Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 3:05:52 GMT -5
I'll try an analogy. If you set up a charity but it wasn't registered. You acted as a representative for the charity and I decided to give money to the charity. The only way of doing this was to write out a personal cheque to you....but my intention was that it would be for the charity's work - not for you personally. You decide that I don't really support the overall aims of the charity so you return the money saying that the charity cannot accept my gift. In doing that, aren't you acting as the charity or the head of the charity itself. Similarly, isn't the worker who says "God can't accept your offering" acting as if they were God or the Head of the Kingdom? Even if we both agreed they weren't acting as God, don't you think it's an odd thing for a Head Worker to say? Why don't they simply say - I can't accept your offering as you don't really support what I'm doing. I could accept that but saying God can't accept my offering. Interested in your thoughts. are you entitled to accept from whom you wish? |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 27, 2014 3:22:06 GMT -5
"no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God" Virgo did you say this ? no i wrote that So Virgo you wrote : "they don't need to be open because that money is given in a sense to God" So money given to the workers is in a sense money given to God ? My dumb question was when did the workers become God  ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 4:38:23 GMT -5
So Virgo you wrote : "they don't need to be open because that money is given in a sense to God" So money given to the workers is in a sense money given to God ? My dumb question was when did the workers become God ? what does in a sense mean to you |
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 7:25:58 GMT -5
Review
It appears to me like you have just given every reason not to be honest and pay taxes.
Almost as if workers are infallable beyond reproach?
Beyond questioning?
How dare we?
We do because we can.
We couldnt while professing for fear of upsetting the workers.
Workers have ways of punishing people.
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95 
|
Post by jj on Aug 27, 2014 8:36:16 GMT -5
I believe these are valid questions, and to be honest, you never know who might be reading this site. I know while I was professing my curiousity certainly got the better of me and I found several interesting sites, including this one.
The thing that I have learnt, is that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Being idealistic about the way a group functions is not being realistic. There will always be individuals who abuse the system, anywhere, because that's how some people are wired unfortunately.
Everyone needs money to live and I think some transparency about financial matters would be beneficial. Especially among the workers, where a few control the money and thus have control and power over the rest, which raised some red flags in my mind, particularly since I almost went into the work and had no idea how the system worked (being from a non professing family)
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 27, 2014 10:46:05 GMT -5
Of course some of this is nobody's business, but the friends and workers. I would not doubt that the majority of the friends are quite accepting of how the money is handled. And if not a majority of the friends as a whole, then the majority of those that give. Likely some will contend otherwise, but if you do not want to give money, then don't. The church isn't about the money. By workers and I think many of the friends attempting to be not focused on money there seems to a lot of others focused on it. Published accounting would put a focus on money inside the church. A published accounting of money could seem like an asking for money. A published accounting of money could lead to more grumbling by the discontent. Likely there is some "sharing" of money among the powers that be for the general good of convention and other needs, though convention would likely be primary. Some fields with more money might have a few discontented that might not want to share with the seemingly less fortunate fields. Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. To be fair, since the money is given to the workers by the members of their church....isn't that to be considered "wages" to a degree? And we all don't have to account to one another how we spend our wages, do we? And I know that workers get donations for certain issues of need. When a worker dies, money rolls in pretty fast.....I've known those who have to deal with this, to ask people to not send any more money for that worker's funeral...as they have more then enough money for that. Then they will take what's left over, use it for another worker's funeral or divide it up for workers in need, such as those living in assisted living or nursing homes, etc. and yes, I know some workers have set back some large amounts of money besides that which is for the needs of the church. And I think this is the cause of some desire of an accounting of all the money the workers are given by the friends. Again, I still don't think a penny to penny accounting expectation is right...it's actually their wages...... |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 27, 2014 10:48:51 GMT -5
Elizabeth a)The questions: You avoid giving a direct answer when asked why you post your questions on TMB when you know Overseers, Workers, Elders 'in the know' either don't know what TMB is or if they do most all don't read here anyway! b)The answers: As an ex member (and one who writes and speaks unfavourably of the group) and as one who does not contribute funds you acknowledge you are not entitled to answers to the numerous questions you ask in the OP. Then you keep referring back to your church and income and expenditure accounts etc etc. Do you not understand that members of this group, those who contribute have no interest in ever having income and expenditure accounts, all the financial reports that your church has? I think you do understand that but it almost appears to be that you like to have a moan about or 'have a crack at' the group in one way or another?!  There is an understanding between the members and the ministry when they contribute financially. A deep mutual feeling of trust and good will. Something spiritual, deeper, more wonderful and more binding that any audited accounts could ever express. I think it unlikely you ever experienced this while in the group. I'm sorry about that. If you had you wouldn't be writing as you now are. Along with audited income and expenditure account most all of the group also have zero interest in tithing, salary payments to Ministers, collections in services and many other things that are perhaps acceptable in your church. Not a few have fathers and forefathers who left such to become part of the fellowship they are now in. Why would they want to go back to all that? A member/s did approach the ministry with requests along the line you ask. Many members of the fellowship became aware of that. There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people. Perhaps you are 'banging your head against a brick wall' in your 'spirit of Luther' quest for change?...if that is really what you are after anyway? Or was it just to show how much better you consider it is with audited accounts etc? Regarding appropriateness of asking questions that don't directly concern you - the teaching that you should not inquire about what doesn't directly concern you seems to be a world-wide doctrine in the church. Similarly, when we asked an Australian worker about the dismissal of SS from the work, he commented that none of the friends there have asked about it (the implication being: why should we? and if they haven't asked that must be the proof that there is no problem). I've learned that the fact that the friends don't ask questions doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be asked, but that either: they are oblivious of any problems, they've been taught to "not questions, but just accept and trust" in spite of known problems, or that they don't dare to ask for fear of upsetting those in place of authority and of losing reputation in their eyes. The friends are simply not going to ask uncomfortable questions of those in the ministry - that's how they understand their role of being a "child" and "sheep." I can't speak for EC, but from my experience, I can say that it is possible to have experienced that something you describe and then to lose it. The change comes from learning about issues, asking questions about them, and not receiving satisfactory answers. It feels similar to being a wife who, after 20 years of "wonderful marriage," finds out that the husband was the whole time leading a double life. It's devastating, but ultimately frees you from false beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Jones 'kyblue' on Aug 27, 2014 11:36:09 GMT -5
I do take issue with the notion that money is 'given to god'. It is still a tangible asset monitored by a group or individual within the church and usually used for church purposes. I see no harm in paying a minister a decent salary for their work. I think a minister who can lead a balanced, normal life (aka job, home, hobbies, independence) is by default in a more mentally stable environment. They can make better decisions than one who may be chronically sleep-deprived (from sleeping in so many different beds), being worried about surviving the rest of the year on what meager contributions some may have made, and also not having the ability to unplug from the lifestyle. Why do workers have nervous breakdowns? And who pays for that? (I had to bring it full circle.)
Being stuck in a non ideal setting like workers are in probably doesn't mean they will make the best decision in spending 'god's money'. Then again, someone said it earlier - to make the F&Ws transparent would require a complete rebuild of the group, since there are so many intertwined beliefs and doctrines that would have to be undone. It would take an act of god.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 11:43:54 GMT -5
In almost all of these discussions it comes down to what is ethical and what is legal.
Being legal satisfies the authorities.
What is ethical is certainly open to debate!
|
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 13:03:57 GMT -5
Tim
You are correct a lot of workers do have breakdowns. Same with a number of friends.
Breakdowns cause them to leave the work.
I conclude it to be the unnatural lifestyle they are expected to lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 13:14:17 GMT -5
Tim You are correct a lot of workers do have breakdowns. Same with a number of friends. Breakdowns cause them to leave the work. I conclude it to be the unnatural lifestyle they are expected to lead. Or it could, in some cases, be the stress of dealing with the families. Some priests suffer the same. Or, if you wanted to reach way out, it could be the make-up of the people who decide that this is the type of work they want to do for the rest of their life. Some quit but I am sure there is stress even in making that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 27, 2014 15:52:05 GMT -5
Elizabeth a)The questions: You avoid giving a direct answer(which exes complain about workers doing) when asked why you post your questions on TMB when you know Overseers, Workers, Elders 'in the know' either don't know what TMB is or if they do most all don't read here anyway! b)The answers: As an ex member (and one who writes and speaks unfavourably of the group) and as one who does not contribute funds you acknowledge you are not entitled to answers to the numerous questions you ask in the OP. Then you keep referring back to your church and income and expenditure accounts etc etc. Do you not understand that members of this group, those who contribute have no interest in ever having income and expenditure accounts, all the financial reports that your church has? I think you do understand that but it almost appears to be that you like to have a moan about or 'have a crack at' the group in one way or another?! There is an understanding between the members and the ministry when they contribute financially. A deep mutual feeling of trust and good will. Something spiritual, deeper, more wonderful and more binding that any audited accounts could ever express. I think it unlikely you ever experienced this while in the group. I'm sorry about that. If you had you wouldn't be writing as you now are. Along with audited income and expenditure account most all of the group also have zero interest in tithing, salary payments to Ministers, collections in services and many other things that are perhaps acceptable in your church. Not a few have fathers and forefathers who left such to become part of the fellowship they are now in. Why would they want to go back to all that? A member/s did approach the ministry with requests along the line you ask. Many members of the fellowship became aware of that. There was a widespread expression of astonishment and rejection of anything of this kind by the very people who contribute! Interestingly the astonishment and rejection of the concept was noticeably and equally strong amongst young people. Perhaps you are 'banging your head against a brick wall' in what you perceive as a 'spirit of Luther' quest for change?...if that is really what you are after anyway? What you promote is rejected as inferior and wrong (for this group, but not for your church) by most all of the people who contribute the funds. I guess there will always be ex members who 'know better' and 'know what is best' for the group. A forum such as this is helpful for such; perhaps a source of cathartic release?
What was the ministry's response? Were they open about the money that they receive? Interestingly enough, I have heard of members of the fellowship who no longer provide money because of that rejection to be open about the money issue. They also no longer provide an 'open home'. They only provide lodging and meals when convenient for their family, and then usually only to workers who they consider to be trusted members of the clergy, and not just anyone who happens to be in their field. I read with interest how fiercely some hold to the idea that money really doesn't matter within the fellowship, and yet the fellowship could not function in any way without it. The money in trusts is quite considerable, but is rarely mentioned by the workers. It is hard to preach about going out on faith lines, when the amount of money is known. Likewise, it would be hard to solicit free will offerings when the amount available were known. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 16:00:13 GMT -5
Dear Overseers, Workers, Elders in the know. How much money did you collect from the friends in your state this year, including from deceased estates? How much money do you currently know about which is stockpiled in bank accounts, collected from the friends? What form of accountability is there for those holding the money? Is this information disclosed to anyone? If so, whom? What form of accountability is there for those spending the money? Is it reasonable for members of an organisation to be informed on the income, expenditure and activities of its leaders and the funds provided to them by members? Why do you slander churches for accepting money from their members when you do the same? Why do you slander churches for having their own purpose built facilities when you have your own purpose built convention grounds all over the world? Why do you take money from your members but fail to provide any form of accountability to your members on how this money is used? Why do you seek to hide every aspect of money management from your members rather than acting with transparency, integrity and accountability, declaring income and expenditure through financial statements to those who provide this money to the ministry? Are you willing to answer any of these questions? If not, why not? The answer to the last question, why are you not willing to answer, could be because most of the questions are just statements with "Why do" pasted at the front, and a question mark at the end. IOW, they are rhetorical questions. I doubt you are really interested in "why", and already know the answer to your questions. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 27, 2014 16:21:16 GMT -5
I am guessing that your church is registered with the government and as such gets tax advantages. The reason they provide financial statements is because they are legally required to keep them. Not sure where you are living but in the US both the IRS and nonprofits organizations are required to provide information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. In addition, public inspection of the records of nonprofits must be allowed at their principal offices during regular business hours. Alas, the F&W do not file with the government to take advantage of the tax advantages so they are not under obligation to disclose. Hi Rational, I live in Australia. Yes, we are registered. Churches here are counted as non-profit whether or not they register. It's probably fairly similar to the US in terms of tax. While we don't pay tax on freewill offerings given to the church, we do pay tax on our minister's wages (he pays tax on his income as paid by the church). Questions also arise about health care for workers. Here in Australia we pay a tax levy for healthcare (you can also elect to have private insurance on top of this for faster service, private hospital etc.). But public healthcare is generally available for everyone, either by virtue of being a tax-payer, or under the welfare system. I presume Australian workers would have to claim health care under our welfare system. Which would theoretically mean that they would have to claim that they are unemployed (I'm only guessing here, happy to be corrected). I am assuming that the tax-payer pays completely for the health care (and probably retirement pension) of Australian workers, regardless of how much money the 2x2s have in the bank. The bottom line is that our minister receives a wage, pays tax on it, and pays a tax-levy for health care. Our church registration and financial accountability as a church organisation means that our minister is in no way a burden on our already over-used welfare system. Nor should he be. I believe in America everyone pretty much needs health insurance? How do the workers fare under this system? Are they looked after in this regard? I would hope that the offerings from the friends would be used for such purposes. Any ex-workers care to comment? Elizabeth, I'm backing up fromn Rat's answer to this...in the US, at least as far as I've known in the past 50 years...when a worker became ill and needed hospitalization or surgery there usually would be extra donations given by the friends who knew of the need. Thus the hospitalizations and surgeries were paid in full at time of discharge. The hospitals and clinics have often given a clergy discount....seems some states will have a higher discount for evangelical ministers then church pastors.....so this helps the workers cut down on the costs. When workers become elderly and unable they are generally sent to some friends' home or if necessary to an assisted living home IF the worker is able to help themselves to a great deal....there are some assisted living places in the US that the friends themselves have built and run for the workers on their retirement. The workers in these homes generally will receive Medicaid services for their health issues....which in my state the new Obama health thing for the poor and indigent is still part of Medicaid.....and the workers may well be given a stipend by the state they live in...it is called a SSI and it is NOT part of the Social Security retirement fund that people have contributed taxes to all during their working days. One case in point...there was an elderly sister worker who had been in our state for a long time...probably 15 years or more....finally she was sent back toward her home state. After she'd gone to her new state's field, she got into real trouble with the arithritis in one of her hips...she was in such misery, the drs. said a total hip replacement was all they could offer...otherwords she would continue with severe pain.. So she hadn't been in her new state long enough to qualify for state aid in the form of Medicaid(again this is not the retirees "Medicare" health benefit), so the friends here in our state went to the Medicaid office in the capitol of our state to investigate to see if she'd still qualify for help from our state's Medicaid and our state's Medicaid paid her surgery in full. We all were thankful for that. I know some people get angry that workers get this "state aid" but they are just due it as anybody else.....they are not DUE Social Security NOR Medicare.....but they might as well draw on the Medicaid and SSI state aids as anybody else! IMO Another help is that there are several friends that are physicians and if they're not the kind of physician a worker needs they sure will ask a favor of one of their collegues to check one of their pastoral members out.....this is usually free work as it is done for the friends who is a doctor. Other wise Medicaid does pay some dr. fees. The brother workers who are old enough to have been part of the military draft and some have went into military willingly, they can go for the Veterans' benefit and most have done so. When a worker dies, friends from all around send in money...$5 here and $5 there soon add up and sometimes the workers will send word out that they don't want any more money for the funeral to be sent...they're overloaded as it is. And I've been around when caskets and funerals for workers have been planned and they are not cheap ones, nor are they the most expensive either! It's kind of hard to call for financial reckoning from the workers, because we get into the monies they need for their everyday needs added into once a life expensive buys or surgeries or hospitalizations, etc.......if there is money banked up somewhere,it has mostly come out of these donations all across the US and sometimes world...the accounting would have to start when those monies are received...not only when or what the workers do with them! Then we're running into demanding personal care expenses and the workers like some of the rest of us hate to account for those things...it's embarrassing! I understand people wanting an accounting...but it just doesn't work well with the way the workers end up with money......I think to make it really work that the person who gives them a penny or such would have to start the accounting, wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 27, 2014 16:30:47 GMT -5
Wow Virgo, when did the workers become God ? As to them being trusted well ....... Yes, I had the same question.... In my last letter to Clyde Mackay (then and current Head Worker of NSW) I sent a cheque, made out to him, as I normally would when writing to workers. He sent the cheque back saying that until I changed my attitude (ie me simply asking them questions) that God could not accept my offering. I can only assume by this that: (a) Clyde was in touch with God and God told him to send it back; or (b) Clyde plays God and decided in his capacity as God that he would send the cheque back; or (c) Clyde took the position that as God's chosen minister that he has the right to act on behalf of God and send back money when Clyde determines that a person is not acceptable to God. It's probably (c) that applies but either way it was strange behaviour as (a) I did not make out the cheque to God; and (b) Clyde has put himself in the place of determining who is acceptable or not acceptable to God No doubt Clyde believes that (b) is his role which goes to the heart of the problem re money. If you believe that the workers are God's only true ministers on earth (to the exclusion of all others) then as review005 says you don't need audited accounts, transparency, accountability etc. You simply trust the people who deal with these things. But don't be surprised if your trust is undermined as Fred put it so well. Workers are at best sinful like the rest of us. They are prone to mistakes and do make mistakes on many fronts. If they truly recognised their sinfulness before a Holy God they would put checks and balances in place and welcome transparency and accountability - it would reinforce to the people in the fellowship that mistakes do happen, the leadership is sinful and needs God's grace. So why don't they do it? My hypothesis is simply this - they don't want to admit that there would ever be any need for checks and balances. They don't want to talk about their abject sinfulness (like all of our abject sinfulness) before their followers. Why? It ultimately undermines their authority and the aura that has been built up around the ministry.
It is a little like other areas of sinfulness - child sexual abuse being a current issue. They can't talk about it or put child protection training or universal guidelines in place because they don't want to give an inkling that anything is wrong - that there is any problem.
But there are problems - people know there are problems. The Bible itself tells them that the workers are as sinful as the next person.If I was Head Worker I would be getting on the front foot about these issues before too many more people leave. Pride often is the downfall of the mighty, Ross! And I see all of this unwillingness to predetermine what is necessary to keep things on the up and up as being a "pride issue". We have seen that most anything negative come up about the CSA issues has been mostly about keeping the "reputation of the workers" high and unencumbered with things of the world's ills, etc. The founder himself, said he didn't think the religion or the fellowship would last very long...now some will say 100 years plus is a long time...I don't think so in the comparison to other, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 18:32:54 GMT -5
Elizabeth a)The questions: You avoid giving a direct answer(which exes complain about workers doing) when asked why you post your questions on TMB when you know Overseers, Workers, Elders 'in the know' either don't know what TMB is or if they do most all don't read here anyway! Review, I have answered all the questions as directly and honestly as possible. Even though I have no reason whatsoever to answer to you, as some anonymous person who refuses to identify themselves.
You are either
a) completely gullible if you believe that the workers are not on TMB or have an awareness of what is on here; or
b) completely deceitful because you are a worker but are pretending not to be, and are therefore lacking in honesty and integrity.
Which is it, Review005?
If is it (a), I'd prefer you stop letting the workers hide behind you and let them answer these questions themselves.
If it is (b), show some courage and honesty and give some real answers to all the questions I've asked, now that I've done you the courtesy of answering yours.
It is very hard to have respect for those who continue to hide in the shadows and not show their faces.b)The answers: As an ex member (and one who writes and speaks unfavourably of the group) and as one who does not contribute funds you acknowledge you are not entitled to answers to the numerous questions you ask in the OP. You still didn't answer my question in relation to this - does mean that members/contributors ARE entitled to have answers to these questions? |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 27, 2014 19:07:52 GMT -5
So Virgo you wrote : "they don't need to be open because that money is given in a sense to God" So money given to the workers is in a sense money given to God ? My dumb question was when did the workers become God ? what does in a sense mean to you 24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain extent: "In a sense it may have been the only possible solution." They don't need to be open because that money according to your view or explanation is given to God. Still doesn't change what you wrote Virgo ... you are putting the workers on the same level as God. Why would God want anyone's money ? |
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 20:10:02 GMT -5
Tim You are correct a lot of workers do have breakdowns. Same with a number of friends. Breakdowns cause them to leave the work. I conclude it to be the unnatural lifestyle they are expected to lead. Or it could, in some cases, be the stress of dealing with the families. Some priests suffer the same. Or, if you wanted to reach way out, it could be the make-up of the people who decide that this is the type of work they want to do for the rest of their life. Some quit but I am sure there is stress even in making that decision. I agree. Wow is that a first? |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 27, 2014 20:30:10 GMT -5
Greg, did you type this with a straight face? - Yes.There is a constant refrain - including here from you - that the Way is "not about money". So much so, that they pretend it doesn't exist at all. - I think the friends and workers do not pretend the money does not exist. I think their focus is not on the money, at least not as much as some outsiders. Still, some inside might have the same concerns as some outside.Do you seriously contend that the workers do not ridicule other churches for taking collections and paying preachers a wage (just hirelings, not true shepherds, etc. etc.) ? - The statement was made that other churches are slandered because they accept money from their members. I made the statement that other churches are not slandered because they accept money from their members. This is the point - "the claim that other churches are slandered because they collect money from their members."
Now, if you want to expand or add to that, then that brings up other points. The point I contended against was "other churches are slandered because they collect money from their members.It is a constant point of pride by the workers that they "take no collections". They openly advertise this in their gospel meeting advertisements. They say they go forth "in faith", "without scrip or purse". They constantly use this to compare themselves with "false preachers of the world" who do take money. - Could be pride. Could be awe or wonderment.
The comparison by the workers of themselves to other churches in regard to collections is the workers do not ask for money in their public meetings or in fellowship meetings. Some other churches pass a collection plate and make the need of more donations for certain missions, church building repairs, and what-have-you. That is the comparison, not that other churches accept their member's donations (money).Other churches accept money from their members. The workers accept money from their members. - Correct.And yet we all know that they do take money. So why the double standard? Why lie about it? The ONLY difference between money matters between the Two-by-twos and other churches, is that other churches - those with integrity - provide accountability to their members. - Yes, we on this board know. The friends and workers know. Other former members not on this board know. The workers accept donations. Other churches accept donations. So, where is the double standard?
Is the accounting done with integrity or simply because of need? "This is what you gave us. This is how we spent it. This is what we need. You need to give more."You have provided a lot of surmising about what happens, and excusing of the lack of accountability, but your comments reveal an ignorance of how money is generally accounted for in other church organisations. No, it doesn't put the focus on money. It just provides transparent accountability. - Sorry about the surmising. Just thoughts that came to mind.Although yes - on second thought - it may put the focus on money for the Two-by-twos if the workers revealed the truth. I suspect we would all fall off our chairs, and say "They have HOW much money???" - The workers might have millions of dollars banked and some cash kept on hand (even that all totaled could be a million or more). Plus estates that have been given. There might be other assets.I have yet to hear from those who really hold the purse strings: - Are you really expecting to hear from them?- Is it really true that you "take no collections?" - I think the answer is along the line of "we collect from our members, but not in the gospel meetings or in the fellowship meetings.- Is it really true that you go forth "in faith, without scrip or purse?" - I do not know if the claim without scrip or purse is made.- Is it really true that you are different from the "false preachers of the world" in this respect? - The difference is clear. In general other churches ask for donations in their church services with collection plates and information in church bulletins. The workers do not.
Some church ministers have houses given to them or are paid to be able to have one. The workers do not.These are claims of the workers. Maybe it is time for them to withdraw these claims. - I do not know if they are made.As for your statement that it is nobody's business but the workers and friends - I once challenged the workers to stop lying to their members regarding the origins of the group. - That, again, is another point.They said "It's none of your business now". - They? Maybe one or two or maybe three or four told you that? I said "Yes, it is, I'm one of the people you lied to." - Hard to know who lied. The lie by omission likely done by some or many of the first workers. But now you know. I do not know how many know among the friends and workers. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 27, 2014 22:35:07 GMT -5
This was Alan Richardson's thoughts about sharing information about money with the church:
At Auckland Special Meetings June 2014, Alan Richardson responded to a question by expressing his astonishment that friends had asked for transparency (Can you imagine it?) and then gave a twisted response. The friends don't want to know how much any other person has given, but they do want to know if there are millions in the hands of the 'trusted elders' or if the workers are genuinely going out penniless (as they claim) and needing support.
After speaking about modesty, TV, and internet, Alan Richardson said:
Now just one more thing I want to mention and that’s a wee bit difficult too.
You know that as far as the servants of God are concerned, there are two things that we dare not change. One is the church in the home and only in the home and the second one is the preacher without a home. The church in the home and the preacher without a home.
Now, about two months ago I and some other senior workers received a joint email letter written by some of our friends, a group of friends and their names will remain unnamed. In it they made several requests. One of the requests they made was this: that the servants of God could be more open or transparent with regard to money matters. Can you imagine it? That the servants of God be more open or transparent with money matters.
Now, when I was a young worker, quite a number of years ago now, we were clearly taught by example and by word also, that there was one matter that should never be mentioned from the platform. No servant of God, no true servant of God, should ever mention from a platform like this the matter of money. But I am going to mention one or two little matters this afternoon and I think it will help you understand where we are coming from on this subject.
Now there are a couple of verses on this topic which are very important for us. One verse is Matthew 10:8. The context of it is that Jesus was sending out to preach his first 12 Apostles. These 12 Apostles, they were the first ones. He gave clear instruction. He said “freely you have received, freely give”. Now that is a very important statement.
I have heard people twist this around and for that reason one time I went to some of the more modern translations of the Bible just to see what they would say in this verse. It remains quite clear really and can’t be mistaken. I will tell you what it said. One version says “you received the gospel without paying, give the gospel without any cost” so I think that is quite clear really isn’t it. So consequently God’s servants freely labour. Collections will never be asked, appeals will never be made for money and really no servant of God should tell other people about his or her gifts to be in complete harmony with those words.
He said when you received the gospel you received it freely, you are going to give the gospel now, you make sure you give it freely too. Those are still very important words as far as the servants of God are concerned.
I mentioned about the church in the home. Now as you know lots of churches are in buildings. There is one problem with a church building: the moment it is built it just about needs an organisation to sustain it. It needs an organisation to raise funds. It needs some kind of organisation for the maintenance, a collection needs to be taken. If you have church buildings you make it much more likely that a collection is going to be made. Jesus said “freely you have received, freely give”.
Now the other verse is in Matthew 6:3. The context here is that Jesus was telling his disciples about some things that are better done secretly then being done openly. He spoke about the matter of alms or doing good deeds or making charitable gifts and then he went on to the matter of prayer, private prayers are of greater value when the person goes into a closet. He said you may not get your reward from some other person if they don’t see it but you will get your reward from the God in heaven who sees all things. That seems to be the emphasis there. Verse three says when thou doest alms, that’s good works or good gifts, let’s not thy left hand know what thy right hand doest. Now that’s a very important verse as far as servants of God are concerned. We as God servants, we are treated very well by you friends. Sometimes we have more and sometimes we have less. Whether it is more or whether it is less, we feel that is the way God has arranged it. We feel that is a God arranged thing and we don’t seek to change the position. When folks help us it is done not only individually but it is done privately. That’s what it means to not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
That means when a servant of God is offered or receives a gift of some kind from one of God’s people, he acknowledges that it is something which has come from God. He accepts that gift in the spirit in which it is given, understanding that it has been arranged by God, that the person for no other reason has sought to help the Ministry and that it was the hand of God moving on their lives. If the servants of God knew of any other motive they would probably be somewhat reluctant to receive it. But they receive it gratefully in the spirit in which it is given that it is something which has been moved by the heart of God.
Now I think it said in that letter that the servants of God need to be more accountable. Well I’m going to talk about myself. I feel that I do need to be accountable. Firstly I need to be accountable to God, that is the most important thing. I need to be accountable to my fellow servants in this Ministry. I am answerable to them if they raise in the spirit of God a matter which could be a fault of mine.
My early companions, and particularly I remember Les Hill, he always used to stress upon us that the calibre of a person is often measured by the degree to which they take criticism. The calibre of a person is reflected in the way they take criticism. If you face criticism, you have to examine yourself first and see if what has been said could possibly be true. If it could be true and if it is fair, it needs to be dealt with, it needs to be corrected.
And then he said, if after self-examination the matter is not dealt with and not corrected, just forget it, don’t worry about it. So in any situation the calibre of a person is reflected in the way they react to criticism.
There are a couple of dangers which could arise from being more transparent in certain things. I myself humanly would not have a great problem with it and I suppose that is part of my human nature that possibly I like to talk about what I am doing. Maybe that is a human weakness of mine which is that I like other people to know the good things that I am doing. That is what I am like humanly. There could be a danger in that so it is not for me. If I did disclose certain things like that I could be betraying other people and could be betraying the God of heaven too. The other thing is that if some things became public, it would be difficult in the long term to not disclose who gave what. That is something which would be directly contrary to the matter of not letting your left hand know what your right hand does. People make great sacrifices for the kingdom’s sake. They make those sacrifices before the God of heaven. They don’t do it for any other motive than to please the God of heaven and it is not correct by any degree of imagination that they would want their good deeds publicly displayed in public forums. So I have probably said enough about that matter.
Just to indicate, these are some of the things that are important to us as God servants, the things we need to hold fast to, we dare not change them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 23:29:56 GMT -5
Alan R made some commendable comments in his address.
I will say this I dont remember workers asking for money.
That was before I read secret sect and heard on here of the huge bank accounts.
If the bank accounts are huge in NZ then they have a problem they need to address.
In Australia the first 18k is tax free.
As long as the local workers receive less than that in cash annually legally they are ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 27, 2014 23:38:13 GMT -5
This was Alan Richardson's thoughts about sharing information about money with the church: At Auckland Special Meetings June 2014, Alan Richardson responded to a question by expressing his astonishment that friends had asked for transparency (Can you imagine it?) and then gave a twisted response. The friends don't want to know how much any other person has given, but they do want to know if there are millions in the hands of the 'trusted elders' or if the workers are genuinely going out penniless (as they claim) and needing support.
After speaking about modesty, TV, and internet, Alan Richardson said:
Now just one more thing I want to mention and that’s a wee bit difficult too.
You know that as far as the servants of God are concerned, there are two things that we dare not change. One is the church in the home and only in the home and the second one is the preacher without a home. The church in the home and the preacher without a home.
Now, about two months ago I and some other senior workers received a joint email letter written by some of our friends, a group of friends and their names will remain unnamed. In it they made several requests. One of the requests they made was this: that the servants of God could be more open or transparent with regard to money matters. Can you imagine it? That the servants of God be more open or transparent with money matters.
Now, when I was a young worker, quite a number of years ago now, we were clearly taught by example and by word also, that there was one matter that should never be mentioned from the platform. No servant of God, no true servant of God, should ever mention from a platform like this the matter of money. But I am going to mention one or two little matters this afternoon and I think it will help you understand where we are coming from on this subject.
Now there are a couple of verses on this topic which are very important for us. One verse is Matthew 10:8. The context of it is that Jesus was sending out to preach his first 12 Apostles. These 12 Apostles, they were the first ones. He gave clear instruction. He said “freely you have received, freely give”. Now that is a very important statement.
I have heard people twist this around and for that reason one time I went to some of the more modern translations of the Bible just to see what they would say in this verse. It remains quite clear really and can’t be mistaken. I will tell you what it said. One version says “you received the gospel without paying, give the gospel without any cost” so I think that is quite clear really isn’t it. So consequently God’s servants freely labour. Collections will never be asked, appeals will never be made for money and really no servant of God should tell other people about his or her gifts to be in complete harmony with those words.
He said when you received the gospel you received it freely, you are going to give the gospel now, you make sure you give it freely too. Those are still very important words as far as the servants of God are concerned.
I mentioned about the church in the home. Now as you know lots of churches are in buildings. There is one problem with a church building: the moment it is built it just about needs an organisation to sustain it. It needs an organisation to raise funds. It needs some kind of organisation for the maintenance, a collection needs to be taken. If you have church buildings you make it much more likely that a collection is going to be made. Jesus said “freely you have received, freely give”.
Now the other verse is in Matthew 6:3. The context here is that Jesus was telling his disciples about some things that are better done secretly then being done openly. He spoke about the matter of alms or doing good deeds or making charitable gifts and then he went on to the matter of prayer, private prayers are of greater value when the person goes into a closet. He said you may not get your reward from some other person if they don’t see it but you will get your reward from the God in heaven who sees all things. That seems to be the emphasis there. Verse three says when thou doest alms, that’s good works or good gifts, let’s not thy left hand know what thy right hand doest. Now that’s a very important verse as far as servants of God are concerned. We as God servants, we are treated very well by you friends. Sometimes we have more and sometimes we have less. Whether it is more or whether it is less, we feel that is the way God has arranged it. We feel that is a God arranged thing and we don’t seek to change the position. When folks help us it is done not only individually but it is done privately. That’s what it means to not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
That means when a servant of God is offered or receives a gift of some kind from one of God’s people, he acknowledges that it is something which has come from God. He accepts that gift in the spirit in which it is given, understanding that it has been arranged by God, that the person for no other reason has sought to help the Ministry and that it was the hand of God moving on their lives. If the servants of God knew of any other motive they would probably be somewhat reluctant to receive it. But they receive it gratefully in the spirit in which it is given that it is something which has been moved by the heart of God.
Now I think it said in that letter that the servants of God need to be more accountable. Well I’m going to talk about myself. I feel that I do need to be accountable. Firstly I need to be accountable to God, that is the most important thing. I need to be accountable to my fellow servants in this Ministry. I am answerable to them if they raise in the spirit of God a matter which could be a fault of mine.
My early companions, and particularly I remember Les Hill, he always used to stress upon us that the calibre of a person is often measured by the degree to which they take criticism. The calibre of a person is reflected in the way they take criticism. If you face criticism, you have to examine yourself first and see if what has been said could possibly be true. If it could be true and if it is fair, it needs to be dealt with, it needs to be corrected.
And then he said, if after self-examination the matter is not dealt with and not corrected, just forget it, don’t worry about it. So in any situation the calibre of a person is reflected in the way they react to criticism.
There are a couple of dangers which could arise from being more transparent in certain things. I myself humanly would not have a great problem with it and I suppose that is part of my human nature that possibly I like to talk about what I am doing. Maybe that is a human weakness of mine which is that I like other people to know the good things that I am doing. That is what I am like humanly. There could be a danger in that so it is not for me. If I did disclose certain things like that I could be betraying other people and could be betraying the God of heaven too. The other thing is that if some things became public, it would be difficult in the long term to not disclose who gave what. That is something which would be directly contrary to the matter of not letting your left hand know what your right hand does. People make great sacrifices for the kingdom’s sake. They make those sacrifices before the God of heaven. They don’t do it for any other motive than to please the God of heaven and it is not correct by any degree of imagination that they would want their good deeds publicly displayed in public forums. So I have probably said enough about that matter.
Just to indicate, these are some of the things that are important to us as God servants, the things we need to hold fast to, we dare not change them.The friends don't want to know how much any other person has given, but they do want to know if there are millions in the hands of the 'trusted elders' or if the workers are genuinely going out penniless (as they claim) and needing support. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 28, 2014 1:18:57 GMT -5
I think that this is present in other churches with open financial accounting. People give to churches for a variety of reasons. I know that I had all that you mentioned there. I liked the fact that I could designate where my money was being utilized, and see the results. I liked to donate to the youth group, and on occasion to the overseas workers. (yeah.... that's what they were referred to as). Also on occasion donating to the churches food shelf, which was there for anyone to use, regardless as to their religious preference. An open accounting of the money doesn't detract from the reason to give, nor does it take from the spiritual side of the giving. Just the opposite actually, in my opinion. If I were to give money without regard to how it was going to be used to benefit the church and world community, I would wonder what needs were being met. Especially if the only visible use of the money was to fund travel and lodging for the ministers of the church. A few things that I noticed about what Alan said. How is this in regard to collections taken in the bible for giving to another church that was in need? Why would Paul mention this if it was something that should never happen? I think that I have read about appeals for money by workers in regard to fixing convention grounds. Above, he mentioned no servant of God should tell other people about his or her gifts to be in complete harmony with those words.I am guessing that it is ok to tell the other workers about the money that has been donated. I seem to remember reading about the overseer going around and collecting money that was given to the younger workers. Why is that? If I were to donate money to a worker, it would be for their needs, not the overseer. And what would that money be needed for? As an outsider who has read about the various convention grounds that have caretakers installed and those which have had extensive modifications made to them and lie dormant for the exclusive use of convention purposes, I kind of wonder about talks of maintenance, and the idea that the fellowship isn't an organization. But HEY.... it isn't my church, so I am simply stating some observations. I don't mind that there are millions of unaccounted for moneys scattered around the world. If that is how the members of the church like it, then that is fine with me. But... if members are asking questions of the church leadership, and are told to mind their own business, then maybe they should find another church..... Lots have, and lots more will.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 2:16:21 GMT -5
i would ask, what is the point in the workers hording great sums of money? it is of no use to them to do such, anyway their life does not bare out such
i understand that some has to be in bank accounts for travel and the likes
|
|
colac
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by colac on Aug 28, 2014 2:26:57 GMT -5
"MONEY"? We need "MORE" to cover the huge annual costs of our annual justice,welfare,counsilling,pastoring,3rd world projects,youth programs and missions,food bus,food bank,homeless accommodation,children and adult abuse guidence often for safe housing,Interchurch involvement in most of these areas,school and chaplain ministries,raise funds for volunteers going into danger war and health zones,travel for invited speakers,visitations,pauper funerals,sick,widowed,street missions(outreaching),blanket stockpiles,plus any other 24/7 distress,urgent, call made where we or can arrange others or services EG police,human services to intervene. CSA sadly it to regular,THAT,is why we are so anti, demanded unbiblical celibate ministries such as 2x2 workers and R/ catholic priests We get quarterly statements right to the last cent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 2:34:07 GMT -5
what does in a sense mean to you 24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain extent: "In a sense it may have been the only possible solution." They don't need to be open because that money according to your view or explanation is given to God. Still doesn't change what you wrote Virgo ... you are putting the workers on the same level as God. Why would God want anyone's money ? what a load of twaddle talk about twisting it to suit, i never said it was given to God like personally handing it to Him i mean how dumb would that be, but i wrote in a sense, do i need to make that bigger for you to see that |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 28, 2014 2:36:04 GMT -5
Elizabeth, a)You are not a member of this group, b)You do not contribute to it's funds. A non member A non contributor Elizabeth (Ross is not Elizabeth ) Please explain how you; an ex member who speaks and writes against the group; could expect answers to questions about funds of the group to which you have not contributed. Review, How do you know that Elizabeth has not been a contributor, you got a little black book or something that has us all listed with what amounts we have contributed over the years? And stop defending the indefensible. It's not a pretty sight seeing you knocking yourself about so much. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 28, 2014 3:18:59 GMT -5
i would ask, what is the point in the workers hording great sums of money? it is of no use to them to do such, anyway their life does not bare out such i understand that some has to be in bank accounts for travel and the likes Here, virgo, I totally agree with you. What is the point? Perhaps you could ask them. But I believe that is exactly what has happened. I surmise they started hoarding the excess to their requirements, and it got out of hand. It is simply being stashed away in trusts and bank accounts, while they continue to take more money from the friends and their estates. They're not quite sure what to do with it all. There's only so much you can spend on travel, mobile phones and laptops. I suspect that massive amounts have poured into convention ground upgrades and facilities. Sure, but then stopping all that self-righteousness posturing about not having church buildings. Yes, I understand some has to be in bank accounts for travel, etc. No problem with that at all! My problem is that they seem to go to great lengths to hide what they have, and keep it a great secret from the friends in general. It all seems to have gotten a long way away from their original intent, and their still stated claims, that they go out penniless and homeless, only taking lodging and food etc. as they have need. It is the hypocrisy of the whole situation that continues to hit me in the gut. And many of my extended family continues to fall for it. |
|
?
