Ah, but Juff, he did donate the FAMILY FARM to TWI.
Whatever that was worth.
But then he continued to live in it and enjoy it for the rest of his life. Like having your cake and eating it. Having your crop and it continuing to grow indefinitely. More reliable than farming, with the vagaries of weather and blight.
Wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of scheme whereby the farm (belonging to a charity) paid lower or no taxes on the land, than it did privately owned. Maybe the accountants among us can comment on that? Would he also get some sort of tax relief on personal taxes paid, if he gave away something of large value to a charity?
I suppose that TWI never had a patent on double speak and selfish scheming.... my splinter group functioned the same way.
Heirachies are carnal, but we have one.
The leader owns nothing, but makes sure that he OWNS everybody and rules with an iron fist.
We love people, but will only teach them the bible if they pay up.
We will be commited to you, if you give your belongings, your children, and your very life and free will to us.
IT IS LAYER UPON STINKY LAYER OF STINKY CRAPOLA.....
Ah, but Juff, he did donate the FAMILY FARM to TWI.
Whatever that was worth.
But then he continued to live in it and enjoy it for the rest of his life. Like having your cake and eating it. Having your crop and it continuing to grow indefinitely. More reliable than farming, with the vagaries of weather and blight.
Wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of scheme whereby the farm (belonging to a charity) paid lower or no taxes on the land, than it did privately owned. Maybe the accountants among us can comment on that? Would he also get some sort of tax relief on personal taxes paid, if he gave away something of large value to a charity?
yes, you do get to write off charitable contributions. the weirwille brothers who owned the farm would have taken a tidy federal deduction for the contribution. it may not have had a financial impact on vpw, but to his businessman brother it could have meant a large savings.
I'm not an accountant, but I suspect that there were also benefits in donating rather than leasing because they'd still pay taxes on the lease income, but by donating, vpw got to enjoy the lifestyle he wanted at no expense to him.
I don't really have a problem with charging for classes and books. I do have a problem that the purpose of the class was to get you tithing, and into the next class, and into the next ad nauseum to enforce the programming. it was the forced tithe that they were after.
I paid $30 for PFAL in 1974. Or was it $35. Can't recall for sure. But $200? Wow, that's a lot of money for one of us "downers and outers" to cough up. I wonder how many people had to borrow or get cash advances from a credit card to pay the $200? That would mean they owed money to someone which, as I gather, was a situation LCM used to rail against when he had the stick.
I look at modern Christian religion as being a "dance with the one you brung" state of affairs. It's the product of 100's of years of development, more if I consider how the larger world of religious influences are incorporated into what we have today.
My own sense is that "true Christianity" doesn't have any overhead. There's no vehicle to keep running and no capital investment to manage. It is what it is, and it's not a system with a life span or parts that need to be replaced.
It's really a relationship that, over time, grows and fills life. The gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't take up space in the same way that physical products do - the "religion" of the relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and the vessel that receives and contains it in life are the only components involved.
Paul in the epistle of Corinthians describes this better than I can -
(2 Corinthians 3:1-6)
Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The end result testifies to the process that produced it. I feel that the church Jesus Christ came to start was never intended to be an organization, nor an entity requiring financing or support, in the same ways that the Old Testament temple and rites and rituals required them or similar organizations and societies that are started for other reasons require them.
We have teaching ministries - all they do is teach. Teach teach teach. Teach new stuff, reteach the old stuff, plan for teaching more stuff next year to remind everyone how good the old stuff was.
At some point, that's enough. But it's never enough. Goes on forever. Teach teach teach. It's part of the modern religious culture and tradition. It's okay but it's not what Christ started, IMO.
Is there a "cost"? I suppose in monetary terms, yes there would always be some. But nothing like what we have today. Books are books, CD's are CD's. They cost money, if you want them, you buy them. I buy them. Stuff - I like stuff. Stuff costs money. Stuff comes and goes. There'll be different stuff tomorrow, better stuff, updated enhanced stuff. We're going to want it, maybe need it. We should pay for it.
But here we are and it is what it is. My concerns have nothing to do with money itself. I like money, in fact if anyone has a little extra and has been blessed by anything I've written, hey - let's dance. Send it right away to "boyhowdyaintthatsocksomething@homefortheholidays.com". I'll be your huckleberry. :)
Hi there everyone. Boy, I ask one little question and boom.
Anyhow, I figured I'd chime in since I feel a little bit responsible for starting all these murmurings and disputings (that comment is for the twi loyals who read here.)
Granted, I've paid lots of $ for information about the Bible over the years, including the PFAL class. I've paid LOTS of money to learn about the history of the Bible, for instance, which has only enriched my understanding and prompted me to ask more questions.
What concerns me about paying for classes or books that are mostly propaganda intended to indoctrinate and often intimidate the students is that the claims made in them are to benefit the people making the claims, not the students. The information - or rather propaganda - is often used as a way to strong-arm the hearers into giving money, commitment, time, love, etc. solely to the group providing the class or book.
IMO this is anti-education. It does not promote healthy questioning and growth in the student. To me real education lies in helping the student learn to think, to develop his or her own talents, and in doing so, add to the grand conversation and development of "civilization."
But consider the source of these comments: A person who has a liberal arts education and has often been told she reads, thinks, and talks too much.
IMO this is anti-education. It does not promote healthy questioning and growth in the student. To me real education lies in helping the student learn to think, to develop his or her own talents, and in doing so, add to the grand conversation and development of "civilization."
I paid $30 for PFAL in 1974. Or was it $35. Can't recall for sure. But $200? Wow, that's a lot of money for one of us "downers and outers" to cough up. I wonder how many people had to borrow or get cash advances from a credit card to pay the $200? That would mean they owed money to someone which, as I gather, was a situation LCM used to rail against when he had the stick.
<_<
Actually,
$200 was maybe a whole year. It went up from $100 to $200, then back to $100.
The reason it was doubled- the claim was "it's worth thousands, so it's actually a deal at $200"
but the unspoken reason was that the price was raised as long as people could be found to
pay the higher price. $100 was outrageous, but $200 was a transparent grab for money.
(No, the $200 class didn't offer any more books than the $100. The $85 class offered a
few books that-retail- weren't worth the difference between the $45 class and the $85 class.
At least that was a PRETENSE at justifying the increased pricetag. A lie, but at least an
ATTEMPT to make it sound reasonable.
Since $200 didn't work, the price came down to $100. And that came down eventually as all
the suckers who were willing to pay $100 were already sold.
See, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" determined the price of pfal.
There's price, and demand.
As the price went up, demand went down- fewer people were willing to pay $85 or $100
rather than $40 or $45.
As the price came back down, demand went up- more people are willing to pay $45 for
a Bible class than $85.
Offering it at $40 and $45 were smarter in the long run-since it meant twi caught more pigeons
they could then convince to give up 10% of their income.
At one time in the "80's TWi was raking in so much dough (much more than they have now), that the Trustees bantered about the idea of publicly stopping the abundant sharing. Â
Of course, the debate was probably a rouse, intended to impress the Trustee staff present, especially since they decided not to do it under the premise that it might prove to be a stumbling block for the people. Â Yes, doing what the bible says could be hazardous to a lockstep believer's health....uh, thanks a lot....remind me to send Howard Allen a thank you note for that....he's still alive, right?Â
When one is providing bibles in many different languages to people in other countries. . . like The Bible League. . . it costs money. When one is providing care packages to Christians and Muslims for the bare necessities and shipping them to places like Iraq and Afghanastain like Voice of the Martyrs . . . it costs money.
Finding legal aid for prisoners of faith in other countries. . . cost big money
When I get the down and out man on the street food and a warm coat. . . it costs me money. When any of us do good works. . . it costs money.
I am steward of what God gives me. It isn't mine. . . but His. Bigger projects require greater funds. I do believe that God does have His hand in many such worthy projects.
That relationship that fills us. . . will eventually spill over into these good works. It has no where else to go.
The fact that a ministry or church is prosperous is not an indication of anything IMHO. Not of graft and not of goodness. You have people like VP. . . Benny Hinn and Joyce Myer and then there are people like Richard Wurmbrand.
It is how they steward the money given to them. . . . . What do they do with it and for whom?. . . How do they raise it? How much is wasted? What do they take for themselves?
As for PFAL? We were young, idealistic, and duped by a slick talker who tickled our ears. I guess the fact that we paid for it . . . is just one more slap upside the head.
But. . . .good works can have overhead---Good works are the result of our Christian faith. When a few of us get together and organize, structure, and act on our faith. . . the results STILL can be good.
I think that paying for the class materials was okay, though the price was too high in relation to the materials. But what I could never get was the thing about "your not PAYING for the class because it is a DONATION and not a payment". WTF was up with that? I paid it/donated it-whatever-because I wanted to take it and be grads like the people that introduced me to it, but I always had a real hard time trying to tell new people that it was not a PAYMENT but instead a DONATION. One guy told me that since it was a donation, that he would only donate fifty bucks. But then I had to tell him no, it costs more than that. Then he said that that meant that it was a payment and not a donation. That one always confused me. I just wished that they (the leaders) would just change the wording and say that the class cost $100.00 and that that was what it COST.
How much do you think Jesus made doing the Sermon On The Mount teaching series? That was a pretty popular one you know! It even got a fancy name, that is, The Beatitudes, or however its spelled. What does that mean anyway?
Blessed are the poor---Blessed are the meek---Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness--etc., etc.
You are correct in stating it was a cost, not a donation.
In my opinion, they called it a "donation" to disguise the fact that the whole thing was really a multi-level-marketing scheme, otherwise known as a pyramid scheme. It also wouldn't have looked too good for an organization that had a tax exempt status as a non-profit organization to openly admit they were charging a mandatory fee, not receiving a voluntary donation.
I think that paying for the class materials was okay, though the price was too high in relation to the materials. But what I could never get was the thing about "your not PAYING for the class because it is a DONATION and not a payment". WTF was up with that? I paid it/donated it-whatever-because I wanted to take it and be grads like the people that introduced me to it, but I always had a real hard time trying to tell new people that it was not a PAYMENT but instead a DONATION. One guy told me that since it was a donation, that he would only donate fifty bucks. But then I had to tell him no, it costs more than that. Then he said that that meant that it was a payment and not a donation. That one always confused me. I just wished that they (the leaders) would just change the wording and say that the class cost $100.00 and that that was what it COST.
Most people who understand English would have a difficulty with that. I myself said, what if I choose not to "donate" anything? - You can't take the class. - It's a fee, then; a charge. Why not call it so? - It's a donation. - No, it's not.
And so began everyone's entry into the world of TWI double-speak.
Now I ask: why did they call it a "donation"?
Was it because if it were a charge or fee, an element would be liable to tax, on the "profit" from the sale of the class? Tax on the difference between the cost of the materials, and the cost of the class?
But if a donation, could someone claim tax back on the donation that had been paid by the taxpayer?
At one time, taxpayers could claim back the tax on charitable donations they had made. Receipts may be required. I think that led to abuse and is not now available; but the charities have been empowered to claim the tax back.
Nowadays, charitable organisations in the UK can claim tax back on donations by taxpayers. Many places, like museums, the National Trust, schools, youth groups, tell taxpayers about this and offer a form that the taxpayer can complete and which allows the organisation to claim money back. It can boost their funds by about 17%.
If TWI could not claim back the tax, then the payer (=class taker) as taxpayer should have been able to reclaim tax on the charitable donation. But I never heard of any forms being given out with the charity number on so that the "donation" could be offset.
Hah! I bet that's it. Not just double-speak but some other kind of scam to minimise the tax TWI might have to pay.
Most people who understand English would have a difficulty with that. I myself said, what if I choose not to "donate" anything? - You can't take the class. - It's a fee, then; a charge. Why not call it so? - It's a donation. - No, it's not.
And so began everyone's entry into the world of TWI double-speak.
Now I ask: why did they call it a "donation"?
Was it because if it were a charge or fee, an element would be liable to tax, on the "profit" from the sale of the class? Tax on the difference between the cost of the materials, and the cost of the class?
But if a donation, could someone claim tax back on the donation that had been paid by the taxpayer?
At one time, taxpayers could claim back the tax on charitable donations they had made. Receipts may be required. I think that led to abuse and is not now available; but the charities have been empowered to claim the tax back.
Nowadays, charitable organisations in the UK can claim tax back on donations by taxpayers. Many places, like museums, the National Trust, schools, youth groups, tell taxpayers about this and offer a form that the taxpayer can complete and which allows the organisation to claim money back. It can boost their funds by about 17%.
If TWI could not claim back the tax, then the payer (=class taker) as taxpayer should have been able to reclaim tax on the charitable donation. But I never heard of any forms being given out with the charity number on so that the "donation" could be offset.
Hah! I bet that's it. Not just double-speak but some other kind of scam to minimise the tax TWI might have to pay.
Actually I bvellieve it is tied in with being a non profit organization... by charging for the class they were putting themselves outside the defiition of a non profit organizaion.. if they were smart they would have broken it up into cost for the books and cost for processing the paper work... that would have covered it. But then they would have had trouble with the amount they were charging.
The never ending twisting and turning of language to accomodate requirements that would otherwise inhibit or restricts the ability to properly collect and keep money is an example of the duplicitous machinations religious societies, clubs and organizations formulate and execute. On Sunday they all work for a heavenly Boss whose ways are higher and mysterious. On Monday they do temp work for other agencies with clearer directives.
Thus at the Way, a charge, plain and simple is variously:
A donation. (of a set amount)
A gift. (of a set amount)
A free-will offering. (see above)
A minimum required donation. (ditto)
More is fine. Less? No.
It's a charge, for a business service and product, when you "give" a "mininimum required donation" out of "love" for a "class" and the materials that come with it. You're buying the information and the materials, with whatever use restrictions come with them. I do that at Borders when I buy a book, or Safeway when I buy food. I pay, it's mine, I was charged and paid for the business processes, products and profit margin that the charge covers. It's exactly what the Way does with it's "class".
Calling it anything else is transparent BS. IMO. :)
I'm sure the answer is well known as to who benefits from any received $$ in the Way.. The BOT and the best brown nosers, I mean those whom the BOT deemed worthy for a time.
The problem I see is not whether they have a "right" or better yet a "privilege" to receive $$ from their giving of the scriptures in the form of a class.
As Paul said in 1 Cor 9 "... Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has said that those who preach the gospel should live from out of the gospel ..."
The real problem is rather that it is from the heart that we are all to give, not grudgingly or out of necessity. The class was given to help others, or so we were taught. (Putting the actual merit of the class aside). And if our heart is to give, because we desire to give, then would we require $$ before we gave? How can anyone say that TWI's heart for helping teach "God's Word since it hasn't been known since the first century" was based on the heart to give and help? If you wanted to help a man on the side of the road with a flat tire, would you wait until he gave you something of value before you helped him? Of course not, not if you really wanted to help the guy! It wouldn't matter, that wasn't the focus, the focus was to help the man!
It's when the focus became not in helping and giving (if it ever was for the BOT), then the class was all about the return, the $$. Rather than if they gave because that's their desire, then it would have been evident, because you wouldn't require something in return. You would give if it was within your means.
There are 2 sides to the giving here, and both are not to be done grudgingly or out of necessity. Yet the "required" donation became a necessity on both parts. A necessity if you were to take the class, and a necessity on the one who gave the class because once they were "paid", they legally were binding to give the class [or give your money back!].
That's why it is always "freely you have received, freely give". Christ freely gave to those who would listen. And those who listened were to freely make it available. Nothing changes that today, we still have been grafted into God's tree freely and partakers of that inheritance (because of His son), and freely we share that good news and make it freely available to others. We give what we received with that heart to give 'freely'. No charge required if we do it according to God's way.
But if someone has freely given to you. And it has some value. Meaning it actually is worth something to you, not just because he's a "so-called" minister or because he shares the scriptures, but rather you were partakers of what they gave freely and it was of worth to you. Then God says they who gave have the privilege to receive in return for that. They have the privilege and the right. But it's according to the other person "desiring in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity" to give in return, which may or may not be the case. (And of course, it requires those who give to actually give something of value!!)
Ultimately, it's a trust issue. And those who require something "up front" show they have no trust. So the point of making money off a bible class is so they don't have to be dependent and trust in God! Because they who give their lives to serve God, and share the good news, trust that God will care for them no matter what. And God promises he will. But it is left up to God how that will happen. Instead, those who lack trust, yet claim the opposite, show by their own life who they trust in. The all powerful $$. If they have $$ in their fists, then God is alive, but if not, then God is no more.. Sad.. Really sad. Rather than trust in God to supply their need, they try and requite it from man. Sure, there are many who will never give and help those who gave something of worth to them, but then that's not the point. God's greater than all that, and it all comes down to trust and obey.. Oh wait a minute, that's my nick.. I mean trust in God and give, freely, that all may benefit mutually.
At least that's my perspective, and I'm sticking to it. (For now).
Hmmm...that's good stuff TAO. I'd add - Pauls states his case in Chap. 9, and validates his position from a couple standpoints - the temple and the Levites, God's "ordaining" of it, and a kind of natural logic - but there's limits to that and frankly, I don't think that "Paul" accuractely states the case for it in such a way as to make it a "doctrine". (as it's so often imposed)
Now - this smacks of some kind of heinous accusation - that "The Word of God" has error in it. That "Paul taught something wrong".
But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible.
It can be done, but it must be done carefully and - my term - "probably" only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it.
The "flock" that's referred to is a metaphor - God "owns" the flock, although we are in fact now God's "children" but we can keep the flock metaphor as long as we recognize and deal with it's limitations - Christ is the "Good Shepherd", He who has cared for the flock of God and brought it safely "home" to the "owner". Christ is therefore the earner of wages, if there's any to be given. We are the sheep - we're the ones being cared for by Christ and God. (We, as children and fellow brethren to Jesus Christ are collectively a family. We're also referred to in subsets as a "temple", "tabernacles", and members of a body.)
That comparison has nothing to do with what God, in Christ, has done. It deals with what we, choose to do (for whomever).
The natural logic of being paid reasonably for work well done doesn't require a spiritual platform, it's simply common sense in any social system or structure. In God's "family" sharing and exchange has it's place.
Paul wants to compare temple service with "Christian" service - I'm not sure that's a completely reasonable comparison - which is why I think the presentation in Cor. 9 also covers the fact that the writer himself doesn't impose these requirements upon himself
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
The necessity of writing this to the Corinthians was erroneously attributed to their being an unbelieving church, by the Way Nash, however a little investigation shows that the record speaks and stands for itself - the author was passionate about what he did and was going to fulfill his calling as cleanly as he was able to. Threshing "in hope" and partaking "of hope" together - whast's that mean? The hope of a meal and a paycheck? There's more to it than that, I hope.
Obviously, the exchange for labor and service applies today, but it's essential to note how carefully Paul deals with the entire topic and in fact, doesn't impose his argument on the church as "doctrine". I don't believe the overall context provides that reason the Way gave for this - that they were "unbelieving". I think it's simply an ethical conclusion that the author came to that best served his understanding of his calling and those he served.
"But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible."
I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other. From TWI, that sure a man ought to be paid, to, What the heck, no man should gain from God's truth. And now, I'm where I rested my case above..
While I understand where you are coming from, and I totally agree for the most part. Who in their right mind ought to live from sharing what God gave them for free. But then I began to understand why.. It's more of a natural flow as opposed to a legalistic, business decision of I'm going to share the word and God better take care of me!
That's why it all goes back to 2 main things I can think of now.
A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to.
B) But then also something I didn't state.. God's calling. Not our own calling. God called Paul and Barnabus for a purpose for a mission. So it wasn't man's decision. It wasn't Paul's decision. As he stated in the next verse, it was laid upon him by God to live and do this. And I know so many times we mix up our own "will" with God's will. If we think it in our heart, we think because it sounds godly, that, it must be God's will.. No.. Not necessarily. So, certainly, you are right in that, "It only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it."..
There is nothing contradictory in what you said.. As long as we leave it to God, and trust and obey, wait, that's my nick again.. I mean trust in God and imitate Him. Fod God is love, and His love was manifested in His giving (of His son). Thus we trust and give..
Indeed - "I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other."
You 'n' me both, friend.
A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to.
I use the imagery of "every Thom, Dick, and Harriet that wants to", setting up shop and hanging out a shingle reading "Ye Olde God's Stuff" and taking all comers. There's no applicaton process (that everyone agrees on) other than the items you note so well -
Basically anyone can say "God called me, I work for God". That hardly means that 1. someone does, 2. someone is "called" VS volunteering (which is what nearly everyone is expected to do anyway - it's a "family") and/or 3. "Pay me, I"m woikin' here", and that they're doing valid work.
If it were a blank sheet of paper, I'd ask first - what's the reason "we", the church, exists? What's the inherent essence of our relationship that causes us to be together, relate, and have any interest in each other at all? What's our "reason" for being?
Uno digito - "sonship" - the familial relationship of children and a Father. (MA MA!! MA MAA!)
That's the best imagery, metaphor or comparison we have to start from, I think. That's the "system", the organizational model we have to fashion our efforts, as we're describe that we ARE children, in a family.
Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future.
"Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future."
Too many people in Christianity look at it as if it is some ladder climbing, positional, hierarchy system. Be it clergy/laity or simple teacher/student.. Yet the thing I believe we both recognize is we all need to be taught at times, and we all need to teach others at times. So we each submit to one another in love in the family, the body, the church. With Christ as it's only head rather than a "called of God" man/woman, since we are all actually called of God in some sense. For the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God!
Recommended Posts
JeffSjo
I suppose that TWI never had a patent on double speak and selfish scheming.... my splinter group functioned the same way.
Heirachies are carnal, but we have one.
The leader owns nothing, but makes sure that he OWNS everybody and rules with an iron fist.
We love people, but will only teach them the bible if they pay up.
We will be commited to you, if you give your belongings, your children, and your very life and free will to us.
IT IS LAYER UPON STINKY LAYER OF STINKY CRAPOLA.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yes, you do get to write off charitable contributions. the weirwille brothers who owned the farm would have taken a tidy federal deduction for the contribution. it may not have had a financial impact on vpw, but to his businessman brother it could have meant a large savings.
I'm not an accountant, but I suspect that there were also benefits in donating rather than leasing because they'd still pay taxes on the lease income, but by donating, vpw got to enjoy the lifestyle he wanted at no expense to him.
I don't really have a problem with charging for classes and books. I do have a problem that the purpose of the class was to get you tithing, and into the next class, and into the next ad nauseum to enforce the programming. it was the forced tithe that they were after.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
I paid $30 for PFAL in 1974. Or was it $35. Can't recall for sure. But $200? Wow, that's a lot of money for one of us "downers and outers" to cough up. I wonder how many people had to borrow or get cash advances from a credit card to pay the $200? That would mean they owed money to someone which, as I gather, was a situation LCM used to rail against when he had the stick.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This has been a good read.
I look at modern Christian religion as being a "dance with the one you brung" state of affairs. It's the product of 100's of years of development, more if I consider how the larger world of religious influences are incorporated into what we have today.
My own sense is that "true Christianity" doesn't have any overhead. There's no vehicle to keep running and no capital investment to manage. It is what it is, and it's not a system with a life span or parts that need to be replaced.
It's really a relationship that, over time, grows and fills life. The gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't take up space in the same way that physical products do - the "religion" of the relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and the vessel that receives and contains it in life are the only components involved.
Paul in the epistle of Corinthians describes this better than I can -
(2 Corinthians 3:1-6)
Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The end result testifies to the process that produced it. I feel that the church Jesus Christ came to start was never intended to be an organization, nor an entity requiring financing or support, in the same ways that the Old Testament temple and rites and rituals required them or similar organizations and societies that are started for other reasons require them.
We have teaching ministries - all they do is teach. Teach teach teach. Teach new stuff, reteach the old stuff, plan for teaching more stuff next year to remind everyone how good the old stuff was.
At some point, that's enough. But it's never enough. Goes on forever. Teach teach teach. It's part of the modern religious culture and tradition. It's okay but it's not what Christ started, IMO.
Is there a "cost"? I suppose in monetary terms, yes there would always be some. But nothing like what we have today. Books are books, CD's are CD's. They cost money, if you want them, you buy them. I buy them. Stuff - I like stuff. Stuff costs money. Stuff comes and goes. There'll be different stuff tomorrow, better stuff, updated enhanced stuff. We're going to want it, maybe need it. We should pay for it.
But here we are and it is what it is. My concerns have nothing to do with money itself. I like money, in fact if anyone has a little extra and has been blessed by anything I've written, hey - let's dance. Send it right away to "boyhowdyaintthatsocksomething@homefortheholidays.com". I'll be your huckleberry. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi there everyone. Boy, I ask one little question and boom.
Anyhow, I figured I'd chime in since I feel a little bit responsible for starting all these murmurings and disputings (that comment is for the twi loyals who read here.)
Granted, I've paid lots of $ for information about the Bible over the years, including the PFAL class. I've paid LOTS of money to learn about the history of the Bible, for instance, which has only enriched my understanding and prompted me to ask more questions.
What concerns me about paying for classes or books that are mostly propaganda intended to indoctrinate and often intimidate the students is that the claims made in them are to benefit the people making the claims, not the students. The information - or rather propaganda - is often used as a way to strong-arm the hearers into giving money, commitment, time, love, etc. solely to the group providing the class or book.
IMO this is anti-education. It does not promote healthy questioning and growth in the student. To me real education lies in helping the student learn to think, to develop his or her own talents, and in doing so, add to the grand conversation and development of "civilization."
But consider the source of these comments: A person who has a liberal arts education and has often been told she reads, thinks, and talks too much.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
Socks, that was a great post teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Does anti-education equate to indoctrination?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's the rub, ain't it, opera?
Oi. Cest la vie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
$200 was maybe a whole year. It went up from $100 to $200, then back to $100.
The reason it was doubled- the claim was "it's worth thousands, so it's actually a deal at $200"
but the unspoken reason was that the price was raised as long as people could be found to
pay the higher price. $100 was outrageous, but $200 was a transparent grab for money.
(No, the $200 class didn't offer any more books than the $100. The $85 class offered a
few books that-retail- weren't worth the difference between the $45 class and the $85 class.
At least that was a PRETENSE at justifying the increased pricetag. A lie, but at least an
ATTEMPT to make it sound reasonable.
Since $200 didn't work, the price came down to $100. And that came down eventually as all
the suckers who were willing to pay $100 were already sold.
See, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" determined the price of pfal.
There's price, and demand.
As the price went up, demand went down- fewer people were willing to pay $85 or $100
rather than $40 or $45.
As the price came back down, demand went up- more people are willing to pay $45 for
a Bible class than $85.
Offering it at $40 and $45 were smarter in the long run-since it meant twi caught more pigeons
they could then convince to give up 10% of their income.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
At one time in the "80's TWi was raking in so much dough (much more than they have now), that the Trustees bantered about the idea of publicly stopping the abundant sharing. Â
Of course, the debate was probably a rouse, intended to impress the Trustee staff present, especially since they decided not to do it under the premise that it might prove to be a stumbling block for the people. Â Yes, doing what the bible says could be hazardous to a lockstep believer's health....uh, thanks a lot....remind me to send Howard Allen a thank you note for that....he's still alive, right?Â
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
When one is providing bibles in many different languages to people in other countries. . . like The Bible League. . . it costs money. When one is providing care packages to Christians and Muslims for the bare necessities and shipping them to places like Iraq and Afghanastain like Voice of the Martyrs . . . it costs money.
Finding legal aid for prisoners of faith in other countries. . . cost big money
When I get the down and out man on the street food and a warm coat. . . it costs me money. When any of us do good works. . . it costs money.
I am steward of what God gives me. It isn't mine. . . but His. Bigger projects require greater funds. I do believe that God does have His hand in many such worthy projects.
That relationship that fills us. . . will eventually spill over into these good works. It has no where else to go.
The fact that a ministry or church is prosperous is not an indication of anything IMHO. Not of graft and not of goodness. You have people like VP. . . Benny Hinn and Joyce Myer and then there are people like Richard Wurmbrand.
It is how they steward the money given to them. . . . . What do they do with it and for whom?. . . How do they raise it? How much is wasted? What do they take for themselves?
As for PFAL? We were young, idealistic, and duped by a slick talker who tickled our ears. I guess the fact that we paid for it . . . is just one more slap upside the head.
But. . . .good works can have overhead---Good works are the result of our Christian faith. When a few of us get together and organize, structure, and act on our faith. . . the results STILL can be good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClayJay
I think that paying for the class materials was okay, though the price was too high in relation to the materials. But what I could never get was the thing about "your not PAYING for the class because it is a DONATION and not a payment". WTF was up with that? I paid it/donated it-whatever-because I wanted to take it and be grads like the people that introduced me to it, but I always had a real hard time trying to tell new people that it was not a PAYMENT but instead a DONATION. One guy told me that since it was a donation, that he would only donate fifty bucks. But then I had to tell him no, it costs more than that. Then he said that that meant that it was a payment and not a donation. That one always confused me. I just wished that they (the leaders) would just change the wording and say that the class cost $100.00 and that that was what it COST.
How much do you think Jesus made doing the Sermon On The Mount teaching series? That was a pretty popular one you know! It even got a fancy name, that is, The Beatitudes, or however its spelled. What does that mean anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hiya, ClayJay
Beatitude is a state of "perfect blessedness".
Blessed are the poor---Blessed are the meek---Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness--etc., etc.
You are correct in stating it was a cost, not a donation.
In my opinion, they called it a "donation" to disguise the fact that the whole thing was really a multi-level-marketing scheme, otherwise known as a pyramid scheme. It also wouldn't have looked too good for an organization that had a tax exempt status as a non-profit organization to openly admit they were charging a mandatory fee, not receiving a voluntary donation.
(And welcome to GSC.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
ClayJay, Welcome to the Cafe. Have some eggnog.
I promise it is free, no charge, no payment, no donation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClayJay
Yeah, and no real eggnog! But at least I wouldn't be getting what I wasn't paying for! Haha!
And thanks for the welcomes! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Most people who understand English would have a difficulty with that. I myself said, what if I choose not to "donate" anything? - You can't take the class. - It's a fee, then; a charge. Why not call it so? - It's a donation. - No, it's not.
And so began everyone's entry into the world of TWI double-speak.
Now I ask: why did they call it a "donation"?
Was it because if it were a charge or fee, an element would be liable to tax, on the "profit" from the sale of the class? Tax on the difference between the cost of the materials, and the cost of the class?
But if a donation, could someone claim tax back on the donation that had been paid by the taxpayer?
At one time, taxpayers could claim back the tax on charitable donations they had made. Receipts may be required. I think that led to abuse and is not now available; but the charities have been empowered to claim the tax back.
Nowadays, charitable organisations in the UK can claim tax back on donations by taxpayers. Many places, like museums, the National Trust, schools, youth groups, tell taxpayers about this and offer a form that the taxpayer can complete and which allows the organisation to claim money back. It can boost their funds by about 17%.
If TWI could not claim back the tax, then the payer (=class taker) as taxpayer should have been able to reclaim tax on the charitable donation. But I never heard of any forms being given out with the charity number on so that the "donation" could be offset.
Hah! I bet that's it. Not just double-speak but some other kind of scam to minimise the tax TWI might have to pay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Actually I bvellieve it is tied in with being a non profit organization... by charging for the class they were putting themselves outside the defiition of a non profit organizaion.. if they were smart they would have broken it up into cost for the books and cost for processing the paper work... that would have covered it. But then they would have had trouble with the amount they were charging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The never ending twisting and turning of language to accomodate requirements that would otherwise inhibit or restricts the ability to properly collect and keep money is an example of the duplicitous machinations religious societies, clubs and organizations formulate and execute. On Sunday they all work for a heavenly Boss whose ways are higher and mysterious. On Monday they do temp work for other agencies with clearer directives.
Thus at the Way, a charge, plain and simple is variously:
A donation. (of a set amount)
A gift. (of a set amount)
A free-will offering. (see above)
A minimum required donation. (ditto)
More is fine. Less? No.
It's a charge, for a business service and product, when you "give" a "mininimum required donation" out of "love" for a "class" and the materials that come with it. You're buying the information and the materials, with whatever use restrictions come with them. I do that at Borders when I buy a book, or Safeway when I buy food. I pay, it's mine, I was charged and paid for the business processes, products and profit margin that the charge covers. It's exactly what the Way does with it's "class".
Calling it anything else is transparent BS. IMO. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I'm sure the answer is well known as to who benefits from any received $$ in the Way.. The BOT and the best brown nosers, I mean those whom the BOT deemed worthy for a time.
The problem I see is not whether they have a "right" or better yet a "privilege" to receive $$ from their giving of the scriptures in the form of a class.
As Paul said in 1 Cor 9 "... Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has said that those who preach the gospel should live from out of the gospel ..."
The real problem is rather that it is from the heart that we are all to give, not grudgingly or out of necessity. The class was given to help others, or so we were taught. (Putting the actual merit of the class aside). And if our heart is to give, because we desire to give, then would we require $$ before we gave? How can anyone say that TWI's heart for helping teach "God's Word since it hasn't been known since the first century" was based on the heart to give and help? If you wanted to help a man on the side of the road with a flat tire, would you wait until he gave you something of value before you helped him? Of course not, not if you really wanted to help the guy! It wouldn't matter, that wasn't the focus, the focus was to help the man!
It's when the focus became not in helping and giving (if it ever was for the BOT), then the class was all about the return, the $$. Rather than if they gave because that's their desire, then it would have been evident, because you wouldn't require something in return. You would give if it was within your means.
There are 2 sides to the giving here, and both are not to be done grudgingly or out of necessity. Yet the "required" donation became a necessity on both parts. A necessity if you were to take the class, and a necessity on the one who gave the class because once they were "paid", they legally were binding to give the class [or give your money back!].
That's why it is always "freely you have received, freely give". Christ freely gave to those who would listen. And those who listened were to freely make it available. Nothing changes that today, we still have been grafted into God's tree freely and partakers of that inheritance (because of His son), and freely we share that good news and make it freely available to others. We give what we received with that heart to give 'freely'. No charge required if we do it according to God's way.
But if someone has freely given to you. And it has some value. Meaning it actually is worth something to you, not just because he's a "so-called" minister or because he shares the scriptures, but rather you were partakers of what they gave freely and it was of worth to you. Then God says they who gave have the privilege to receive in return for that. They have the privilege and the right. But it's according to the other person "desiring in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity" to give in return, which may or may not be the case. (And of course, it requires those who give to actually give something of value!!)
Ultimately, it's a trust issue. And those who require something "up front" show they have no trust. So the point of making money off a bible class is so they don't have to be dependent and trust in God! Because they who give their lives to serve God, and share the good news, trust that God will care for them no matter what. And God promises he will. But it is left up to God how that will happen. Instead, those who lack trust, yet claim the opposite, show by their own life who they trust in. The all powerful $$. If they have $$ in their fists, then God is alive, but if not, then God is no more.. Sad.. Really sad. Rather than trust in God to supply their need, they try and requite it from man. Sure, there are many who will never give and help those who gave something of worth to them, but then that's not the point. God's greater than all that, and it all comes down to trust and obey.. Oh wait a minute, that's my nick.. I mean trust in God and give, freely, that all may benefit mutually.
At least that's my perspective, and I'm sticking to it. (For now).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm...that's good stuff TAO. I'd add - Pauls states his case in Chap. 9, and validates his position from a couple standpoints - the temple and the Levites, God's "ordaining" of it, and a kind of natural logic - but there's limits to that and frankly, I don't think that "Paul" accuractely states the case for it in such a way as to make it a "doctrine". (as it's so often imposed)
Now - this smacks of some kind of heinous accusation - that "The Word of God" has error in it. That "Paul taught something wrong".
But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible.
It can be done, but it must be done carefully and - my term - "probably" only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it.
The "flock" that's referred to is a metaphor - God "owns" the flock, although we are in fact now God's "children" but we can keep the flock metaphor as long as we recognize and deal with it's limitations - Christ is the "Good Shepherd", He who has cared for the flock of God and brought it safely "home" to the "owner". Christ is therefore the earner of wages, if there's any to be given. We are the sheep - we're the ones being cared for by Christ and God. (We, as children and fellow brethren to Jesus Christ are collectively a family. We're also referred to in subsets as a "temple", "tabernacles", and members of a body.)
That comparison has nothing to do with what God, in Christ, has done. It deals with what we, choose to do (for whomever).
The natural logic of being paid reasonably for work well done doesn't require a spiritual platform, it's simply common sense in any social system or structure. In God's "family" sharing and exchange has it's place.
Paul wants to compare temple service with "Christian" service - I'm not sure that's a completely reasonable comparison - which is why I think the presentation in Cor. 9 also covers the fact that the writer himself doesn't impose these requirements upon himself
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
The necessity of writing this to the Corinthians was erroneously attributed to their being an unbelieving church, by the Way Nash, however a little investigation shows that the record speaks and stands for itself - the author was passionate about what he did and was going to fulfill his calling as cleanly as he was able to. Threshing "in hope" and partaking "of hope" together - whast's that mean? The hope of a meal and a paycheck? There's more to it than that, I hope.
Obviously, the exchange for labor and service applies today, but it's essential to note how carefully Paul deals with the entire topic and in fact, doesn't impose his argument on the church as "doctrine". I don't believe the overall context provides that reason the Way gave for this - that they were "unbelieving". I think it's simply an ethical conclusion that the author came to that best served his understanding of his calling and those he served.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Socks,
You wrote,
"But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible."
I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other. From TWI, that sure a man ought to be paid, to, What the heck, no man should gain from God's truth. And now, I'm where I rested my case above..
While I understand where you are coming from, and I totally agree for the most part. Who in their right mind ought to live from sharing what God gave them for free. But then I began to understand why.. It's more of a natural flow as opposed to a legalistic, business decision of I'm going to share the word and God better take care of me!
That's why it all goes back to 2 main things I can think of now.
A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to.
B) But then also something I didn't state.. God's calling. Not our own calling. God called Paul and Barnabus for a purpose for a mission. So it wasn't man's decision. It wasn't Paul's decision. As he stated in the next verse, it was laid upon him by God to live and do this. And I know so many times we mix up our own "will" with God's will. If we think it in our heart, we think because it sounds godly, that, it must be God's will.. No.. Not necessarily. So, certainly, you are right in that, "It only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it."..
There is nothing contradictory in what you said.. As long as we leave it to God, and trust and obey, wait, that's my nick again.. I mean trust in God and imitate Him. Fod God is love, and His love was manifested in His giving (of His son). Thus we trust and give..
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
So if I trust and obey - wait!!
Indeed - "I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other."
You 'n' me both, friend.
A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to.
I use the imagery of "every Thom, Dick, and Harriet that wants to", setting up shop and hanging out a shingle reading "Ye Olde God's Stuff" and taking all comers. There's no applicaton process (that everyone agrees on) other than the items you note so well -
Basically anyone can say "God called me, I work for God". That hardly means that 1. someone does, 2. someone is "called" VS volunteering (which is what nearly everyone is expected to do anyway - it's a "family") and/or 3. "Pay me, I"m woikin' here", and that they're doing valid work.
If it were a blank sheet of paper, I'd ask first - what's the reason "we", the church, exists? What's the inherent essence of our relationship that causes us to be together, relate, and have any interest in each other at all? What's our "reason" for being?
Uno digito - "sonship" - the familial relationship of children and a Father. (MA MA!! MA MAA!)
That's the best imagery, metaphor or comparison we have to start from, I think. That's the "system", the organizational model we have to fashion our efforts, as we're describe that we ARE children, in a family.
Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yup socks, I agree..
"Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future."
Too many people in Christianity look at it as if it is some ladder climbing, positional, hierarchy system. Be it clergy/laity or simple teacher/student.. Yet the thing I believe we both recognize is we all need to be taught at times, and we all need to teach others at times. So we each submit to one another in love in the family, the body, the church. With Christ as it's only head rather than a "called of God" man/woman, since we are all actually called of God in some sense. For the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.