Beating on the Tom Toms...September 25 2007 at 9:04 AM
|Jimmy Wren (no login)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
Does the paid 'Involvement Minister' seek to engage the fellowship of other faiths? Will our friends in the Baptist church be encouraged to 'speak/lead' any of the small groups that Tom speaks of in the Madison Marcher?
Will the Tom Tom beat to the tune of the religious group known as the Salvation Army?
One Madisonaire writes of her ministry as, '...the greatest things about this ministry, said Ferguson. Its showing the community a unified front between people of all faiths to help those in need. Its a perfect example of what Jesus prayed for right before he was crucified that we might be one so that others would come to know Him.
What a misuse of Scripture! I wonder if Tom will help get folks involved in this ministry.
For the record the work that will be done is certainly a good thing. There is only one reason that a church would do this work hand-in-hand with churches of other faiths and that is money! There must be some kind of funds that come with this work and when money is involved some folks will compromise their faith. Tom even gave up his paying job to seek money from the church. Right Tom?
How do you do that???
|September 25 2007, 10:55 AM |
How do you do that??? How do you see past what is seen to look on the hearts of men? How do you know the involvement minister and others at Madison are working with others for the money? I would like to know how to do that - I thought only God could!
1 Samuel 16:7 "...The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Also, I'm not sure why this discussion has been re-started in a new post, but I would encourage you to review and respond to my comments in the previous one on this topic.
Have you asked??
|September 25 2007, 12:24 PM |
I have a suggestion; Why don't YOU go to Madison, FIND Tom, and ASK for yourself. Now, would that be scriptural?
How do you know????
|September 25 2007, 9:28 PM |
Your pride and arrogance cannot hide behind the cursory "In Christ." Fortunately not everyone in your "denomination" is not so Pharisaical and pompous to believe that someone wanting to serve Christ and the world would be in it for the money.
I'm ashamed of you and the majority of posters on this site.
I'm ashamed of you and your own personal pride and arrogance and your above message with NO substance whatsoever. It's been approved for readers to see for themselves. At least for now.
|This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Sep 26, 2007 8:11 AM|
No ROLES therefore NO FUNDING!
|September 26 2007, 12:20 PM |
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
One of the corruptions in the secular world was when the Muses and sophists began charging for teaching a skill which they had been given. Because the Word of God is the FREE WATER there is no way to peddle it. The church as ekklesia, synagogue or "school of the Bible" has no ROLES for professionals and no "Law of giving to fund them" without stealing from hard working honest people.
Paul validated the correctness that a "threshing oxen" has the right to nibble as it threshes and MOVES ON to the next field, but for the "world" you have no credibility selling the free gospel. That is why Paul MARKS those who are willing to be suffering servants. You say "I cannot send my kids to college" without a WAGE: fine, God places no burden on you and CANNOT use you because you will--by definition--have to be slick willies to survive.
How do you CORRUPT the Free Word?
Kapeleuo (g2585) kap-ale-yoo'-o; from kapelos , (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by impl.) to adulterate (fig.): - corrupt
kapêl-euô, A. to be a retail-dealer, drive a petty trade... kapêleu' drive a trade, chaffer with your vegetable food Hdt.1.155
II. c. acc., sell by retail, ton herpin Hippon.51 .
2. metaph., k. ta prêgmata, mathêmata sell learning by retail, hawk it about, fight half-heartedly, traffic in grants of citizenship, of prostitutes, playing tricks with life, [p. 876] corrupting it, AP9.180 (Pall.).
With all respect, too many see "church" as an INSTITUTE or a social services organization or needing to PLAN already depressed people's live to make them into more PRODUCTIVE MACHINES. This, like music and most modern religion, is the restoration of Babylonianism where people worked to SERVE the gods. Of course, the AGENTS of the gods got all of the food, clothing, housing, entertainment and took care of the "god's" sex lives for them.
God reversed that and define the sabbath meaning REST to read and rehearse the Word. He excluded both vocal and instrumental praise and the word WORK outlaws "sending out ministers" and assuredly passing the plate. Jesus ordained the ekklesia which has NO role beyond being a weekly REST to "come learn of me." That is fulfilled in the NOT musical passages as "singing that which is written" and "teaching that which had been taught." Paul defined that as READING the word, discussing it and admonishing one another to observe that read portion of the Word.
You can rationalize and defend the modern INSTITUTE but the organism is NOT the body of Christ: you cannot worship in houses built by human hands and by fleecing the lambs, and you cannot worship with the WORKS of human hands. Works is ERGON which has the same meaning as ORAGON meaning "a musical instrument" intending to do HARD WORK or produce the shock and awe without which people would not attend the new "venues for Rock and Roll."
Struck a nerve...
|September 26 2007, 12:48 PM |
It looks as if I have struck a nerve with freakinamazed. That is not the purpose of my post. However, this does remind me of the times when a local government has trimmed the welfare roll. Some people get very upset about it! People dont like to give up a free check. Some may even fight to keep it. Perhaps there may be some in the church who feel the same way.
It seems that every few years someone comes up with a new service that a church just has to have. Often the service is already being done by some good Christian but the church leaders are quickly convinced that only a professional with a ministerial title, such as the one offering to do the service, should only be allowed to do the job. Even thought the service is only performed 3 times a week the church is convinced that the one performing the service is a VIP or IM minister and should draw a pay check equal to what a professional person working at Radio Shack or some explosive company would draw.
I suppose that many people would attend church if paid to. If you were to take the Involvement Ministers weekly paycheck and offer $100.00 per week to someone to attends, you might increase attendance by 14. Of course Tom would quit. History has proven that when a man stops getting paid he either leaves or quits.
Some churches could be made up of 100% professional Christians one day. Give it a few more years and some of these people that sit in the pew may figure out how to do it. Tom did! Tom is now a paid professional Christian. Tom gets paid to attend church. Does Tom seem interested in your welfare? He should! He gets paid to do that!
Professional Christianity is a danger. The Chinese have had to deal with it. They say, He who carves the Buddha never worships him. Proverb (Chinese)
Madison has given a terrible lesson to other churches. The lesson is, If you want to get people involved pay them! Right Tom!
A few questions
|September 27 2007, 11:27 AM |
After reviewing a number of your posts, it is difficult to know where to begin. Is it that you are opposed to anyone receiving support for their work with a church? Is this is a scripturally based position or one you have taken because of your observation that a minister really doesnt have that much to keep him busy? Is it that you have known a number of ministers who only perform a service three times a week?
From earlier posts, is it your position that the Apostles (and Jesus) did not receive any type of support from others during their ministry? Is it your position that Paul taught that giving support to those involved in ministry was forbidden?
After having read the Madison Marcher (online) it seems their claim is that Tom Haddon, as Involvement Minister, will have as a primary responsibility the aim of helping to equip members in service to God. Is it your position this is not a legitimate goal of the church? Or is it that it can only legitimately be done by one who is not being supported by the church? Also, is it your position Tom was not involved with the work of the Lord until he was paid? That would seem to be the implication of the lesson you claim Madison has taught other congregations.
Also, and I can only go on what Ive read (its hard to hear ones tone of voice or check to see if they are winking in an online post), is it your position that those who are supported only attend because of their pay? Is it your position that those who have received support, and no longer receive support, inevitably cease to attend (and be involved in the life of) the church? It is here, for me, that you have struck something of a nerve.
My father was supported by a church for a number of years. He ceased to receive support. He remained with the same congregation, became an elder (without pay), filled-in for a small church near-by (often attending the assemblies of both congregations each Sunday). If he was only doing it for the pay why did he continue to do it after the pay had ceased?
Finally, I have no idea what Madison is doing with churches of other faiths but it seems it is some kind of effort to provide some sort of resources to the poor. Our local congregation has a number of members who have traveled to the Salvation Army building downtown where they fed the poor and homeless (the members provided the food, labor, etc. and used the SAs kitchen and dining room). Could you provide information on the source(s) of the inevitable funding? We seemed to have missed out on this largess, naively doing it because we thought there was a need. So, could you show us the money? Perhaps we could help even more with these funds!
I realize there are a number of questions asked above. However, since you are the one making the claims and initiating the criticism it seems only fair to ask you to explain your position. If possible please provide applicable scriptures.
|September 27 2007, 8:09 PM |
Joe, I am glad to hear of the dedication of your father to the work of the Lord. I know of more people like him then I do of the Toms of Madison.
I have been out of town for the past two weeks. I will be in Waco tomorrow and Saturday. I hope to be home sometimes Sunday. It has been difficult in getting these post up while on the road. I cannot always get to the information that I would like to use and several post that I have written have disappeared. It may be Monday before I can continue this discussion with you. You may have notice that I have only replied and not answer specific questions from other posters. Hopefully Monday I will be able to give proper replies.
If you would like to know about the support for the program you can email MS Ferguson at the Madison church and discuss it with her. Ask her how much of a salary she gets. Sometimes a person will deny recieving a salary because they call it 'support' so you may have to dig a little.
I do not deny that many people do get involved with no 'support' expected. In fact I believe that most people do! That is why I was surprised to see TOM accept a salary big enough for him and his family to live on!
Joe, I support those who help teach the gospel (excluding youth ministers and singles ministers), young people can learn in church and at home like the rest of us. We don't pay our Bible class teachers do we, except for Tom?
Joe, I support helping the poor.
But Joe, the church is not a collection agency to fund 'good' program. Nor is the church a 'brotherhood labor union' that hands out paying jobs at will.
Worship - one hour; entertain - one hour and fifteen minuter
|October 2 2007, 3:00 PM |
Why does the Sunday morning worship service (T) take one hour at Madison but the Sunday morning entertainment service (C) takes one hour and fifteen minutes?
Anyone know why?