|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 0:47:51 GMT -5
I believe that Edgar Massey pointed out that Willis Propp had oil shares that was making money. How do we know this is reliable information? How did information about Willis Propp's personal financial state become known if he was hiding it? If he did have oil shares, is there anything wrong with that, assuming he acquired them honestly and legitimately? Sure, and even with "accounting", there's still no telling. It probably wouldn't help much if the temptations and the opportunities are there. Is it really for their sole use or is it intended to be used to help others in some way? What inspires people to give the overseers inheritances like that? Is there anything wrong with people choosing to give money to those that they love and appreciate? Workers acquiring oil shares with the friends money is never "honest and legitimate" since the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel" is not true. Why not just tell all the workers that they should take the money they are given and invest it and make more money for the sake of the gospel? Would that not help the spread of the gospel? I am for workers making money, if that is their gift and calling. I am for them being married, for that matter. I believe MOST workers are called to be married just the same as most friends are called to be married. But don't tell the friends you live in faith when you are actually getting income off of investments.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 0:53:41 GMT -5
I believe that Edgar Massey pointed out that Willis Propp had oil shares that was making money. How do we know this is reliable information? How did information about Willis Propp's personal financial state become known if he was hiding it? If he did have oil shares, is there anything wrong with that, assuming he acquired them honestly and legitimately? Sure, and even with "accounting", there's still no telling. It probably wouldn't help much if the temptations and the opportunities are there. I guess we will never know as overseers are very adamant about not having transparency. The transparency would actually help the honest workers who wanted to do right.Is it really for their sole use or is it intended to be used to help others in some way? What inspires people to give the overseers inheritances like that? Is there anything wrong with people choosing to give money to those that they love and appreciate? ....guilt...brainwashing...manipulation....pressure. Yes, there was a poster here a while back who knows that people were pressured by the overseers to give their estates to them. Yes, that was out on the West Coast.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 1:01:44 GMT -5
I never heard of the book. It's about the format of meetings in which every member speaks as opposed to a pastor-centered church meeting. He basically arrives at a lot of the same conclusions about how the meetings should be conducted but from a non-"2x2" perspective. I also think he envisions a bit less of a regularized format, but the basic idea of every member taking an active part is the same. (I just started the book so I haven't gotten very far into the details of his points). I like the regular meeting format as well. I like conventions overall and the format is good -- times of preaching, prayer, and testimony available to all, and times for fellowship and appreciation of God's creation, typically in a relatively natural environment, in between. I think the weaknesses of conventions are not so much in the format itself as in other areas.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 1:04:52 GMT -5
I do not know of many instances of "spontaneous giving" in the meetings. There were typical ways that the friends gave money rather than taking up a collection. Handshake, envelope on the bed and money in a letter. You say you do not know of many instances of "spontaneous giving". So you do know of some. Can you provide an example to contrast with what you call non-spontaneous and systematic giving? Other than intentionally money-seeking letter writing, I don't see that those other patterns of giving are inherently non-spontaneous. Shaking hands when giving money? Shaking hands is just shaking hands. The majority of handshakes are not accompanied by giving money. Occasionally a handshake will be followed by the passing of some cash. How can you know the thoughts of the giver to say that the timing of the gift was not spontaneous? Likewise for the envelope on the bed; unless it's an envelope with cash on every visit, who can say what led an individual to give? here is a link to a VERY good example of what happens in the work. It is really humourous. When I first read the book (Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass) I was really taken back by how NON unique we are in the work. We really do think that we have something no one else has. This is a link and the material is copyrighted, so I could not copy and past. However, go to the top of page 47 and you will begin reading about the: WHITE ENVELOPE GAMESpontaneous Giving, my eye. This is just the way it is done in the work. It is expected regardless of the intent of the individual. Just like putting money in a collection plate(which I do not like). books.google.com/books?id=8HGATDMiWLwC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=adrian+plass+white+envelope+game&source=bl&ots=7nthrsBoQI&sig=SF6zYOQBFA6chUYXcmvpECi6Pi0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T_3nT6_aFYmo8QSIh_SyAQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 1:16:58 GMT -5
Workers acquiring oil shares with the friends money is never "honest and legitimate" since the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel" is not true. Sure, but I didn't say "with the friends money". What if a worker was given oil shares by someone specifically, as a personal gift? Or given money and specifically told that it was a personal gift rather than money to use for the church, and then bought the shares using that money? Or received the oil shares as an inheritance from his own family? etc. There are plenty of legitimate and honest ways to acquire oil shares. Yes, all of them violate 'the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel"' (if that's interpreted as giving up property ownership). But is that premise necessary? Would a worker who rejected that premise be able to honestly and legitimately acquire oil shares or other property? And no, I'm not specifically defending Willis Propp here so it wouldn't help to point out that he's obviously dishonest and none of these things are true about him. Would individual workers investing their money that way tend to make more money than overseers collecting the money and investing it "for the sake of the gospel"? I don't see any reason they shouldn't be married if they choose to be. It's probably true that most are called to be married, since most people in general get married. What is keeping them from being married now? What would happen if a one got married planning to remain in his calling as a 'worker'? Do you know of any instances of workers doing that, or trying to do that? So you think anyone who has an income is not living in faith? Every Christian should be living by faith. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest the resources God puts in our stewardship or use them to provide for ourselves and our families. Earning money doesn't mean a believer can't legitimately claim to be living in faith.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 1:34:09 GMT -5
here is a link to a VERY good example of what happens in the work. It is really humourous. When I first read the book (Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass) I was really taken back by how NON unique we are in the work. We really do think that we have something no one else has. This is a link and the material is copyrighted, so I could not copy and past. However, go to the top of page 47 and you will begin reading about the: WHITE ENVELOPE GAMESpontaneous Giving, my eye. This is just the way it is done in the work. It is expected regardless of the intent of the individual. When is it expected, aside from the letter-writing? On some sort of regular schedule? In the diary account, the money is expected after the speaker finishes speaking and before he leaves. And it seems to be expected every time, so there's a regular basis for it. Are you implying that workers expect to receive money every single time they visit a family in their home? How often did you receive money? Every time you visited someone or on a less regular basis? You don't like the regular "spontaneous" giving and you don't like the collection plate. What would you envision as the ideal method of supplying for the needs of full-time ministers (unless you see them as altogether useless) and other needs of the church, on an ongoing basis?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 1:37:41 GMT -5
Workers acquiring oil shares with the friends money is never "honest and legitimate" since the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel" is not true. Sure, but I didn't say "with the friends money". What if a worker was given oil shares by someone specifically, as a personal gift? Or given money and specifically told that it was a personal gift rather than money to use for the church, and then bought the shares using that money? Or received the oil shares as an inheritance from his own family? etc. There are plenty of legitimate and honest ways to acquire oil shares. Yes, all of them violate 'the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel"' (if that's interpreted as giving up property ownership). But is that premise necessary? Would a worker who rejected that premise be able to honestly and legitimately acquire oil shares or other property? And no, I'm not specifically defending Willis Propp here so it wouldn't help to point out that he's obviously dishonest and none of these things are true about him. Would individual workers investing their money that way tend to make more money than overseers collecting the money and investing it "for the sake of the gospel"? I don't see any reason they shouldn't be married if they choose to be. It's probably true that most are called to be married, since most people in general get married. What is keeping them from being married now? What would happen if a one got married planning to remain in his calling as a 'worker'? Do you know of any instances of workers doing that, or trying to do that?So you think anyone who has an income is not living in faith? Every Christian should be living by faith. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest the resources God puts in our stewardship or use them to provide for ourselves and our families. Earning money doesn't mean a believer can't legitimately claim to be living in faith. I myself am a worker. I was called into the work by God, not man. The rule in the work is that workers may not marry and continue in the ministry. I heard Taylor Wood tell that to 175 workers and overseers at a workers' convention in Knoxville TN in 1992. That is a RULE with very few past exceptions and very very RARE (if any) present exceptions. I personally say that the rule is unscriptural hogwash and I do not accept it. I preach against it because it is holding many workers in bondage. Workers who are called to marry remain unmarried in the work because they are called to the ministry and are forced to choose God's work over marriage. They are told that the work is first best choice and marriage is second best. Many workers struggle with their desire to marry and their natural sexual urges. In other words, they are burning in their lust but not marrying, contrary to what Paul suggested to do. You are right, earning money does not necessarily mean that one is not living in faith. However, just like the rule of the work is to not marry, the rule of the work is to live of the gospel and to not work for money. I do not know of any instance where workers are allowed to work. I am not against it. In fact, I am all for it. And they SHOULD go to school or whatever God leads them to do. Right now workers are, for the most part, following the rules of the work. Not marrying, not having a job. It used to be that they were not to have a bank account(in my day) but that seems to be changing. It is the double standard that I have a problem with.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 1:50:37 GMT -5
here is a link to a VERY good example of what happens in the work. It is really humourous. When I first read the book (Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass) I was really taken back by how NON unique we are in the work. We really do think that we have something no one else has. This is a link and the material is copyrighted, so I could not copy and past. However, go to the top of page 47 and you will begin reading about the: WHITE ENVELOPE GAMESpontaneous Giving, my eye. This is just the way it is done in the work. It is expected regardless of the intent of the individual. When is it expected, aside from the letter-writing? On some sort of regular schedule? In the diary account, the money is expected after the speaker finishes speaking and before he leaves. And it seems to be expected every time, so there's a regular basis for it. Are you implying that workers expect to receive money every single time they visit a family in their home? How often did you receive money? Every time you visited someone or on a less regular basis? Each individual friend has their own schedule and manner of giving. The receiving of gifts is pretty standard and somewhat predictable. I would not call it spontaneous at all. The friends give to the workers. It really is no different to any other church supporting their preacher financially for rendering a valuable service spiritually.
I think the workers are afraid to say that they are paid because it makes it look like they are selling the gospel. So they use semantics to get around the obvious need to collect money from those to whom they preach. You don't like the regular "spontaneous" giving and you don't like the collection plate. What would you envision as the ideal method of supplying for the needs of full-time ministers (unless you see them as altogether useless) and other needs of the church, on an ongoing basis? I do like spontaneous giving. I described what a friend told me about what I consider spontaneous giving. I don't mind that the friends give the workers money on a regular schedule. I wouldn't mind if they passed a plate for the workers. I just don't like the fact that they ridicule other churches and preachers for the way they support their preachers when the workers are supported in no different way. I have talked to countless people about how God has provided for their ministries. I can cite similar miraculous circumstances. So can the workers, I am sure. That is great. It is God's work, after all. But do not call the regular giving methods of the friends "spontaneous" as if the friends and workers have some special way of giving that the rest of the Christian world doesn't. And that special way of giving makes their preachers "living in faith" and the other preachers "hirelings".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 1:53:18 GMT -5
The reason I do not personally like a collection plate is because it puts pressure on people to give. But that is just me. I am content if others want to pass a plate. Workers are just as capable in their own ways of putting pressure on the friends to give.
Workers are just as human as any other group of preachers.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 1:56:00 GMT -5
I myself am a worker. I was called into the work by God, not man. The rule in the work is that workers may not marry and continue in the ministry. I heard Taylor Wood tell that to 175 workers and overseers at a workers' convention in Knoxville TN in 1992. That is a RULE with very few past exceptions and very very RARE (if any) present exceptions. I personally say that the rule is unscriptural hogwash and I do not accept it. I preach against it because it is holding many workers in bondage. Workers who are called to marry remain unmarried in the work because they are called to the ministry and are forced to choose God's work over marriage. They are told that the work is first best choice and marriage is second best. Many workers struggle with their desire to marry and their natural sexual urges. In other words, they are burning in their lust but not marrying, contrary to what Paul suggested to do. I agree with all of that. The 'workers' should take Paul's words there and elsewhere to heart. So you know of no instance of someone attempting to marry and remain in the 'worker' system? So if an individual worker chose to not accept those rules and decided to earn money through investments or work, would that be acceptable to you, provided that the individual in question was not hypocritically claiming to not be doing those things or teaching against them (to be clear, I'm asking about a worker who remains within the 'system' /'format', not one who leaves it before doing those things, such as yourself). You mentioned something you heard at a worker convention. The vast majority of us don't have much (or any) direct knowledge of what goes on at those conventions. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would provide more information about worker meetings/conventions. Not necessarily on this thread or all at once, but on an ongoing basis. It's a perspective and experience that very few have. To start with, the overall format, schedule, frequency, etc., of such meetings, but also more on what is said there, good, bad, and neutral.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 1:58:46 GMT -5
But do not call the regular giving methods of the friends "spontaneous" as if the friends and workers have some special way of giving that the rest of the Christian world doesn't. And that special way of giving makes their preachers "living in faith" and the other preachers "hirelings". I never stated that the word "spontaneous" would distinguish them in any way from other Christians. They're probably not the only Christian group with a similar method of providing for full-time ministers, either.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jun 25, 2012 2:02:49 GMT -5
Speaking of Willis Propp - a few years ago I was laid up with a busted knee, staying with some lovely friends in AB. Flat out on the couch reading a book, next thing WP comes upstairs - on his Cel Phone, with his laptop and credit card in hand - ordering a $200 mail sorting system for his laptop. He would have to have been the most greedy, slobby, lazy man I had ever had the mis-pleasure of meeting. Sat sat sat sat to be waited on hand and foot - until it involved something he wanted. When the lady of the house went out for a lunch appointment I was expected (by the workers) to get them lunch - hobbling around on crutches - making them lunch and their cup of tea!! Until eventually at the lunch table WP tapped his hands on the table and said 'Oh, we should be helping you' And I said back 'Well, yes, actually you should - it's not very easy to get around on crutches' - must admit it felt good to say that!! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) His companion actually washed up after lunch then... but WP never lifted a finger - except to tap on the table ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 25, 2012 2:07:35 GMT -5
Speaking of Willis Propp - a few years ago I was laid up with a busted knee, staying with some lovely friends in AB. Flat out on the couch reading a book, next thing WP comes upstairs - on his Cel Phone, with his laptop and credit card in hand - ordering a $200 mail sorting system for his laptop. He would have to have been the most greedy, slobby, lazy man I had ever had the mis-pleasure of meeting. Sat sat sat sat to be waited on hand and foot - until it involved something he wanted. When the lady of the house went out for a lunch appointment I was expected (by the workers) to get them lunch - hobbling around on crutches - making them lunch and their cup of tea!! Until eventually at the lunch table WP tapped his hands on the table and said 'Oh, we should be helping you' And I said back 'Well, yes, actually you should - it's not very easy to get around on crutches' - must admit it felt good to say that!! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) His companion actually washed up after lunch then... but WP never lifted a finger - except to tap on the table ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I would have to agree with you but better to forget and live in peace.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jun 25, 2012 2:15:53 GMT -5
I would have to agree with you but better to forget and live in peace. Of course! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I do enjoy peace ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 25, 2012 2:21:03 GMT -5
I would have to agree with you but better to forget and live in peace. Of course! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I do enjoy peace ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) That's lovely ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2012 7:40:36 GMT -5
What do you call it when the workers come to your husband who is a cabinet maker and ask him to build a custom kitchen for the new house at the convention grounds. It is done at the cost of materials and the cost of our employee but my husband did not make any money on the deal. Years later when you are having money problems because of your business the workers come and tell you that you are not to expect help from the friends because they pay taxes. What about the thousands of dollars you put in to the kitchen on the convention grounds? What I see is workers you will take and take and take. But do not expect them to care about you if you have a hard time. They also had gospel meeting in our shop at no expense to them.
|
|
will
Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Jun 25, 2012 8:55:38 GMT -5
The reason I do not personally like a collection plate is because it puts pressure on people to give. But that is just me. I am content if others want to pass a plate. Workers are just as capable in their own ways of putting pressure on the friends to give. Workers are just as human as any other group of preachers. Where I've seen collection plates used there are usually small envelopes provided and folks can put their offering in them and seal them. I've ushered many times which includes passing the plate. Also, many folks do quarterly or even annual giving and don't put anything in the plate each week -- or maybe they just aren't giving. My point is, that ushers and others have no idea who is giving or not giving. Folks could easily put in an empty envelope or fill an envelope with a bunch of cash with no name.
|
|
pauper
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 58
|
Post by pauper on Jun 25, 2012 12:31:29 GMT -5
I eventually began to view the "no collections" philosophy of the F&W as a marketing ploy. I admit, as someone who had previously been feeling of little worth in a large wealthy congregation, it was something that appealed to me at the beginning, albeit far from the main selling point. I was particularly sold on the idea that the workers weren't afraid to preach the Bible because they weren't dependent upon anyone for a salary. What I came to realize is not only that the Bible does not forbid the ministry from taking a salary to begin with, but also that the workers are more dependent, financially and materially, on their congregants than salaried preachers. That became evident when workers began diluting the scriptures and avoiding doctrine in deference to the influential extended families, which provide the bulk of the workers' subsistence, whose family members were doing and teaching things contrary to the Gospel of Christ.
A F&W member explained that the monetary contributions to the workers are considered “freewill offerings.” However, freewill offerings are only mentioned in the O.T. (Exodus 35:4-29; Lev. 7:16 & 22:18-21; Ezra 3:5), and in a much different context. In Exodus, the people donated brass, silver, wood, cloth, spices, oil, etc. - whatever they desired to give of their possessions - to furnish the sanctuary of the tabernacle. The other references to freewill offerings were burnt-offering sacrifices to the Lord. Usually, the people were instructed which type of animal to sacrifice, depending on the offense, but on certain occasions they were permitted to sacrifice an animal of choice - bull, sheep or goat - from their flocks, the only stipulation being that the animal was unblemished. What F&W considers a freewill offering, the Bible defines as a gift. In Deuteronomy 16:19, the judges and officers of the Israelites were forbidden to receive gifts because “a gift blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.” Through the true prophets, God rebuked the false prophets and priests of the O.T. who were perverting judgment in return for bribes, even for bread and barley (Ezekiel 13:19).
In the New Testament churches, collections were taken anonymously. In Acts 4:34-37, money contributed by the saints was laid at the apostles’ feet and was distributed to the needy saints (Acts 11:29; Romans 12:13 & 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:12-13). The apostle Paul worked as a tent-maker to earn a living while in Corinth (Acts 18:3), but received provision from another congregation when he was in need (1 Cor. 16:17). He seemed very cautious to not make himself dependent on others, especially to those to whom he was delivering the Gospel.
In the church I now go to, a collection is taken up every week, as commanded by Paul in 1Corinthians 16:1-2, and is considered an element of worship. The collections do not go toward preachers’ salaries. There are several men in each congregation who alternately deliver the sermon. They have jobs apart from the church during the week, so they do not depend on the church for a livelihood. Some money from our collections does go toward the expenses of traveling preachers, who take brief mission trips but are married, as were most of the apostles (1 Cor. 9:5), and have homes to return to, as did the first apostles Jesus sent out to preach (Luke 10:17). The primary purpose of the collections is to assist congregants who are struggling financially, such as those with medical expenses. I don’t know that sending around the offering plate is the best method of collecting money but, to me, it seems more adherent to New Testament practices, at least if the proceeds are distributed to the needy saints. It seems that the F&W fellowship takes biblical terms, such as “freewill offering,” and re-defines them at whim to concoct a man-made doctrine (which many churches today are guilty of doing). That is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 13:29:26 GMT -5
But do not call the regular giving methods of the friends "spontaneous" as if the friends and workers have some special way of giving that the rest of the Christian world doesn't. And that special way of giving makes their preachers "living in faith" and the other preachers "hirelings". I never stated that the word "spontaneous" would distinguish them in any way from other Christians. They're probably not the only Christian group with a similar method of providing for full-time ministers, either. There are many other pastors who live by faith under a similar way of giving. Our pastor does not get a salary, I don't think. We don't take up a collection. He volunteers in the community and does a jail ministry and such. They send meals every week to poor folks that need them. They help remodel homes when there is a need. People will donate things to them either personally(to them and their seven children) or to their ministry. Sometimes they do not even know where the money or supplies came from. Many times the donations meet an immediate need they were praying for. That happens a lot among the Christians I associate with. Someone is moved to do something and come to find out there was a need and a prayer that drew the donation. God hears prayers and moves hearts to meet the needs. I am glad that you recognize that other groups give in this manner. I was not clear that you thought that. Thanks. I do not have any problem, by the way, with the workers asking for money if they need it. Jesus said, "If any man asks of you, give." In order for this to work, there has to be someone asking. I don't begrudge anyone asking help in meeting a need personally or for the sake of the gospel. Part of fulfilling the gospel of Jesus is to ask and part of the fulfillment is to give. I see your other good questions and thoughts. I will have more time to write later.
|
|
|
Post by bryanfromak on Jun 25, 2012 16:48:53 GMT -5
CUL, A paid preacher receives a formal paycheck/monies from his church, by way of the church members' offerings, which he uses to pay for lodging, clothing, food, travel expenses and so forth. The Workers receive lodging, clothing, food, monies for travel expenses, and so forth directly from the Friends. Fundamentally, how is one different from the other? Are both the workers and the paid preacher not supported by the members/Friends of their respected fellowship/church? The paid preacher is paid an agreed-upon fee on a regular basis. The 'workers' who go around living in houses are provided with a place to stay, food, and money given spontaneously by individual givers. You wouldn't be suggesting the Workers are not supported by the friends on "a regular basis" and that the relationship between the Workers and the Friends is not "agreed-upon", whether in writing or not? You speak of spontaneously... Are you suggesting the Workers are just lucky they have a place to stay, food, and money given by the Friends? The Workers are supported by the Friends just as the 'worldly' preacher down the road is supported by the church's members. A formal paycheck vs. the system found in the 2x2 fellowship does not negate this fact.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2012 19:56:34 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. That's what the Salvation Army does. Read their history and that's exactly why they started feed ing people. They felt that someone's survival needed to be taken care of before the spiritual could be addressed. That's very true. If you're struggling to stay physically alive, spirituality is not high on the list.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 20:46:38 GMT -5
You wouldn't be suggesting the Workers are not supported by the friends on "a regular basis" and that the relationship between the Workers and the Friends is not "agreed-upon", whether in writing or not? I don't know what each individual giver's basis or schedule of giving is like. Some may be regular and others irregular. I doubt that very many have agreed-upon amounts that they give on a regular basis. I spoke of 'spontaneously' in the context of monetary giving, not the place to stay or the food. No, they are not 'lucky'. They have people who care enough about them to provide for them, but it's not luck. Neither did I say that it did.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 21:46:33 GMT -5
You wouldn't be suggesting the Workers are not supported by the friends on "a regular basis" and that the relationship between the Workers and the Friends is not "agreed-upon", whether in writing or not? I don't know what each individual giver's basis or schedule of giving is like. Some may be regular and others irregular. I doubt that very many have agreed-upon amounts that they give on a regular basis. I spoke of 'spontaneously' in the context of monetary giving, not the place to stay or the food. No, they are not 'lucky'. They have people who care enough about them to provide for them, but it's not luck.Neither did I say that it did. I agree with the bolded statement. I don't believe in luck, either. I am sure that there are many different motives that the friends have when they care for the workers. Some honest and sincere because they care about supporting the work of the gospel and others are just doing the church thing because that is the done thing. Same as any other church. The friends are paying the preachers for a service rendered. It costs money to do what they do. The friends share of their natural goods in exchange for the spiritual help they get from the workers. Does having a regular paycheck as a preacher detract from the Spirit in the message of a preacher? Does not having a regular paycheck enhance the message?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 21:54:44 GMT -5
Does having a regular paycheck as a preacher detract from the Spirit in the message of a preacher? Does not having a regular paycheck enhance the message? No.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 22:11:30 GMT -5
Does having a regular paycheck as a preacher detract from the Spirit in the message of a preacher? Does not having a regular paycheck enhance the message? No. We are in agreement, then. Come over to my house and we will have a meeting and enjoy talking about the scriptures and what God has done in our lives together. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 22:34:11 GMT -5
Workers acquiring oil shares with the friends money is never "honest and legitimate" since the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel" is not true. Sure, but I didn't say "with the friends money". What if a worker was given oil shares by someone specifically, as a personal gift? Or given money and specifically told that it was a personal gift rather than money to use for the church, and then bought the shares using that money? Or received the oil shares as an inheritance from his own family? etc. There are plenty of legitimate and honest ways to acquire oil shares. Yes, all of them violate 'the whole premise of the workers "leaving all so that they are free to preach the gospel"' (if that's interpreted as giving up property ownership). But is that premise necessary? Would a worker who rejected that premise be able to honestly and legitimately acquire oil shares or other property? And no, I'm not specifically defending Willis Propp here so it wouldn't help to point out that he's obviously dishonest and none of these things are true about him. Would individual workers investing their money that way tend to make more money than overseers collecting the money and investing it "for the sake of the gospel"? I don't see any reason they shouldn't be married if they choose to be. It's probably true that most are called to be married, since most people in general get married. What is keeping them from being married now? What would happen if a one got married planning to remain in his calling as a 'worker'? Do you know of any instances of workers doing that, or trying to do that? So you think anyone who has an income is not living in faith? Every Christian should be living by faith. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest the resources God puts in our stewardship or use them to provide for ourselves and our families. Earning money doesn't mean a believer can't legitimately claim to be living in faith. Can a worker be given oil shares...? What is the statute of limitations on "giving up all"? I got rid of my stuff and went into the work. I knew what was expected of a worker and assumed that everyone was like myself. Having oil shares and even a job earning money is not a part of the job description of a worker. Supposedly a worker is free of business type stuff so that he is free to preach the gospel without distraction. that is what we preached. That is what we told outsiders when they asked about what we did. If that has changed, then someone needs to send out a memo and free up all the workers to have oil shares. for that matter, if there are overseers messing around with women and helping each other justify it and hide it, they need to just send out a memo saying that it is fine for workers to date women with the purpose of finding a mate and getting married...and remaining in the work. The workers can't even keep their own, man-made rules. That is what Jesus was talking about when He said that the Pharisees were binding heavy burdens on people that they were not willing to lift with their little finger. It was not God's "law"(Torah) that was the problem. It was the man made laws that were the problem. Were the laws useful? Some would say so. I don't think the man made laws served any purpose but to keep the Pharisees in their place over the people. The laws made them look more righteous. For example, the workers have a man made law(that they justify in the scripture somehow) that says that a worker may not marry and remain in the work. They get a lot of respect for having that sort of dedication and taking on that "struggle". Meanwhile many of the workers cannot contain their lust anyway and have to be "forgiven" for giving in to a completely man made struggle. God may have asked some to go into the ministry but there is no indication that there should ever be a rule of not marrying in the ministry. That is a burden that men cannot bear and this false doctrine causes people to stumble.
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 25, 2012 23:57:14 GMT -5
ts, your post reminds me of something Jesus said...
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 26, 2012 1:35:47 GMT -5
The paid preacher is paid an agreed-upon fee on a regular basis. The 'workers' who go around living in houses are provided with a place to stay, food, and money given spontaneously by individual givers. You wouldn't be suggesting the Workers are not supported by the friends on "a regular basis" and that the relationship between the Workers and the Friends is not "agreed-upon", whether in writing or not? You speak of spontaneously... Are you suggesting the Workers are just lucky they have a place to stay, food, and money given by the Friends? The Workers are supported by the Friends just as the 'worldly' preacher down the road is supported by the church's members. A formal paycheck vs. the system found in the 2x2 fellowship does not negate this fact. Well well lookie here it's me old mate bry ;D Gidday bry how's it goin? how's the family must be growin up now?
|
|