ailments like throat cancer or something to draw sympathy money from the friends. But since there is no proper accounting for the money in the work and no transparency, who knows what they are doing with it?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 0:49:10 GMT -5
The Alberta mess was quite convincing to me. that was an issue over money...among other things, if I understand correctly. Ah, I don't remember that. It's been awhile since I listened to the tapes. Is there a transcription available somewhere? I was just reading some notes on the Alberta events at www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta_situation. Apparently the author (who is unnamed and his connection (or lack thereof) to the Alberta situation is unclear), at least, believes that there were some factors that made Alberta particularly bad in terms of workers. A meeting with other overseers who indicated seemingly wise counsel for what to do about some monetary concerns. Perhaps those overseers were lying about what they would have done with the money. Or perhaps they're not all as bad as Willis Propp allegedly is. The author also believed that Alberta had been amassing a particularly high concentration of workers of little integrity, thus partially explaining how such a mess could have come about: (and yes, I read the rest of the paragraph about the change in the author's opinion, but I think the initial impressions on that are relevant and worth consideration) Overall the Alberta situation seems highly unusual. I would not consider it safe to extrapolate from Willis Propp and his colleagues to the group at large in the rest of the world. So how do you achieve "transparency"? Fraud still occurs in organizations with heavy reporting. It's easy to lie in a report. Lack of reporting is not an indication of wrong-doing. I don't have any reason to think one like that would be honest. God knows.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 1:18:48 GMT -5
The Alberta mess was quite convincing to me. that was an issue over money...among other things, if I understand correctly. Ah, I don't remember that. It's been awhile since I listened to the tapes. Is there a transcription available somewhere? I was just reading some notes on the Alberta events at www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta_situation. Apparently the author (who is unnamed and his connection (or lack thereof) to the Alberta situation is unclear), at least, believes that there were some factors that made Alberta particularly bad in terms of workers. A meeting with other overseers who indicated seemingly wise counsel for what to do about some monetary concerns. Perhaps those overseers were lying about what they would have done with the money. Or perhaps they're not all as bad as Willis Propp allegedly is. The author also believed that Alberta had been amassing a particularly high concentration of workers of little integrity, thus partially explaining how such a mess could have come about: (and yes, I read the rest of the paragraph about the change in the author's opinion, but I think the initial impressions on that are relevant and worth consideration) Overall the Alberta situation seems highly unusual. I would not consider it safe to extrapolate from Willis Propp and his colleagues to the group at large in the rest of the world. So how do you achieve "transparency"? Fraud still occurs in organizations with heavy reporting. It's easy to lie in a report. Lack of reporting is not an indication of wrong-doing. I don't have any reason to think one like that would be honest. God knows. So the reason that the workers are not transparent is because it is just as easy to lie in a report as it is to lie when there is no reporting? The point is to set up systems where the liars can get caught. If I get Bob to give enough money for an air conditioning unit at convention and I get Larry to do the same and then ask Wilma for the same amount of money, that means I have enough for three air conditioning units. The unit goes in and every one of them thinks they are the ones who bought it for convention. Since the left hand and the right hand do not know what is going on, the friends honestly and naturally keep quiet about their gifts. Meanwhile the overseer takes the money and uses it for his own self serving advantage. However, if the overseer told them to write their check to the accounting department and they got a receipt and the money was on the books and receipts were kept on what was bought at convention and such, well, the money would be accounted for. Anyone could check it out....something like that. there are ways of accounting for money. The workers could tell the friends at conventions all over the world that they are going to be open with their money. No more "trust funds" in other people's names. Just simple, honest church money used for church purposes....(supposedly spreading the gospel is the purpose it will be used for). Of course God knows what happens to the the money given to immoral workers. Some of it is used to fly here and there on their "business". God also exposes that sort of thing and requires people to act on it. Some chose to act by protecting the predators. God knows and people find out and act as God reveals it. The more spiritually discerning we are, the sooner we will detect the behaviour and stop it before people get hurt. If we "leave it to God" to sort it out and don't act, then we are responsible for others getting hurt. What is happening is that the overseer position all over the world is getting more and more concentrated with unwholesome workers. They are the "good ol' boys" who protect one another. No part of the world is immune to corruption in the overseer position. South Africa, Europe, South America, Australia, USA, Canada. For years there has been a gradual build up of overseers who protect one another when there is immorality among them. Not just granting forgiveness for once off moments of weakness, but putting down reports and protecting the perpetrators over and over. The friends have either grown blinded to or content with that spirit reigning among them.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 1:38:51 GMT -5
So the reason that the workers are not transparent is because it is just as easy to lie in a report as it is to lie when there is no reporting? The point is to set up systems where the liars can get caught. Nope. It just means that reporting will not keep people from handling money dishonestly. Do you propose repealing Matthew 6:2-4?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 2:02:49 GMT -5
So the reason that the workers are not transparent is because it is just as easy to lie in a report as it is to lie when there is no reporting? The point is to set up systems where the liars can get caught. Nope. It just means that reporting will not keep people from handling money dishonestly. Do you propose repealing Matthew 6:2-4? no, I propose honest giving and honest receiving. The ministry should be leading the way in both categories. Instead they receive and token give. Many of the workers have departed from the "oxen in the corn" way of life and have grand surpluses. Especially the overseers. They have "sold all" and gotten more stored up. The accept estate inheritances by the scads. Unfortunately some of the overseers have used those verses about "right hand not knowing what the left hand doeth" to cover up their greed. Taking advantage of the sincerity of the friends. I believe we can give and receive without sounding a trumpet and still have accountability. But, perhaps it does not matter to most of the friends and workers if their overseer is flying around the country with their money and meeting up with women for immoral reasons and then coming back to preach in their convention "wonderful" sermons.
|
|
|
Post by davenz on Jun 24, 2012 3:42:39 GMT -5
CUL - you mention that the workers are unpaid. can you please clarify this? Do you mean that what ever they receive - they dont declare and therefore as far as the Income Revenue Service is concerned - they are unpaid?
Does anyone know what the top worker/overseer income band is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 7:10:36 GMT -5
Definition of 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. The use of a good or service as payment instead of cash.
Investopedia explains 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK'
1. A farmhand who is given "free" room and board instead of receiving an hourly wage in exchange for helping out on the farm is an example of payment-in-kind.
It seems to me that Workers receive payment in kind and are thus, "paid!"
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jun 24, 2012 7:45:04 GMT -5
Definition of 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. The use of a good or service as payment instead of cash. Investopedia explains 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. A farmhand who is given "free" room and board instead of receiving an hourly wage in exchange for helping out on the farm is an example of payment-in-kind. It seems to me that Workers receive payment in kind and are thus, "paid!" Amen. Does that make them hirelings? Or is the whole hireling argument a smokescreen? In view of there only being one true Shepherd, that would make everyone else not a shepherd and therefore a hireling. Or something like that...
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 24, 2012 7:52:31 GMT -5
Definition of 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. The use of a good or service as payment instead of cash. Investopedia explains 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. A farmhand who is given "free" room and board instead of receiving an hourly wage in exchange for helping out on the farm is an example of payment-in-kind. It seems to me that Workers receive payment in kind and are thus, "paid!" Amen. Does that make them hirelings? Or is the whole hireling argument a smokescreen? In view of there only being one true Shepherd, that would make everyone else not a shepherd and therefore a hireling. Or something like that... Any worker, pastor, priest, bishop, preacher is an hireling....at best.
|
|