|
|
Post by withlove on Dec 21, 2015 0:04:34 GMT -5
Fantastic, important thread with excellent posts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 0:06:43 GMT -5
and maybe for your accusation you might like to furnish proof of parties and retirement funds No, I wouldn't care to furnish proof to "unbelievers". By the way, I'm not campaigning for accountability. I'm just telling y'all that the way the workers manage money is not at all exempt from legal scrutiny. If you don't live by the law, you have no protection from the law when time comes to defend oneself. I've published a scenario where that could happen. And it would be a civil case, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT required for a conviction. other words all a load of old bull |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2015 0:22:47 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't care to furnish proof to "unbelievers". By the way, I'm not campaigning for accountability. I'm just telling y'all that the way the workers manage money is not at all exempt from legal scrutiny. If you don't live by the law, you have no protection from the law when time comes to defend oneself. I've published a scenario where that could happen. And it would be a civil case, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT required for a conviction. other words all a load of old bull I knew you wouldn't believe me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2015 0:48:04 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't care to furnish proof to "unbelievers". By the way, I'm not campaigning for accountability. I'm just telling y'all that the way the workers manage money is not at all exempt from legal scrutiny. If you don't live by the law, you have no protection from the law when time comes to defend oneself. I've published a scenario where that could happen. And it would be a civil case, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT required for a conviction. other words all a load of old bull
Please respect that this is not a thread for arguing back and forth. After you have had your say and given your opinion, if you get into a debate please conduct it on the other thread. Like I said, this thread is here for any who administer church trust accounts to describe the process and accountability.
Note - this thread is not for:
- wanting to pry into private arrangements between givers and individual workers who receive gifts for their preaching and needs.
- debating whether you agree or disagree on the desirability of more openness and accountability regarding church trust accounts.
- wanting to know amounts of money held in church trust accounts.
It needs to be a non-threatening environment if we seriously want to encourage trust fund administrators to take up the opportunity for some public transparency.
admin
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2015 0:48:58 GMT -5
Fantastic, important thread with excellent posts! Thank you  (not all agree, obviously!) admin |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Dec 21, 2015 0:59:25 GMT -5
Is there a rule against friends handing over money to friends? If the giver notes the money is being spent unethically Eg. in defense of criminals (pedophiles), then they should desist from further contributions. If the giver observes the receiver is over-indulging, then again, they should re-consider why they are giving. Considering that so many pastors of mainstream churches are rolling in the cash handed over by the faithful; when observing the flash new buildings of these churches; the faith-schools where the en masse, formalized, brainwashing of young minds is validated by the state; (not that the children of professing families are free to source evidenced-based data either, after all, hi-jacking young minds through the indoctrination process is the basic ingredient for religious success) then add these extra ingredients: the faith-based mindset; tax-exemption; a hunger for greed and power and there is a sure-fired recipe guaranteed to garner wealth with few, if any reliable checks and balances. Those who belong to other churches and who are turning the spotlight onto the 2x2's could be motivated by a subconscious uneasiness related to the lack of financial transparency in the branded churches/bible groups, regardless of their annual public financial statements. Have a look at your organisations financial statements as many churches or bible fellowships are raking in millions of dollars. If only humans could be overwhelmingly trusted however it is the naive who accept that a mega-income sourced from the faithful will guarantee the equitable distribution of wealth. Non-profit organisations provide ideal conditions for the misappropriation of funds. A lack of internal controls and a reliance on whistle-blowers to out the perpetrators leaves the skeptic to wonder why more do not distrust the concept of faith-based donations which rely on manipulating people to hand over cash and also to wonder how many dishonest church leaders escape conviction?. Take a look at some typical strategies employed by churches to accrue wealth. Just to imagine how much pressure there must be to respond to these blatant requests. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2015 2:04:00 GMT -5
Is there a rule against friends handing over money to friends? If the giver notes the money is being spent unethically Eg. in defense of criminals (pedophiles), then they should desist from further contributions. If the giver observes the receiver is over-indulging, then again, they should re-consider why they are giving. Considering that so many pastors of mainstream churches are rolling in the cash handed over by the faithful; I think you have made a good point here. In giving, the giver should exercise as much discernment as they possibly can in who they give to. This is aside from the accountability issue involving church trust accounts and what checks and balances should be transparently in place. I have a friend who is a pastor in one of those mainstream churches. He has told of the responsibility he feels, after Sunday church when some of the congregation hand him money personally on their way out. He has told of having a pocket full of money, and the complete lack of accountability at that point. I imagine it's often exactly the same for workers after some mission meetings, although none have ever spoken to me about it. It is a situation demanding great personal integrity on the part of the receiver of the gifts. Those of us who are believers in Christ, we need to pray for our own wisdom and discernment in giving. And especially to pray for the integrity of those who receive our gifts. admin |
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Dec 21, 2015 2:25:03 GMT -5
Is there a rule against friends handing over money to friends? If the giver notes the money is being spent unethically Eg. in defense of criminals (pedophiles), then they should desist from further contributions. If the giver observes the receiver is over-indulging, then again, they should re-consider why they are giving. Can't get out of the quote box so pulling a Nathan.
Love this idea, Joanna. Some friends do help each other out with money. I doubt many exclusively give where they see a need, but continue giving to the workers at the same time. If I was still professing, I would be doing what you are suggesting here. No matter how I care for individual workers, I could not continue to funnel money into the system and have a clear conscience.
It would be nice if part of the organization of the funds would be to set aside money for victims of abuse and for workers who have to leave (honorably). In addition to other needy people.
Any proposed help for legal expenses...should be somehow approved by a large consensus. Or allow donations to be applied specifically to categories of the giver's choosing. If there ends up being a huge slush fund for court because everyone is in love with the accused, and little to nothing for the accuser/victim, well...accountability only can go so far, but at least it gives the opportunity to do the right thing and shows the state of mind of the people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 3:58:48 GMT -5
there are a few ex workers on this board, maybe they might like to say what they did with monies donated to them
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 21, 2015 6:28:04 GMT -5
there are a few ex workers on this board, maybe they might like to say what they did with monies donated to them Largest amount I ever got in one check was $3,000. I gave half or 2/3 to the overseer and told him I was keeping the rest to spend on convention preps expenses. And then, whatever was leftover, gave to him (as did everyone) during the annual collection and redistribution by the overseer. Oh, and the overseer was Mr. LW - the same LW referenced in the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 21, 2015 10:34:46 GMT -5
there are a few ex workers on this board, maybe they might like to say what they did with monies donated to them
What I did with the extra money, I sent to sister workers who labored in smaller fields, or I knew workers that need help. Saved it for Preps time to buy things for conventions, send it overseas to the workers that I knew.I'm really glad you and I think Gene in the past have mentioned this - in regards to giving some to the younger worker. I had never done this, but now, I give the majority to the older worker - figuring he/she will be using it for meeting hall expenses and such. But because of what you guys posting this, I now give a smaller amount to the younger worker and when I do, let them know it's "for their pocket". Thanks for sharing this with us. |
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Dec 21, 2015 10:46:33 GMT -5
there are a few ex workers on this board, maybe they might like to say what they did with monies donated to them Largest amount I ever got in one check was $3,000. I gave half or 2/3 to the overseer and told him I was keeping the rest to spend on convention preps expenses. And then, whatever was leftover, gave to him (as did everyone) during the annual collection and redistribution by the overseer. Oh, and the overseer was Mr. LW - the same LW referenced in the OP. Did you have trouble cashing the check? I assume the check was made out to you, but maybe that wasn't the case. The reason I ask is that several of the workers I knew said they had trouble cashing checks as they didn't have checking account, and one told me she used her Mom's account to cash her "monthly" check (which I presume was SS) and didn't know what she would do when her Mom passed away. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 21, 2015 13:29:58 GMT -5
there are a few ex workers on this board, maybe they might like to say what they did with monies donated to them Largest amount I ever got in one check was $3,000. I gave half or 2/3 to the overseer and told him I was keeping the rest to spend on convention preps expenses. And then, whatever was leftover, gave to him (as did everyone) during the annual collection and redistribution by the overseer. Oh, and the overseer was Mr. LW - the same LW referenced in the OP. Gene ~ You really got me chuckling over that one!  Perhaps the Cookie Monster emptied the cookie jar for all we know? No doubt the other senior workers were more concerned over the disappearance of money within these trust fund accounts than they were over sexual misbehavior for years? After all, haven't overseers inappropriate behaviors been well kept secrets for years until the scandals became more public due to Internet exposure? 
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 21, 2015 13:32:43 GMT -5
Largest amount I ever got in one check was $3,000. I gave half or 2/3 to the overseer and told him I was keeping the rest to spend on convention preps expenses. And then, whatever was leftover, gave to him (as did everyone) during the annual collection and redistribution by the overseer. Oh, and the overseer was Mr. LW - the same LW referenced in the OP.
, and one told me she used her Mom's account to cash her "monthly" check (which I presume was SS) and didn't know what she would do when her Mom passed away. ~ I wonder if the absence of a checking account by workers wasn't another stipulation among the overseers to avoid a paper trail in the case of an investigation into their finances?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 14:27:41 GMT -5
I think something that might be relevant to this thread is a post made probably a year or 2 ago ( by Clearday I think) which outlines what Alan Richardson spoke on this particular matter at Auckland Special Meetings. Someone might be able to find it as, even though Clearday has left the Board, it is likely his post was quoted. My memory of it was that Alan was negative on any disclosure. However, it could be a useful post if found, as it gives a definite view on such matters by a current overseer.
|
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 21, 2015 14:30:52 GMT -5
All of you know our history.
You know how William Irving, JL and company went out in faith. Why would you act as though this is a conspiracy? We were a two bit company 100 years ago. Barely had enough money to eat. Keeping track of where money went wasn't even considered. There wasn't anything to keep track of except what was in their thin little wallets.
You also know that our money handling has not changed since we were a two bit company. This is not a conspiracy theory. We just have not changed. But the number of F&W have changed. So has the amount of money coming in. Should our money handling system change? Maybe. But its not a conspiracy. There is no reason we do it the way we do other than the above.
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 21, 2015 16:01:56 GMT -5
I think something that might be relevant to this thread is a post made probably a year or 2 ago ( by Clearday I think) which outlines what Alan Richardson spoke on this particular matter at Auckland Special Meetings. Someone might be able to find it as, even though Clearday has left the Board, it is likely his post was quoted. My memory of it was that Alan was negative on any disclosure. However, it could be a useful post if found, as it gives a definite view on such matters by a current overseer. Morriss ~ These articles pertain to what was discussed at Auckland Special Meetings in 2012, but it pertains to CSA within the 2x2's.
wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/new-zealand/
wingsfortruth.info/responding-to-csa/sermon-by-graham-thompson/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 16:46:09 GMT -5
I think something that might be relevant to this thread is a post made probably a year or 2 ago ( by Clearday I think) which outlines what Alan Richardson spoke on this particular matter at Auckland Special Meetings. Someone might be able to find it as, even though Clearday has left the Board, it is likely his post was quoted. My memory of it was that Alan was negative on any disclosure. However, it could be a useful post if found, as it gives a definite view on such matters by a current overseer. Morriss ~ These articles pertain to what was discussed at Auckland Special Meetings in 2012, but it pertains to CSA within the 2x2's.
wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/letters-to-friends-and-workers/new-zealand/
wingsfortruth.info/responding-to-csa/sermon-by-graham-thompson/
Thanks Faune The quote I am looking for followed Alan speaking at a Special meeting at Auckland in 2013 or 2014. He spoke in response to a letter that a number of workers and friends sent to the Australasian overseers (of which Alan is one). 'Financial accountability and transparency' was one of the subjects in that letter and Alan referred to it and sought to answer it in his message at that special meeting. When I get time , I'll see if I can hunt it down. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 17:15:03 GMT -5
Found it !
Scott (not Clearday) contributed this after Alan R spoke at Auckland Special Meeting in 2014
'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 Admin on Dec 21, 2015 17:59:49 GMT -5
Found it !
Scott (not Clearday) contributed this after Alan R spoke at Auckland Special Meeting in 2014'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. ..... 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.
Thanks Morris for your efforts.
What Alan R said is perfectly fine and appropriate. For gifts given to individual workers for their reasonable living expenses and to further the spread of the gospel message.
But the boundary of acceptability of what Alan R said is surely where trust funds are set up that belong to the 'church'. Reputedly some of these trust funds contain very large sums of money. Allegations of misuse abound (which must not be copied with names of individuals on TMB without substantiation).
If all is above board, then transparency is essential. What is the purpose of such massive trust funds (if indeed they exist)?
admin
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 21, 2015 19:01:45 GMT -5
Largest amount I ever got in one check was $3,000. I gave half or 2/3 to the overseer and told him I was keeping the rest to spend on convention preps expenses. And then, whatever was leftover, gave to him (as did everyone) during the annual collection and redistribution by the overseer. Oh, and the overseer was Mr. LW - the same LW referenced in the OP. Did you have trouble cashing the check? I assume the check was made out to you, but maybe that wasn't the case. The reason I ask is that several of the workers I knew said they had trouble cashing checks as they didn't have checking account, and one told me she used her Mom's account to cash her "monthly" check (which I presume was SS) and didn't know what she would do when her Mom passed away. I once had to jump through hoops to get a bank to cash a $100 check, so with this one, I didn't even try. It was made out to me. I asked a local elder if I could endorse it and have him cash it for me, and he did so. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 21, 2015 19:04:00 GMT -5
The largest amount of cash money I ever got was 400 dollars from an older woman professing friend, who gave to my older companion Jay W. He always shared half of the money given to him with me, NOT too many older companions do that with their younger companions. So, friends when you give money to the workers in your fields, you should give each worker their portion of the money, NOT to give all to the older one and expects him to share with his younger companion.
What I did with the extra money, I sent to sister workers who labored in smaller fields, or I knew workers that need help. Saved it for Preps time to buy things for conventions, send it overseas to the workers that I knew. I'm really glad you and I think Gene in the past have mentioned this - in regards to giving some to the younger worker. I had never done this, but now, I give the majority to the older worker - figuring he/she will be using it for meeting hall expenses and such. But because of what you guys posting this, I now give a smaller amount to the younger worker and when I do, let them know it's "for their pocket". Thanks for sharing this with us. JD, thanks for doing that. I assure you, it means so much to the younger ones. And not only just having the cash... but it is just added reassurance that you recognize them and respect and ... perhaps most of all ... trust them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 19:12:52 GMT -5
There should always be a discipline of transparency and accountability. However, this does not mean that the financial business should be made known to every individual church member, but every church member should have right of access.
I hardly think Bert disagrees with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by menatwork on Dec 21, 2015 19:28:42 GMT -5
Thanks Admin for starting this important topic.
Many members of the church feel like they want to support the workers and the church in general and one way of doing this is to donate small sums of money to individual workers which I don't have a problem with.
However there are some members who wish to leave large sums of money in their wills to the church when they die. There is nothing wrong with doing this if this is what their wishes are. The problem that arises is how to do this in the most effective and legal way. The will needs to specify where the funds are to go and when the church has no officially recognised name this can become a problem.
I know of cases where the beneficiary of very large sums of money has been the local overseer personally named in the will without any specific instructions on how this money is to be used. This not only places the beneficiary in a somewhat difficult position, but also does not guarantee that the money will be used for the purposes that it was intended for by the deceased.
A much better and more transparent way is for the will to nominate a family member or friend to be the Trustee for the deceased estate with a trust fund established with clear instructions on how and to whom the funds are to be distributed. In this way the deceased will be satisfied that their wishes will be carried out and that the necessary levels of accountability required by the operation of a trust fund will be adhered to in a proper fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 20:12:29 GMT -5
There should always be a discipline of transparency and accountability. However, this does not mean that the financial business should be made known to every individual church member, but every church member should have right of access. I hardly think Bert disagrees with that? what about individuals who are not church members? such as the many who are demanding such on here |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Dec 21, 2015 20:44:32 GMT -5
Found it !
Scott (not Clearday) contributed this after Alan R spoke at Auckland Special Meeting in 2014Thanks @morriss! The tone and content of this letter typifies 'worker speak' on money matters, and how they erroneously compare themselves to other churches.I won't reproduce the whole letter here, but some pertinent paragraphs...'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. What he means: if you question the workers you have the wrong spirit. 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. You are a false servant of God if you mention money "from the platform". Does this mean it can't be mentioned elsewhere? My church doesn't mention money from the platform either. It deals with it outside of worship services, and at the annual AGM, to which all members are invited.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. Yes, but all church attendance is free. Nobody is forced to give at other churches either. It is always left to individual conviction.
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 omits any mention of 1 Corinthians 16:2 which clearly indicates collections being taken in the early church. 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. Which is no different from other churches. The church of God is always supported by donations, not compulsory payments. They are called "freewill offerings".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”. Yes, churches have buildings. Two-by-Twos have conventions and weekly rental costs for their hall hire. I'll bet my church's annual maintenance is far less than what the workers outlay on annual conventions and weekly rent. Can somebody please explain to me how it is much holier and more Biblical to pay weekly rent for hall space than maintenance on a building? And I'm assuming someone has to foot the cost of convention setups and maintenance.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. Exactly. Yet the workers know exactly how much you hand over to them. In my current church, nobody knows how much we give. It is absolutely between ourselves and God. Far more so than this method.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. Which is different from offerings in other churches how?!?!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. Balderdash. Our church's annual income in no way indicates who gave what and how much. There is no such danger in being accountable. There might be danger, however, in the workers always knowing who gave what and how much. A knowledge that I suspect they're very reluctant to give up. 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.' Just to summarise his words: Not only do you have a bad spirit if you want to hold us accountable, but it could be dangerous.
I'd like to just note again - those of the friends who "make great sacrifices for the kingdom's sake" in giving money don't just make those sacrifices before the God of heaven. They also make them in plain sight of the workers, whose approval they seek. I suggest there could be a danger in that. |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Dec 21, 2015 23:03:10 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman your pressure for the 2x2 group to adopt a formalized accounting system would shift the focus from one in which finances are the elephant in the room into yet another religious business which makes money out of god(s). Maybe your name will one day be carved in the plaques dedicated to those who advanced the 2x2 group into yet another successful and profitable religious organisation What is the standard for honesty within religious organisations when they make truth claims despite being unable to present evidence? Faith-based organisations, where gullibility and trust are predominant traits of adherents, are particularly vulnerable to those seeking personal financial gain and these people will use any tactics to divert funds, whether accounting practices are insitu or not. "Yes, but all church attendance is free. Nobody is forced to give at other churches either. It is always left to individual conviction". Your church may not broadcast the need for donations from the platform, however there are other techniques applied, including the use of the donation link in church websites. It is naive to deny the coercion that is applied to trusting people when exposed to the devious and manipulative strategies such as those exemplified hereThe content of the above link provides an insight into how easy it is to make money from people who are susceptible to mind-controlling techniques: "Your attitude "How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me?" (Psalm 116:12)
"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor. 9:7)
Saying "Thanks" by giving Think of giving as an expression of gratitude to God for all that he has done and continues to do in Jesus
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Dec 22, 2015 3:00:10 GMT -5
Does he not think that houses where meetings are held need money and maintenance?
Yes, not to mention convention grounds too.
|
|
Perhaps the Cookie Monster emptied the cookie jar for all we know? No doubt the other senior workers were more concerned over the disappearance of money within these trust fund accounts than they were over sexual misbehavior for years? After all, haven't overseers inappropriate behaviors been well kept secrets for years until the scandals became more public due to Internet exposure? 
