|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 23, 2013 10:11:27 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. This has been my experience as well . Since leaving the 2X2’s, I have become acquainted with other people raised in religious contexts where tithing was practiced, and it was a considerable burden as people struggled to raise their families and to tithe at the same time. When I listen to their stories, I always feel grateful that, in my experience, there was never emphasis on giving money to the 2X2 church. While going to school, and in the first years where we were just getting established, money was tight, and we never felt the slightest pressure to give to the workers. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. I can remember when one worker made a number of long distance phone calls at our home, and he stuck money under the phone afterwards. When Dale Schultz would visit, he was mindful of our resources, to almost an extreme degree. For example, when he took a shower, he would briefly turn the water on to wet himself down, turn it off while he applied soap, then turn it on briefly to rinse off. I believe he instructed his younger companion to do the same while at members’ homes. It wasn’t necessary, but it is indicative of their mindfulness in not wanting to be a burden in any way. And not having expectations either. As we became more and more established, we gave increasing amounts of money. For the most part, it was a pretty neutral exchange. In my exiting years, there was one worker, in particular, where I sometimes thought her acceptance and approval of us went up with the more money she got. That may or may not have been the case – and could have been more indicative of what was going on within me, than anything to do with her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 10:15:30 GMT -5
Clearday, My husband has felt since we moved back to New England that we were not wealthy enough for the workers here. I think that does have an effect on a mans feeling of worthiness when you do not feel you can give as much as the workers would like.
We both feel that our lack of wealth very much had a direct effect on how we have been treated.
No, the kitchen was not made out of press board. How insulting!!!!! My husband does quality work not junk!!!!!!
For the record not one worker or friend in this area has been in touch with my husband since he let meeting.
He was good enough to be called to do work at preps, use his shop for gospel meetings and let the workers use his tools.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 10:33:25 GMT -5
It is common to hear workers preach from the platform about how they don't have to ask for money.
This is the same as direct solicitation. They are reminding that people that they are not asking for money, so they need to be aware to give without being asked.
If the workers say that they are not asking for money and pass a plate right afterwards, the message would be clear. However, they COULD say that they are not asking for money and everything put in the plate was given freely of their own free will. They were just giving the opportunity at a convenient time when everyone was together.
It all amounts to the same thing. Workers need money. They know it. Everyone knows it. Workers are human and some workers know how to manipulate the situation to get more money. There are many ways to manipulate people into giving money and making them feel good about doing so.
There are also genuine workers who are giving freely and people are moved to support them in their efforts to preach the gospel.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 10:34:59 GMT -5
Clearday, My husband has felt since we moved back to New England that we were not wealthy enough for the workers here. I think that does have an effect on a mans feeling of worthiness when you do not feel you can give as much as the workers would like. We both feel that our lack of wealth very much had a direct effect on how we have been treated. No, the kitchen was not made out of press board. How insulting!!!!! My husband does quality work not junk!!!!!! For the record not one worker or friend in this area has been in touch with my husband since he let meeting. He was good enough to be called to do work at preps, use his shop for gospel meetings and let the workers use his tools. Right, I wasn't trying to insult you. I am well aware of your husband's work. He worked on Keith Richard's (famous Rolling Stones band member) kitchen/cabinets, if I remember correctly. Didn't he make the cabinets out of Cherry wood for the convention grounds? And then when your cabinet shop went bankrupt a few years later due to an dishonest attorney, and you notified Barry Barkley of your plight, didn't he immediately come to your house and say that the friends and workers were there to help you? Or did he tell you NOT to expect help from the friends and workers, and that you should apply for food stamps? So, your husband, a master carpenter, voluntarily built the quality custom cabinets for a convention ground, but in your time of need, the workers literally said that the friends and workers could not help you out- even though you didn't ask them for help or call him to ask for help? I wish all of the friends knew just how tough ya'll had it, and how you were treated in your time of need by Barry and the others under his influence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 10:46:33 GMT -5
A few years ago I became friendly with a neighbour who had left the RC church and had joined another church. He said that it was a church requirement in his new church to make a donation of a total of 10% of his wages each week to the local church and a further donation to the overseas HQ of that particular church. Their sabbath was on a Saturday.
Our fellowship thrives on the motto, "freely received, freely given."
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 10:53:38 GMT -5
A few years ago I became friendly with a neighbour who had left the RC church and had joined another church. He said that it was a church requirement in his new church to make a donation of a total of 10% of his wages each week to the local church and a further donation to the overseas HQ of that particular church. Their sabbath was on a Saturday. Our fellowship thrives on the motto, "freely received, freely given." It also thrives on the motto, "You get what you pay for."
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2013 10:54:07 GMT -5
.
Truth is that the workers dont really know if a person, couple, family is giving to the workers or church...just bcs they dont give to the workers in their field or state doesnt mean they aren't monetarily supporting the F&W system.
Friends could be mailing money out of state or out of the country. Perhaps supporting workers overseas; or paying for hospital, dental or doctor bills; buying plane tickets; paying monthly for telephones, or credit cards; paying utilities for conv. grounds. Some may be sending support to the rest homes where the workers retire that have sprung up in the USA.
Some provide the workers with automobiles=however, the F&Ws usually know who that is...and they often get stuck with the repair bills as well, and for sure the insurance.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 10:56:37 GMT -5
. Truth is that the workers dont really know if a person, couple, family is giving to the workers or church...just bcs they dont give to the workers in their field or state doesnt mean they aren't monetarily supporting the F&W system. Friends could be mailing money out of state or out of the country. Perhaps supporting workers overseas; or paying for hospital, dental or doctor bills; buying plane tickets; paying monthly for telephones, or credit cards; paying utilities for conv. grounds. Some may be sending support to the rest homes where the workers retire that have sprung up in the USA. Some provide the workers with automobiles=however, the F&Ws usually know who that is...and they often get stuck with the repair bills as well, and for sure the insurance. Exactly. This is why they shouldn't be judging.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 11:01:12 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. This has been my experience as well . Since leaving the 2X2’s, I have become acquainted with other people raised in religious contexts where tithing was practiced, and it was a considerable burden as people struggled to raise their families and to tithe at the same time. When I listen to their stories, I always feel grateful that, in my experience, there was never emphasis on giving money to the 2X2 church. While going to school, and in the first years where we were just getting established, money was tight, and we never felt the slightest pressure to give to the workers. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. I can remember when one worker made a number of long distance phone calls at our home, and he stuck money under the phone afterwards. When Dale Schultz would visit, he was mindful of our resources, to almost an extreme degree. For example, when he took a shower, he would briefly turn the water on to wet himself down, turn it off while he applied soap, then turn it on briefly to rinse off. I believe he instructed his younger companion to do the same while at members’ homes. It wasn’t necessary, but it is indicative of their mindfulness in not wanting to be a burden in any way. And not having expectations either. As we became more and more established, we gave increasing amounts of money. For the most part, it was a pretty neutral exchange. In my exiting years, there was one worker, in particular, where I sometimes thought her acceptance and approval of us went up with the more money she got. That may or may not have been the case – and could have been more indicative of what was going on within me, than anything to do with her. Personally I have never given anything to the Workers...except my all when I went into the work for 12 years. I do agree with you to an extent, CD. You don't HAVE to give anything. But that does not mean there is never pressure to give. Sacerdotal's example of the sister workers talking about how one family had money for their cats but not for the workers is one such time there is pressure. Even if it is behind the back pressure, it is still pressure. People eventually sense disapproval even if they can't put their finger on it. What I have issue with is the fact that the Workers think they have something unique in not asking for money. Their are certainly examples of greedy and manipulative workers, but they are "human". However, they say that ALL preachers "outside" are false prophets because they ask for money for their services. That simply is not true. There are, in fact, many preachers who are doing God's work with a lot more faith and integrity and seeing miracles, people healed and saved much more than most of the Workers. There probably are many who are just as deceptive and manipulative as some of the Workers, also. I would like to see the Workers acknowledge that there are actually preachers "outside" who are have a lot to teach the Workers about having a relationship with their Heavenly Father.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:01:37 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. I agree. My husband has always said that with regards to money, this is as cheap as church gets
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 11:04:30 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. I agree. My husband has always said that with regards to money, this is as cheap as church gets Not true. What about the accepting of entire estates of the friends that leave it to the workers? That costs someone- usually family members- and I know of some families, professing, that were hurt by this practice. It wasn't "cheap" for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:05:20 GMT -5
A few years ago I became friendly with a neighbour who had left the RC church and had joined another church. He said that it was a church requirement in his new church to make a donation of a total of 10% of his wages each week to the local church and a further donation to the overseas HQ of that particular church. Their sabbath was on a Saturday. Our fellowship thrives on the motto, "freely received, freely given." That's one of the advantages of the non-denominational evangelically-oriented churches: there is no HQ over them to help support--the money is for the local church and its needs and missions only.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 23, 2013 11:05:59 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. 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).
Yep. Lots of them. I no longer see a collection plate as a solicitation, but rather a convenient way to give money IF YOU WANT TO. I never feel pressured to do so, and in fact...... when a pastor/minister specifically makes a point of asking for money..... I usually do not contribute. That's just the way I am.... 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.I disagree. Especially when it comes to workers who visit the elderly and discuss their finances with them, and offer suggestions as to how to go about willing their money/estates to the work. I have heard about that being done, plus I believe it was the California overseer that had paperwork drawn up to give to people so that they would know how to do this (and made readily available to do so... which I think is a HUGE form of solicitation for funds) A hireling is a hireling. It is anyone other than Jesus in my book. The workers are 'paid' through free will donations of food/shelter/gas/vehicle use/money/computers/phones/medical expenses/etc. Without those 'payments/salary' they wouldn't be able to function. This doesn't constitute going out in faith I don't believe, as all of this comes from people who are established within the church, and provide for all their needs. If any are to be considered to be 'going out in faith', it would be those in other countries where there are no friends, and even then they have their needs provided by established members of the church 'back home' and the trust funds. Most of those workers have credit cards that they use (to my understanding) I had quite the discussion with my mom about finances. She was a bit uncomfortable talking about it at first, but when she realized I was simply talking about facts that I knew about, she opened up about bank accounts, how a worker relative of ours was supported in another country, and her knowledge of accounts held in trust for the use of workers. These are pretty poorly kept 'secrets', and simply aren't talked about. Probably because if they were openly talked about, and the amount of money available for workers were known, it would cause a bit of an uproar with those who still believe that the workers are indeed 'penniless and homeless'. I should mention (again) that I don't personally have an issue with how they go about collecting/soliciting money from the friends. It isn't my church, and hearing how one trust had over 3 million dollars in it just made me chuckle about the hypocritical 'hireling/penniless sermons I used to hear. Gather money and use it without any accountability. If that is what makes their boats float and the members are happy with that arrangement, that is just fine with me. However..... what disgusts me is hearing about how they are so different from other churches because they 'don't ask for money', or that 'all other ministers are hirelings'. That is just a load of monkey crap as far as I am concerned, and I figure that any worker that preaches such is a liar, and anyone that believes it is gullible.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 11:07:48 GMT -5
HA HA HA HA HA ....HOO HO HOH HO HO HOOOW!!!! Good one, Nathan 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.Odd how you let this worker off the hook as a knee jerk reaction. sorta makes your world work right. However, this worker did NOT put the money in a trust fund. It was HIS money. HIS HIS HIS. All to be used at HIS discretion. It was given to HIM and he made sure that I knew that. When he would buy something that he would normally feel guilty using the Friends' money for, he would, without me saying or thinking any accusation, say, "I bought this with my inheritance. I didn't use the Friends' money." Face it, Nathan, there are greedy Workers who are scared about how they are going to be provided for. They manipulate others and figure out ways to get money out of people using the gospel to do so. Just like there are "worldly" preachers who do the same. In fact, there are Workers who ARE "worldly" preachers who preach falseness and lead people astray. And there are "outsiders" who are true preachers leading people to Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:09:25 GMT -5
I agree. My husband has always said that with regards to money, this is as cheap as church gets Not true. What about the accepting of entire estates of the friends that leave it to the workers? That costs someone- usually family members- and I know of some families, professing, that were hurt by this practice. It wasn't "cheap" for them. I didn't say that. I was agreeing with CD that on a day to day basis, this fellowship to the individual could be extremely cheap in terms of money. Part of that is because others have dumped their entire estates into it (we know such a couple who will do that).
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 11:12:17 GMT -5
Does asking for a custom kitchen for the contention grounds house constitute asking for MONEY? Did the kitchen benefit only the convention grounds or did it benefit the people living on the convention grounds? Did anyone pay for the labour?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 11:15:08 GMT -5
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. 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).
Yep. Lots of them. I no longer see a collection plate as a solicitation, but rather a convenient way to give money IF YOU WANT TO. I never feel pressured to do so, and in fact...... when a pastor/minister specifically makes a point of asking for money..... I usually do not contribute. That's just the way I am.... 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.I disagree. Especially when it comes to workers who visit the elderly and discuss their finances with them, and offer suggestions as to how to go about willing their money/estates to the work. I have heard about that being done, plus I believe it was the California overseer that had paperwork drawn up to give to people so that they would know how to do this (and made readily available to do so... which I think is a HUGE form of solicitation for funds) A hireling is a hireling. It is anyone other than Jesus in my book. The workers are 'paid' through free will donations of food/shelter/gas/vehicle use/money/computers/phones/medical expenses/etc. Without those 'payments/salary' they wouldn't be able to function. This doesn't constitute going out in faith I don't believe, as all of this comes from people who are established within the church, and provide for all their needs. If any are to be considered to be 'going out in faith', it would be those in other countries where there are no friends, and even then they have their needs provided by established members of the church 'back home' and the trust funds. Most of those workers have credit cards that they use (to my understanding) I had quite the discussion with my mom about finances. She was a bit uncomfortable talking about it at first, but when she realized I was simply talking about facts that I knew about, she opened up about bank accounts, how a worker relative of ours was supported in another country, and her knowledge of accounts held in trust for the use of workers. These are pretty poorly kept 'secrets', and simply aren't talked about. Probably because if they were openly talked about, and the amount of money available for workers were known, it would cause a bit of an uproar with those who still believe that the workers are indeed 'penniless and homeless'. I should mention (again) that I don't personally have an issue with how they go about collecting/soliciting money from the friends. It isn't my church, and hearing how one trust had over 3 million dollars in it just made me chuckle about the hypocritical 'hireling/penniless sermons I used to hear. Gather money and use it without any accountability if that is what makes their boats float and the members are happy with that arrangement. However..... what disgusts me is hearing about how they are so different from other churches because they 'don't ask for money', or that 'all other ministers are hirelings'. That is just a load of monkey crap as far as I am concerned, and I figure that any worker that preaches such is a liar, and anyone that believes it is gullible. Thank you, Scott. You certainly have more experience with denominations/fellowships outside of the 2x2s. You stated my point better than I. The workers require money, they receive money. Fine. But that also means that it is hypocritical for them to preach against other preachers that happen to receive the money in a different format. Money is money, regardless of how it is received. One group is up front about it, another group is secretive about it. Which one do you trust more? The one that allows open accounting, or the one that denies anything about the subject? Shouldn't an organization known as the truth be open to all inquiries- to show forth that truth? Unless, of course, you have something to hide. I personally do not like churches that pressure their members to give. I personally do not like preachers that enrich themselves off of the poor. But, I also, personally, do not like the workers preaching one thing, and doing something else, and chastising any that ask them about that practice. That is every bit as dishonest and more so, then what many hated denominations do.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 11:17:01 GMT -5
Not true. What about the accepting of entire estates of the friends that leave it to the workers? That costs someone- usually family members- and I know of some families, professing, that were hurt by this practice. It wasn't "cheap" for them. I didn't say that. I was agreeing with CD that on a day to day basis, this fellowship to the individual could be extremely cheap in terms of money. Part of that is because others have dumped their entire estates into it (we know such a couple who will do that). Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:17:17 GMT -5
A few years ago I became friendly with a neighbour who had left the RC church and had joined another church. He said that it was a church requirement in his new church to make a donation of a total of 10% of his wages each week to the local church and a further donation to the overseas HQ of that particular church. Their sabbath was on a Saturday. Our fellowship thrives on the motto, "freely received, freely given." It also thrives on the motto, "You get what you pay for." I never heard that one before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:20:50 GMT -5
I've been to a number of churches that did no more than pass the collection plate and no 'sales pitch' was given and no pressure tactics used. It was very low key.
We don't have any children, so I know several assume we will leave our money (should we have any!) to the workers. We aren't, but one sister worker suggested that's what we should do.
I agree that no matter how you collect it, openly or behind closed doors, money is required to support a ministry and the 'how it is done' should simply be expedient and honest, not a point of doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 23, 2013 11:21:19 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. I find this interesting. Occasionally, along the way we would hear people complain about not getting worker visits, or someone else getting more privileges than they did. I find this to be such a strange way of looking at things, but perhaps my fault is not liking workers enough, or something. I think workers should stay at rich peoples' homes more, because those are the people that have the extra rooms and accommodations for them. Perhaps they should just stay in one or two homes for the entire term. Then beyond that how often do you need to see a worker? Unless there is a special need, once a year is really enough for a visit. The rest of the time they should go where need calls them, where-ever that would be. You can always call them on the phone if something comes up. From the other side of the coin, I've never understood why workers feel that they need to get a multi-day visit in with everyone, and need to spend one or two nights, and then move on. That much moving around can't be healthy either.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 11:28:27 GMT -5
The Workers have wrongfully equated preachers receiving money(when it pertains to preachers besides themselves) with these preachers being "hirelings".
The usage of "hireling" has nothing to do with whether the person receives money for his services or not. A shepherd is CERTAINLY keeping the sheep for the gain that he gets from the sheep. The difference that Jesus made is the attitude between a true shepherd and a false one.
The true shepherd will live off the gain of the sheep but give his life to protect the sheep.
The false shepherd (Hireling) will live off the gain of the sheep but cut and run at first sign of personal threat or loss.
I have no problem with the workers or any other preacher receiving money from their congregation. I do have a problem with them throwing the weak and poor under the bus when they are abused by predators. I do have a problem with the hirelings giving favoritism to the other hirelings over the victims of abuse. I do have a problem with the hirelings not standing up to the powers that be for fear of their job or fear of their lives or fear of their reputation or fear of their "place" in the Work.
there are many workers who do see the abuses and choose not to say anything openly in order to "keep peace". Meanwhile the sheep are continuing to get abused.
Ray Hoffman praised Ira Hobbs over Ira's victim. Ira was "right with the Lord" and the victim needed to get right with the Lord. Ray is a hireling. He did not go against the politics. He IS the politics. Ira is a hireling but given honour by Ray as the bad he did does not diminish the "good" he has done. A good example of hirelings that the other workers will not stand up to, and, in fact, give honour and place to. They will, in fact, lose their place if they do...unless they trust God and do so in faith enduring the persecution...like Jesus taught.
Just one of many examples. I am sure that you could look at many "worldly" churches and find similar examples. I am sure you could find Godly examples of true shepherds in other churches, as well.
The problem is, the Workers use a blanket policy for ALL other churches as "false" and "hirelings" and theirs is excused.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 23, 2013 11:31:32 GMT -5
However..... what disgusts me is hearing about how they are so different from other churches because they 'don't ask for money', or that 'all other ministers are hirelings'. That is just a load of monkey crap as far as I am concerned, and I figure that any worker that preaches such is a liar, and anyone that believes it is gullible. Thanks, you distilled the point of my post, beautifully. Hypocrisy is unbecoming.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 23, 2013 11:37:12 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. True. The monetary contribution we have made to the fellowship has been minimal. To my knowledge, we are not considered "lesser" friends. But what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Apr 23, 2013 11:40:40 GMT -5
Odd how you let this worker off the hook as a knee jerk reaction. sorta makes your world work right. However, this worker did NOT put the money in a trust fund. It was HIS money. HIS HIS HIS. All to be used at HIS discretion. It was given to HIM and he made sure that I knew that. When he would buy something that he would normally feel guilty using the Friends' money for, he would, without me saying or thinking any accusation, say, "I bought this with my inheritance. I didn't use the Friends' money." Face it, Nathan, there are greedy Workers who are scared about how they are going to be provided for. They manipulate others and figure out ways to get money out of people using the gospel to do so. Just like there are "worldly" preachers who do the same. In fact, there are Workers who ARE "worldly" preachers who preach falseness and lead people astray. And there are "outsiders" who are true preachers leading people to Jesus. Even if that money was HIS he had to turn all of that money at preps and start with 300 dollars in the new year like all of the workers. You know that, ts. I don't believe that overseer used for his own gain. Yes, I know there are some greedy workers, and the Holy Spirit will take care of them like He did with Judas/Annais and Sapphira for lying to the Spirit (Acts 5). I know that that is how it is SUPPOSED to work, Nathan. I know for a fact that that is not the way that it DID work. I know that God will take care of it. However, I do find it remarkable that there is not one worker who had a word of knowledge on the matter like Peter did. They could not see that this man was dishonest and a liar. I saw it from being his companion. He was elevated to overseer. I saw how he worked a crowd of people and got everyone enamoured with him. He was good at it. Faultless. I saw him carelessly and intentionally offend the poor and weak for his own glory. NO worker dared stand up to him. I did, but it really cost me and he made sure that it did cost me. It cost me my health. It was very stressful and disconcerting to see what he was doing to the Friends. Nathan, this guy did NOT start with $300 at the beginning of the year. NO overseer does. Even when this guy lost his overseer position, his inheritance went with him. He stayed in the work. He fit the mold of 'hireling" but remained in the work. the reason is because he preached the exclusivity of the 2x2s and the 2x2 ministry. Those are the only qualifications he needed to continue in the Work. You bring up a good point. I have said it before. The exclusivity doctrine causes the workers to lose spiritual discernment. They excuse things they should not because a person believes in the form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 11:41:09 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. True. The monetary contributions we have made to the fellowship has been minimal. To my knowledge, we are not considered "lesser" friends. But what do I know? We've not given much over the years either other than the workers have used our house a lot.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2013 11:45:59 GMT -5
What is a HIRELING?John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2013 11:46:31 GMT -5
What is a HIRELING?The Shepherd The key verse in this passage is verse 11 where Jesus says, "I am the good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Jesus compares the Good Shepherd to a stranger, to a thief and to a hireling. The Good Shepherd cares about the sheep so much that He will even lay down his life for the sheep. (vs 11). Three times Jesus repeats the statement "I lay down my life for the sheep" (vss 11, 15, 17). This indicates that this is the point of emphasis in this discourse, His being Messiah. The third time Jesus elaborates on this statement, he tells us that He has the authority, a commandment from the Father, to lay down His life--and not only to lay it down but to take it up again (vs 15). The main idea is that only the Shepherd has a full commitment to the sheep and consequently has their full trust. There is only one flock and one Shepherd (vs 16). Jesus knows who His sheep are (v.14, 27). He calls them (vs 3). He gathers them (vs 16). He guides them (vs 3,4). He feeds them (vs 9). He protects and preserves them (vs 28). He gives eternal life to His sheep and they will never perish (vs 28). Only Jesus is entitled to call them "my sheep," and to call himself "The Good Shepherd". Jesus is also called the CHIEF Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) and the GREAT Shepherd (Micah 5:4; Heb 13:20) The Apostles are not “shepherds.” There is no passage in the New Testament that refers to the Apostles as shepherds. Hostile Jews made up a significant portion of Jesus’ audience, and they were incensed at His statement, "I am the Good Shepherd.” What made them so angry? More than likely, Psalm 23 was one of their favorite Psalms, just as it is one of ours. This Psalm begins, "The L ord is my shepherd..." By calling himself the Good Shepherd, they thought Jesus was making himself out to be God. And when He went even further and ended with "I and my Father are one" (vs 30), they "took up stones again to stone him" (vs 31). The Sheep The Sheep are those who believe on Jesus, who know who Jesus is and who recognize and follow Him (vs 3, 4). They are in the sheep pen or fold (the collective universal church). The sheep know the Good Shepherd and He knows them (vs 14). The sheep belong to Jesus and will follow no one else—thieves can never steal the sheep from Jesus (vss 8, 28, 29). The Door Jesus Himself is the Door of the sheep (vs 7). All sheep who enter through the Door will be saved (vs 9), and will have abundant life (vs 10). Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). He gave His all for the flock (the church). The Stranger - John 10:4-6 A stranger cannot lead the sheep because the doorkeeper/porter (God) will not admit a stranger to the sheepfold (the church). Should the stranger climb into the sheepfold other than by the door, the sheep will not follow him because they do not recognize his voice (false doctrine). They will flee from the stranger (vs 5). The stranger does not know the sheep by name like the true Shepherd does. The sheep do not know the stranger and do not trust him. Thieves and Robbers - John 10:1-2, 8, 10, 28 Jesus calls the stranger "a thief and a robber". The thief comes to steal the sheep. There were such thieves and robbers before Jesus came on the scene. He predicted that there would continue to be thieves and robbers after his departure. "Many false prophets will arise and mislead many" (Matt 24:11). Thieves are imposters of the Shepherd who come to steal the sheep. They do not have the welfare of the sheep in mind. They have evil intentions and come to take life not give life to the sheep. Their purpose is "to steal, and to kill, and to destroy" (vs 10). But Jesus came to give “abundant life” to the sheep (vs 10). Only He can "give eternal life to them," while the thief brings nothing but death. Hirelings - John 10:12-13 When a Shepherd cannot be with the sheep himself, he may hire someone to care for them in his place temporarily. This parable calls this person a “hireling.” A hireling is neither a stranger nor a thief. He is a legitimate care giver, and unlike the thief, may have good intentions. A hireling may take the job for any number of reasons; i.e. for self preservation, for the money, for a job, or because he has a genuine care for sheep. The true Shepherd is not a hireling. The hireling is hired to take care of the sheep and does not own them. Being human, the hireling may put his own life ahead of the sheep, since the sheep are not his sheep. If a wolf comes, the hireling may protect himself by running away. Unlike the Good Shepherd, the hireling may not be willing to endanger his life for the sake of the sheep. Self preservation usually comes first with a hireling. In this parable, the concept of a hireling was compared to Jesus as the Good Shepherd. It was used to make a sharp contrast between Jesus, the ultimate caretaker of the sheep, and mere men caretakers (vs 13). Jesus may have been making reference to the Jewish religious leaders who were appointed by the law, yet they put their own lives ahead of the welfare of the people they served. Consequently, the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" (Mark 6:34). The Door of the Sheep - John 10:7, 9 The parable "I am the door of the sheep" is contained within the larger parable, "I am the Good Shepherd". Jesus is both the Shepherd and the Door. He is the true Shepherd and He is also the Door itself (John 10:7). Only one door or gate leads to the green pasture of eternal life. That door is Jesus. Enter by Him and you will be saved. Enter by another door and you will be lost. At night, shepherds rounded up their sheep and took them to a nearby “fold” in the field. This was a round, walled in area with one doorway. The shepherd slept in the doorway. Sometimes the fold would contain the sheep of more than one shepherd all mixed together. There was no problem separating them the next morning, however, as the sheep knew their shepherds voice, and would come and follow him when he called to them. One had to enter the sheepfold through the only entry into it-the door where the shepherd slept so the sheep would stay inside. The Door is Jesus. Who feeds the Sheep? Jesus is not hired--He is The Owner of the sheep. Peter who called himself an elder, wrote that the elders are not “Lords (owners) over God’s heritage.” Paul wrote (2 Cor. 1:24) “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” The elders are the “feeders” of the sheep. Jesus asked Peter to “Feed my lambs and Feed my sheep.” Paul asked the leaders of Ephesus to “Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Peter wrote to the elders, “Feed the flock of God which is among you.” What is the main lesson of this parable? This parable is chiefly about Jesus. The paramount lesson to learn from Jesus’ words in John 10 is that Jesus Himself is the Shepherd and the Owner of the sheep and the Door of the sheepfold. He extends to the sheep, not the limited care of one hired, but his total care and commitment as Owner and Shepherd, and He was willing to die for His sheep, take up His life again, and He did so. This parable refers to hirelings, thieves and strangers to show the awesome contrast in them and Jesus being The Shepherd-Messiah. Hirelings are NOT its focus. The Apostles and elders are not the Good Shepherd. In the context of John 10, all ministers/pastors/workers are “hirelings,” in the sense that they do not own the sheep. They are all fallible, imperfect, human beings even in their best state, who for self preservation might flee when they see the wolf coming. In this context, the ultimate safety of the sheep is not in the hands of ministers/pastors/workers, but in the hands of the Good Shepherd who gave His life for the Sheep, and “no man shall pluck them out of my hand.” (vs 28-29) What is a Hireling?
|
|