|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 22, 2013 21:22:15 GMT -5
Is there a difference? If the hireling gets his or her money from a collection plate (many times the money is in an envelope/or mailed), and the worker gets his or her money in an envelope or a hand shake or mailed- does the method of distribution make one a hireling and the other not?
One worker told me that his companion had instructed him to write more, as it meant that he would receive more money. The sad thing is, his companion was correct. Even sadder, the younger worker had no idea that some of the older workers thought like that.
Can the workers claim the moral or righteous high road because they take their money via hand shakes rather than a collection plate? Does this give them the right to make the blanket statement that all other preachers are hirelings, except for them?
Isn't it time to drop the farce about the ministry and instead turn to promoting Jesus rather than the method of the ministry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 21:49:49 GMT -5
Just to add a little balance. The workers do not directly solicit money. Whether or not that is a virtue is a matter of debate. Of course they feel that it is the absence of asking for money that distinguishes them from the salaried minister and maintains their "living by faith" status. The downside of that formula is that, as sacerdotal points out, the big letter writers get more money, and undoubtedly the more outgoing, popular workers also get more money. Workers of a higher status will also get more money, ie the overseer, the convention organizer, the brother worker (vs sister worker), as well as the worker with a large, well-off professing family behind them.There is nothing particularly virtuous or fair in that.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 21:59:39 GMT -5
The workers think that they are not "paid" because they are not GUARANTEED a salary for their preaching services.
I do believe that there are workers who, in spirit, live in faith. The problem is that they do not acknowledge that there are other preachers who do the same.
They are quick to acknowledge that there are "false" preachers who know how to fleece the flock. However, they are slow to say that a worker is a false prophet if he knows how to fleece the flock. There are certainly workers who are good at it.
One of the common methods for getting money is to write letters. I was told to write letters to get more money. My first overseer "wisely" informed me of that.
Kennion Coleman some years later voiced out loud to me his observation that workers write letters to get more money.
Why are these workers not put in the same category as "false prophets" and kicked out of the work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 22:19:33 GMT -5
Did you ever directly solicit money from the friends ts?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 22:39:27 GMT -5
Just to add a little balance. The workers do not directly solicit money. Whether or not that is a virtue is a matter of debate. Of course they feel that it is the absence of asking for money that distinguishes them from the salaried minister and maintains their "living by faith" status. The downside of that formula is that, as sacerdotal points out, the big letter writers get more money, and undoubtedly the more outgoing, popular workers also get more money. Workers of a higher status will also get more money, ie the overseer, the convention organizer, the brother worker (vs sister worker), as well as the worker with a large, well-off professing family behind them.There is nothing particularly virtuous or fair in that. The bottom line is, workers know where their bread is buttered. Workers are human, as has been pointed out by many of the friends and workers when there is immorality among them. Workers are human enough to be greedy and scared of having no money...faithless. They are human enough to make habits out of getting money from the friends in the subtle ways that workers do. There are some who are simply clever and manipulative. There have been a couple of workers that have come up on the radar as both loving to do large convention projects and also liking to drive around in nice vehicles and/or fly a lot of places...generally doing things that take a lot of donations and demand large budgets. When you are working with a budget of a few hundred thousand dollars of under the table, untaxable money, how much of that does a human worker claim as his own because it was given to him personally? Who knows how much is actually given over and above the cost of the project? That is just one other way human workers have of making money if they are minded to. I am sure there is just as much of that going on in the work as anywhere else. The difference is, the workers are "human" when the do it and other preachers are "false" when they do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 22:51:05 GMT -5
Just to add a little balance. The workers do not directly solicit money. Whether or not that is a virtue is a matter of debate. Of course they feel that it is the absence of asking for money that distinguishes them from the salaried minister and maintains their "living by faith" status. The downside of that formula is that, as sacerdotal points out, the big letter writers get more money, and undoubtedly the more outgoing, popular workers also get more money. Workers of a higher status will also get more money, ie the overseer, the convention organizer, the brother worker (vs sister worker), as well as the worker with a large, well-off professing family behind them.There is nothing particularly virtuous or fair in that. The bottom line is, workers know where their bread is buttered. Workers are human, as has been pointed out by many of the friends and workers when there is immorality among them. Workers are human enough to be greedy and scared of having no money...faithless. They are human enough to make habits out of getting money from the friends in the subtle ways that workers do. There are some who are simply clever and manipulative. There have been a couple of workers that have come up on the radar as both loving to do large convention projects and also liking to drive around in nice vehicles and/or fly a lot of places...generally doing things that take a lot of donations and demand large budgets. When you are working with a budget of a few hundred thousand dollars of under the table, untaxable money, how much of that does a human worker claim as his own because it was given to him personally? Who knows how much is actually given over and above the cost of the project? That is just one other way human workers have of making money if they are minded to. I am sure there is just as much of that going on in the work as anywhere else. The difference is, the workers are "human" when the do it and other preachers are "false" when they do it. How many workers do you know who have directly solicited money?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 22, 2013 22:51:41 GMT -5
Just to add a little balance. The workers do not directly solicit money. Whether or not that is a virtue is a matter of debate. Of course they feel that it is the absence of asking for money that distinguishes them from the salaried minister and maintains their "living by faith" status. The downside of that formula is that, as sacerdotal points out, the big letter writers get more money, and undoubtedly the more outgoing, popular workers also get more money. Workers of a higher status will also get more money, ie the overseer, the convention organizer, the brother worker (vs sister worker), as well as the worker with a large, well-off professing family behind them.There is nothing particularly virtuous or fair in that. I think that subtle forms of solicitation slip in. For example, the richer friends get more visits with the workers. One older sister worker once said to me, while I was in the work, about a awesome family that we had just visited "they have money for their cats, but no money for the workers." Never mind the fact that they had just hosted us for a meal on a work night. The #1 thing that bothered me when I was in the work, was the favoritism toward the rich. The Bible speaks strongly against that. Thankfully, not all of my companions favored the rich, but a majority did. One lady even called out one of my companions on it, she wanted to know why we stayed for weeks at a time with certain friends, but never any time with her family, except for a meal twice a year, even though she lived within 5 miles of the family that we spent weeks with. I was interested to hear the answer myself, unfortunately, my companion just made up some lame excuse that did not satisfy anyone.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 22:52:58 GMT -5
Did you ever directly solicit money from the friends ts? No. I don't know of any worker directly asking for money. Except, perhaps, if there is a building project. (see above). there are many ways of "asking" without actually asking. For example, writing letters, as has been mentioned. There are many other ways of letting one's needs be known. Like, if you are talking to a person and you let him know("subtly") that you REALLY like that computer/cell phone...whatever...and, voila, low and behold, the fellow up and give you the very one you wanted. People are very attentive to the workers' needs and wants and the workers know it. Workers beg in varying degrees in a culturally appropriate way. It is just part of the culture. A worker can save up all the little and big gifts and buy a computer. But then there is the justifications that have to happen because of the guilt of spending that little old lady's five dollars she could not afford on a computer that she could NEVER afford. And then there is that family of five kids who really NEED a computer more than any worker and they scrimp and save to have food and clothing. It is much more desirable to have a computer "GIVEN"(after some culturally acceptable begging) and then you can whip it out anywhere and slake the guilt with a quick "Somebody gave me this computer" as if to say, "I did not spend your hard earned money that you gave me on this. Somebody gave this to me. I can't help it." Somehow that is more desirable than paying someone what they are worth in order to keep them in a valuable position of preaching the gospel, letting them save up and buy whatever they want to...AND giving gifts as you see fit or are moved by the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 22, 2013 22:54:21 GMT -5
Just to add a little balance. The workers do not directly solicit money. Whether or not that is a virtue is a matter of debate. Of course they feel that it is the absence of asking for money that distinguishes them from the salaried minister and maintains their "living by faith" status. The downside of that formula is that, as sacerdotal points out, the big letter writers get more money, and undoubtedly the more outgoing, popular workers also get more money. Workers of a higher status will also get more money, ie the overseer, the convention organizer, the brother worker (vs sister worker), as well as the worker with a large, well-off professing family behind them.There is nothing particularly virtuous or fair in that. " popular workers also get more money. Yes, my father had one companion that was more charismatic than my father was.
My father said that companion always got more money given him.
That companion never shared it with my father either!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 22:58:52 GMT -5
The bottom line is, workers know where their bread is buttered. Workers are human, as has been pointed out by many of the friends and workers when there is immorality among them. Workers are human enough to be greedy and scared of having no money...faithless. They are human enough to make habits out of getting money from the friends in the subtle ways that workers do. There are some who are simply clever and manipulative. There have been a couple of workers that have come up on the radar as both loving to do large convention projects and also liking to drive around in nice vehicles and/or fly a lot of places...generally doing things that take a lot of donations and demand large budgets. When you are working with a budget of a few hundred thousand dollars of under the table, untaxable money, how much of that does a human worker claim as his own because it was given to him personally? Who knows how much is actually given over and above the cost of the project? That is just one other way human workers have of making money if they are minded to. I am sure there is just as much of that going on in the work as anywhere else. The difference is, the workers are "human" when the do it and other preachers are "false" when they do it. How many workers do you know who have directly solicited money? I don't know of any workers directly soliciting money. I am not saying that it does not happen. Like I mentioned above, some workers will solicit money for convention building or work projects. Just to add a little balance, the problem is that the message gets sent out there that "worldly" preachers are false because, for one reason, they solicit money. When, in fact, that is not always the case. There are some who do not solicit money. Can we consider the subtle ways of culturally acceptable begging that goes on in the work as "soliciting"?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 23:04:06 GMT -5
I had a companion who was also very charismatic. He had gotten an inheritance from one of the friends and he considered it HIS. Not the Work's. It was $30,000.
Do you think that he gave his companion any of the money he got in the field because he already had $30,000? I will give you three guesses and the first two don't count.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 22, 2013 23:17:26 GMT -5
I had a companion who was also very charismatic. He had gotten an inheritance from one of the friends and he considered it HIS. Not the Work's. It was $30,000. Do you think that he gave his companion any of the money he got in the field because he already had $30,000? I will give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Did this worker turn in all of his so-called inheritance money at the end of Preps?HA HA HA HA HA ....HOO HO HOH HO HO HOOOW!!!! Good one, Nathan ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) No. In fact, he was overseer in another state where he got the inheritance and then brought it with him to the state where I was and was overseer there.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 23, 2013 0:45:00 GMT -5
HA HA HA HA HA ....HOO HO HOH HO HO HOOOW!!!! Good one, Nathan ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) No. In fact, he was overseer in another state where he got the inheritance and then brought it with him to the state where I was and was overseer there. hahaha... I see. It went into the trust funds. You got me scared for a minute there. I thought this regular worker received that much inheritance money all by himself sounded very strange.How do you determine it was a trust fund as opposed to a personal account?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 23, 2013 0:54:40 GMT -5
The friends think when they give money to the older workers expecting him to share with the younger ones, in many cases this isn't true. To the friends who are reading here, please give to the younger ones yourself in person.
I had an older companion, who always shared with me half the money he received from the friends which I really appreciate. NOT all older companions do that.
When I was in the work as a young worker I didn't know too many friends so no money in the letters for me. But I was never short of money! Once the friends see the love you have for their souls as a good shepherd, a feeder they always take good care of you. As the younger worker, what would you do with the money? Pay half the gas the two of you would use? Buy food half the time when you went out? What else? I think when older workers don't give half, then they pay for all those things, not expecting the younger worker to pitch in.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 5:20:12 GMT -5
The friends think when they give money to the older workers expecting him to share with the younger ones, in many cases this isn't true. To the friends who are reading here, please give to the younger ones yourself in person.
I had an older companion, who always shared with me half the money he received from the friends which I really appreciate. NOT all older companions do that.
When I was in the work as a young worker I didn't know too many friends so no money in the letters for me. But I was never short of money! Once the friends see the love you have for their souls as a good shepherd, a feeder they always take good care of you. As the younger worker, what would you do with the money? Pay half the gas the two of you would use? Buy food half the time when you went out? What else? I think when older workers don't give half, then they pay for all those things, not expecting the younger worker to pitch in. Exactly. What indeed. A better question though, is what does the older worker need with the money? The message in gospel meetings is that they go forth as the original apostles without money or scrip. And when one goes into the work, you give all your money away. So, in second one of being in the work, you are penniless. In the next few minutes, the overseer or your older companion gives you about $500 for things like food and gas. But what else could I spend it on? Nothing, really. I would have to carry whatever I bought. Laptops and phones can be purchased, but nothing else. So, the real question is this, why the need for trusts, the inheriting of the friends estates, etc? The answer is clear - the workers are not living by faith in regards to their needs being met.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 23, 2013 5:25:31 GMT -5
Ringing up asking to come for a meal, or to stay in someones home is the same as asking for money. What got me is that they often preached about how they were poor homeless preachers which to me is a subtle way of asking for money. The workers are guaranteed free board and lodging. Is that any different from having a guaranteed salary? See Willis Propps Incorporation Papers. All as revealed in that. See 4a www.workersect.org/2x205rb.htmlThe workers are not to receive a salary however...... guarantees them free board and lodgings.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 23, 2013 6:33:12 GMT -5
hahaha... I see. It went into the trust funds. You got me scared for a minute there. I thought this regular worker received that much inheritance money all by himself sounded very strange. How do you determine it was a trust fund as opposed to a personal account? In a personal account it would have generated income and could have been the nexus for taxation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 7:53:23 GMT -5
Ringing up asking to come for a meal, or to stay in someones home is the same as asking for money. What got me is that they often preached about how they were poor homeless preachers which to me is a subtle way of asking for money. The workers are guaranteed free board and lodging. Is that any different from having a guaranteed salary? See Willis Propps Incorporation Papers. All as revealed in that. See 4a www.workersect.org/2x205rb.htmlThe workers are not to receive a salary however...... guarantees them free board and lodgings. wonder what went wrong when jesus stayed with nichodemus and other rich people --- maybe that is where it all went wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 7:54:50 GMT -5
About 5 years ago a sister worker knew we did not have a lot of extra money to give to the workers. She told us if we just gave the workers $10.00 every time they came to our house they would make sure it was put to good use. Was that not asking for MONEY!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 7:56:55 GMT -5
Does asking for a custom kitchen for the contention grounds house constitute asking for MONEY? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 8:23:31 GMT -5
Ringing up asking to come for a meal, or to stay in someones home is the same as asking for money. What got me is that they often preached about how they were poor homeless preachers which to me is a subtle way of asking for money. The workers are guaranteed free board and lodging. Is that any different from having a guaranteed salary? See Willis Propps Incorporation Papers. All as revealed in that. See 4a www.workersect.org/2x205rb.htmlThe workers are not to receive a salary however...... guarantees them free board and lodgings. wonder what went wrong when jesus stayed with nichodemus and other rich people --- maybe that is where it all went wrong But Jesus never showed favoritism between the rich or the poor. That is very important. His parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus showed plainly that Jesus understood that the riches of this world were nothing. Satan offered Him all of the riches of the world- and He rebuked Satan. I don't care about the workers having money. They can have all the riches they desire, as far as I am concerned. I am just wondering what is the difference between their money and the so-called hireling preacher's money? It is the hypocrisy that bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 23, 2013 8:24:40 GMT -5
How do you determine it was a trust fund as opposed to a personal account? In a personal account it would have generated income and could have been the nexus for taxation. And just the same, in a Trust, it would have been taxable as he took distributions.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 8:24:45 GMT -5
Does asking for a custom kitchen for the contention grounds house constitute asking for MONEY? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Did the workers pay for the kitchen? Material, etc.? What kind of custom kitchen? Pressboard cabinets or fancier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 8:44:32 GMT -5
This is something that is probably difficult for most people here to accept:
A person can come to the gospel meetings, profess, attend fellowship meetings twice/week and attend convention once/year without ever being directly asked to pay for any of it, including the food they eat at convention or for their ministers' cost of living. Workers will not bar anyone if they are unable to stay at their homes.
It's all free for you if you want it to be free.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 23, 2013 9:00:01 GMT -5
How do you determine it was a trust fund as opposed to a personal account? In a personal account it would have generated income and could have been the nexus for taxation. Are you assuming Nathan9 knew of the tax consequences of the money?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 9:16:48 GMT -5
This is something that is probably difficult for most people here to accept: A person can come to the gospel meetings, profess, attend fellowship meetings twice/week and attend convention once/year without ever being directly asked to pay for any of it, including the food they eat at convention or for their ministers' cost of living. Workers will not bar anyone if they are unable to stay at their homes. It's all free for you if you want it to be free. And this is probably difficult for most people here to accept: one can attend church weekly, attend revivals, use their day care, accept monetary help from the church when they lose their job, etc., and the preachers will not bar them from attending if they are unable or unwilling to donate money to the church. Again- it isn't the money aspect that I have an issue with- it is the hypocrisy that they are somehow more holy than other preachers because they don't take a salary. Lots of other preachers also don't take salaries, but they are lumped in the category of hireling as well, just because they aren't two by two. Again, I ask. Is money in a collection plate any less or more holy than money taken in a secret hand shake? Some workers DO take note of the friends who aren't paying- and wonder about their spiritual health because they aren't giving- I know that from my experience of being in the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 9:31:04 GMT -5
This is something that is probably difficult for most people here to accept: A person can come to the gospel meetings, profess, attend fellowship meetings twice/week and attend convention once/year without ever being directly asked to pay for any of it, including the food they eat at convention or for their ministers' cost of living. Workers will not bar anyone if they are unable to stay at their homes. It's all free for you if you want it to be free. And this is probably difficult for most people here to accept: one can attend church weekly, attend revivals, use their day care, accept monetary help from the church when they lose their job, etc., and the preachers will not bar them from attending if they are unable or unwilling to donate money to the church. Again- it isn't the money aspect that I have an issue with- it is the hypocrisy that they are somehow more holy than other preachers because they don't take a salary. Lots of other preachers also don't take salaries, but they are lumped in the category of hireling as well, just because they aren't two by two. Again, I ask. Is money in a collection plate any less or more holy than money taken in a secret hand shake? Some workers DO take note of the friends who aren't paying- and wonder about their spiritual health because they aren't giving- I know that from my experience of being in the work. Yes it different sacerdotal, regardless whether anyone thinks the difference has any significance or not. The secret handshake is omnidirectional. It is 100% the decision of the giver to do so. The collection basket is direct solicitation, ie the hand is held out for money first, then the giver gives it. I'm not saying solicitation is wrong, but we need to recognize that solicitation is common and frequent in other churches, and practically non-existent in the F&Ws. Have you ever been to a regular mainstream church service (I mean the schedule Sunday am ones) and ever not been solicited for money in some way? I haven't (although I haven't been to a lot of them either). Solicitation is common and frequent. It is rare to nonexistent among F&Ws. That is a fact and a stark difference between the two......again, regardless of whether the difference has any significance or not. The issues of spiritual health and high status in the F&Ws related to money are side issues not related to non-solicitation. If getting up there in F&W status is the goal of people, then give big and give often! If not, give whatever you want, or don't give at all.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 9:42:02 GMT -5
And this is probably difficult for most people here to accept: one can attend church weekly, attend revivals, use their day care, accept monetary help from the church when they lose their job, etc., and the preachers will not bar them from attending if they are unable or unwilling to donate money to the church. Again- it isn't the money aspect that I have an issue with- it is the hypocrisy that they are somehow more holy than other preachers because they don't take a salary. Lots of other preachers also don't take salaries, but they are lumped in the category of hireling as well, just because they aren't two by two. Again, I ask. Is money in a collection plate any less or more holy than money taken in a secret hand shake? Some workers DO take note of the friends who aren't paying- and wonder about their spiritual health because they aren't giving- I know that from my experience of being in the work. Yes it different sacerdotal, regardless whether anyone thinks the difference has any significance or not. The secret handshake is omnidirectional. It is 100% the decision of the giver to do so. The collection basket is direct solicitation, ie the hand is held out for money first, then the giver gives it. I'm not saying solicitation is wrong, but we need to recognize that solicitation is common and frequent in other churches, and practically non-existent in the F&Ws. Have you ever been to a regular mainstream church service (I mean the schedule Sunday am ones) and ever not been solicited for money in some way? I haven't (although I haven't been to a lot of them either). Solicitation is common and frequent. It is rare to nonexistent among F&Ws. That is a fact and a stark difference between the two......again, regardless of whether the difference has any significance or not. The issues of spiritual health and high status in the F&Ws related to money are side issues not related to non-solicitation. If getting up there in F&W status is the goal of people, then give big and give often! If not, give whatever you want, or don't give at all. You brought up the issue of solicitation. I personally hate solicitation. As Marie noted, some workers do solicit for money. As TS noted, some workers know that if they need a new laptop, then all they have to do is make a small comment in front of the right people, and voila, they will receive a new laptop. I used to have to be careful of what I said, just to make sure people weren't thinking that I was "fishing" for something. It was actually pretty annoying. All I am asking, again, are the workers depending on a steady flow of money or not? And do they receive a steady flow of money? The answer to both questions is "yes". So, the next question is this- other than not soliciting for money directly- what is different about the money received in a collection plate and the money received in a secret hand shake? Why is the man or woman that receives his money via a salary or a collection plate, considered worse spiritually (a hireling) than the man or woman that receives his money via a secret hand shake? Why is one considered a hireling, while the other not? My point in all of this. . . the workers need to quit preaching that all other preachers are hirelings that care not for the sheep. . . because the workers are hirelings by the same definition. It is an unnecessary, divisive, and false doctrine. There is no need for the workers to point this out. As you mentioned, many other churches put too much emphasis on the financial needs- especially for all of their projects- missions, building projects, humanitarian projects, salaries, etc. It should be refreshing to all that come to gospel meetings to not hear anything about financial obligations. The unnecessary, divisive doctrine need not be rolled out.
|
|