|
Post by madame on Sept 1, 2010 11:48:11 GMT -5
Humbletigger, See, you keep disclosing more and more information with each post, which is really not fair, because we wrote our replies to the information you gave us.
I wrote my replies to your first post, and if you read them again, I did NOT say that the father was "doing everything he can", I just wrote that he was trying. Trying means that he is doing something. Also, at the end of that post I also wrote that if the church believes he is not being responsible, they ought to talk with him. See, that is part of what being a church is about. You don't just do your thing, you care, and caring sometimes means taking those who are reponsible for a bad situation to task.
I think others have explained my words very well already. I have quite a lot going on right now, and don't have regular access to a reliable computer, so I can't go back and reply in more depth to your posts.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you and questioned your friendship and love to the families you posted about. I've been disappointed in the church, and I guess it transpires. The criticism was not addressed directly at your church, but at the church in general, which seems to be too focused on who should have authority over whom, what doctrine is more "Biblical", and having the perfect building with all the perfect technical equipment to attract the masses of people who are not needy. The church in general doesn't want to care for its needy. And again, I am NOT bashing your church.
I am not quiverfull. I have never expected the church to fulfill my needs, and I have no intention of having more children than my husband and I can care for. But I come from a qf family and my husband does too, and we both know the importance of a loving and supporting church through very hard times, even when our parents hadn't "earned" the love and gifts that the church gave us.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 1, 2010 12:45:11 GMT -5
I don't think I was disclosing "more and more information".
I wrote my original response to the idea that the financial plan of the frugal QF was to do without until someone else "donated" what you need- i.e. in compassion and pity met the need.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 1, 2010 14:29:20 GMT -5
What I think is, that every situation has to be examined on its own merits-- or lack thereof. Some of us have experienced churches that have not considered us "worthy" to receive needed aid, because we didn't toe the party line. Others have experienced having our charity milked dry by people like Humbletigger described. It's easy for emotions to get involved because of our own experiences. For myself, I read the post by Shelley C with some emotional reaction of my own. I understood that she was responding to a perceived judgmentalness against her lifestyle-- but I was having trouble not reading a reactionary judgment against mine. You see, I started out as a young married Christian with the idea that we would never go in debt. So when we couldn't afford new tires for the car, we just didn't buy them. Until we slid off the road in a surprise snowstorm and were nearly killed-- and the highway patrolmen said that if we'd drive to the next town and immediately buy new tires, he wouldn't give us a ticket, but our tires were dangerous to ourselves and others and we ought to have been ashamed of ourselves to have been driving around that way. So we went in debt for tires. And the next time we needed something we couldn't afford, we went in debt again. And now, after the loss of my husband's job and three years of student loans that were inadequate to meet our daily needs, we have more credit card debt than we should. And we started out with the idea that our kids would never go to daycare or public schools. But we've never been able to afford private Christian schools, and I've NEEDED to work our entire marriage. So no homeschooling for us. I can make a lot more money as a paralegal than I ever could doing one of those home businesses. And I love my job. And it turned out that there were good, quality daycares that the kids enjoyed, and that the public schools here are high-quality, with dedicated teachers and a strong curriculum. So practicality has won out. We could have been like the family Humbletigger describes, and hoped and prayed that other people would support us in living an idealogical lifestyle that made no practical sense. But it seemed to us that being self-supporting (even if incurring debt) was more in accordance with our Christian principles. So-- I think it's lovely that Shelley C homeschools. And I think it's lovely that we don't. I'm glad she's debt free and I wish we weren't, but I'll be gentle with myself about that. And I think it's rotten that Arietty was poorly treated by her church, and it's rotten that Humbletigger was taken advantage of by people in her church. So I'm for letting each person say their piece, and for trying not to take it personally-- and also for checking my own posts to try to avoid being taken personally for something I didn't mean-- because it's way too easy to do when we're talking about stuff like this. And I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by ShellyC on Sept 1, 2010 16:51:30 GMT -5
Well said krwordgazer! We are not really debt free though, as stated before, we have a house mortgage. Regarding the church posts~We have also never been offered anything by the local church. I am sure if the times we were in need, If I went and told everyone about our needs, maybe we would have received some things. I realize the bible does say, you have not, because you ask not. But, we have never felt led to ask [people/church/i] for things. Not that we were too good! Heavens No! Just was never in dire need I suppose. I recall one time a few years back though, right before we left service, I had a lady pull me aside and ask me if I needed a kerosene heater. I said, sure, why not..
I thought this would be something to save for a rainy day..But, when we got home, we saw that a power storm knocked our power off..So the timing was just perfect!
No matter. Too each his own.
|
|
|
Post by km on Sept 1, 2010 19:38:52 GMT -5
What I think is, that every situation has to be examined on its own merits-- or lack thereof. Some of us have experienced churches that have not considered us "worthy" to receive needed aid, because we didn't toe the party line. Others have experienced having our charity milked dry by people like Humbletigger described. It's easy for emotions to get involved because of our own experiences. For myself, I read the post by Shelley C with some emotional reaction of my own. I understood that she was responding to a perceived judgmentalness against her lifestyle-- but I was having trouble not reading a reactionary judgment against mine. You see, I started out as a young married Christian with the idea that we would never go in debt. So when we couldn't afford new tires for the car, we just didn't buy them. Until we slid off the road in a surprise snowstorm and were nearly killed-- and the highway patrolmen said that if we'd drive to the next town and immediately buy new tires, he wouldn't give us a ticket, but our tires were dangerous to ourselves and others and we ought to have been ashamed of ourselves to have been driving around that way. So we went in debt for tires. And the next time we needed something we couldn't afford, we went in debt again. And now, after the loss of my husband's job and three years of student loans that were inadequate to meet our daily needs, we have more credit card debt than we should. And we started out with the idea that our kids would never go to daycare or public schools. But we've never been able to afford private Christian schools, and I've NEEDED to work our entire marriage. So no homeschooling for us. I can make a lot more money as a paralegal than I ever could doing one of those home businesses. And I love my job. And it turned out that there were good, quality daycares that the kids enjoyed, and that the public schools here are high-quality, with dedicated teachers and a strong curriculum. So practicality has won out. We could have been like the family Humbletigger describes, and hoped and prayed that other people would support us in living an idealogical lifestyle that made no practical sense. But it seemed to us that being self-supporting (even if incurring debt) was more in accordance with our Christian principles. I can really, really relate to this, KR. I was feeling the same kind of reactionary judgment against my lifestyle--which honestly has more in common with yours... And I'm grateful that you said this more gracefully than I could have.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Sept 2, 2010 11:05:50 GMT -5
From CINDY Hopewell,
Didn't I read a reference over on YUKU about that Bates fellow actually giving a lecture at an ATIA meeting on how to live on the cheap?
Essentially, people are supposed to donate everything for you to build a house, and if you just wait, someone will feel guilty and sorry for your kids and give you what you need, if I recall correctly. And much of the things they were given actually came from the Duggars, like their very large dinner table, and a dump truck or something? Yes--Gil Bates lectured one or more of the big ATI conferences on Supporting a large family on one income. I have mentioned several times the "hand-me-down" green table the Bates have from the Duggars [could there really have been 2 of those ugly suckers?] and the Bates have an identical FORD van to the one the Duggars had [but that truly could be coincidental--its a standard multi passenger van after all] Gil said a "group of businessmen" gave him a bucket truck for his business. I noted that Jim-Bob had bought one for the house construction with an eye to resale when done--I wasn't able to verify if it was the same truck and maybe ATI guys bought it from Jim-Bob for Gil. It's not begging to pray and let God provide thru friends or generous local merchants or companies that want national tv exposure. That's allowing folks to bless you. From what I've seen of the Bates, they'd have continued on in their tiny house and maybe encouraged early marriage among the older kids to free up space as needed!
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 2, 2010 11:59:05 GMT -5
Thanks for your soothing words, kr.
|
|
|
Post by km on Sept 2, 2010 20:08:08 GMT -5
Making a meal is too onerous a form of helping out? Frankly that's just petty and unkind. I have been the person who had too many kids so people didn't bother making me a meal when one more arrived. I will NEVER be the person who looks at a family and wonders if they are deserving enough for me to spend half an hour of my life making them a freaking meal. You keep saying that people "LOVE" them.. well guess what a meal is about a lot more than whether the family could or should be able to make a meal for themselves. No matter how poor you are you can probably scrape together some kind of meal. A meal coming from friends and church is a way of showing them that you "LOVE" them.. you actually care enough to remember them and spend a little of your time and money on them. It's not love if the person has to deserve it first. I kind of thought that was the whole point of the gospel? This makes me very frustrated. It's a horrible to thing to have to earn kindness by meeting the expectations of others. We are not talking about some family demanding their mortgage be paid or that the church buys them a car, it is a MEAL. I know a real kick in the gut for me in my church was seeing meals and baby showers heaped upon first time moms and with my last child I received nothing at all. I had made about 50 casseroles for the food bank there over the last few years too, that was a contribution I felt fitted my abilities as a mom of many. Yet for some reason it wasn't very exciting to fuss over a mom with number 8 baby, like it was to fuss over the ones with number 1 or 2. And no it wasn't that I needed food because I was poor, or because I'd just had a baby (thank you Gentle Spirit magazine for your make 30 meals and freeze in a day articles). What I needed was for someone to actually care about me and show it with simple, caring gestures. I still do not understand this. When I read the above I am right back there, not understanding it. Well, so you have experienced it too. Compassion fatigue is the name for it when giving people who have been giving to same endless need for a very long time run out of energy to give anymore. Yes, we as a congregation really do love them, no matter how hollow that sounds to you. We have helped them out financially as individuals and as a church MANY TIMES! Every day problems are a huge financial crisis to them- car repairs, home repairs, illness requiring medical attention, etc. They let the world know their needs on their "ministry" website, and people donate through paypal or hand them envelopes or checks. We really don't need a minister of music, but we have one now because we want to help them be self-sufficient as much as help them meet their needs. That's the same reason I asked him to teach music lessons. If they as a couple want to continue to have children every year, they as a couple need to be able to support them. The entire second letter to the Thessalonians revolves around the issue of people not working and expecting the local group of believers to keep meeting their needs. Paul was against it, for the record. This is the real world in which we live, and anyone who is QF and not independently wealthy is going to eventually drain the generous people in their lives dry. People don't mind giving when the need is occasional. Everyone- regardless of their religion- gets tired of constantly being asked to help the same people over and over again. Someone earlier wrote that it is the reason for the existence of social services- people continue to need help even after they have alienated all the friends and relatives who could/do help in a crisis. When it's no longer a crisis, but a chronic situation, continued donations are not the answer. It's time to change the underlying dynamics of the situation. When a family cannot meet the needs of the people already part of the family, at the very least they can stop adding more people to that family. Next they can work on meeting the needs of the family as it already exists- one or both parents working outside the home, for money and looking for employment that is sufficient for at least their most basic needs- including car/home repair, minor medical emergencies, etc. Wrong, it is not "just a meal". It was another meal requested after people have already been donating to help pay their mortgage and keeping their car running. And you can rant about it all day, but since people generally hate conflict, they use passive-aggressive means like not signing up for meals to let people know they are tired of being asked for personal sacrifice on behalf of QF families on a continuous basis. Would you like honesty better? I don't think so. I really doubt you would feel any better about it if someone wrote you a note saying: "I regularly bail your family out financially. When the water heater broke, we paid for a used one and helped install it. When your transmission went out, we donated to the fund used to replace it. When you go on ministry trips, we donated to help pay your mortgage when you missed work that month. All that because we like you, but we can't keep this up. If you are going to keep having children, you need to figure out how you are going to provide for them. We don't approve of your reckless approach to financial/family planning, calling whatever happens the will of God and then relying on the good will of others to carry the crisis. Figure out how to become financially stable so that you can be the one helping instead of the one always taking. Your honest friend, fellow parishoner." Methinks that wouldn't go over with you any better than a thin sign-up sheet for taking meals to a QF mother on her fifth plus pregnancy.... Whoa... Why are you being so defensive about this? We are having a pretty general discussion here, and you're making it about you and the poor families from your church and what big leeches you feel that they are. So, why are you helping them then? Duty? I was trying to think of how to say something about "blessed are the poor" and "whatever you have done unto the least of these" and "I was hungry and you gave me food" and turning over the tables of the moneychangers and hanging out with prostitutes and other unsavory people and "set the captives free" (in, I do believe, a completely literal, non-metaphorical manner--Jesus was someone who made the colonial powers and other powers that be of his time profoundly nervous)... I was thinking about those things, and then I thought that everything you're saying is precisely why I haven't gone to church in years. Because these are the things that seem least important to most Christians--or that are only important as long as no one actually needs too much... And how I live in a middle class area where everyone is more Middle Class than anything else, and they'll give to WorldVision and Save the Children and all, but they don't want to see unsavory poor folk actually showing up at the church door. But that these things--this kind of transformative work that Christians were asked to do--is the only point I can see of actually being involved in a church. I can have Strictly Delineated Boundaries and Professional Discussions and Middle Class Manners in my work life and public life and actually in life in general. But the whole "they'll know we are Christians by our love" and people who actually help each other in tangible ways and have vibrant communities of people who actually love each other and are not merely living out their "duties..." These are all things I could get behind. Which is maybe why cults are so attractive to so many people. We think this is what we're getting, but it turns out to be a whole lot less safe than we'd believed at first.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 2, 2010 21:49:09 GMT -5
From CINDY Hopewell,
Didn't I read a reference over on YUKU about that Bates fellow actually giving a lecture at an ATIA meeting on how to live on the cheap?
Essentially, people are supposed to donate everything for you to build a house, and if you just wait, someone will feel guilty and sorry for your kids and give you what you need, if I recall correctly. And much of the things they were given actually came from the Duggars, like their very large dinner table, and a dump truck or something? Yes--Gil Bates lectured one or more of the big ATI conferences on Supporting a large family on one income. I have mentioned several times the "hand-me-down" green table the Bates have from the Duggars [could there really have been 2 of those ugly suckers?] and the Bates have an identical FORD van to the one the Duggars had [but that truly could be coincidental--its a standard multi passenger van after all] Gil said a "group of businessmen" gave him a bucket truck for his business. I noted that Jim-Bob had bought one for the house construction with an eye to resale when done--I wasn't able to verify if it was the same truck and maybe ATI guys bought it from Jim-Bob for Gil. It's not begging to pray and let God provide thru friends or generous local merchants or companies that want national tv exposure. That's allowing folks to bless you. From what I've seen of the Bates, they'd have continued on in their tiny house and maybe encouraged early marriage among the older kids to free up space as needed! It's my concern that people are essentially put in a place where they feel obligated to bless... And a problem when the more acceptable, model examples get blessed and the less desirable do not. Aberrant groups like this use positive reinforcement to reward model behavior, but those who do not measure up do not get the same kind of reward and may receive punishment instead. I'm also concerned that there is a sense of entitlement that sometimes comes from (some) people that hear these model stories about how God always provides and then expects others to do the providing. Local businesses may have helped the Bates family provide for their needs, but is it reasonable to teach this as an expectation for others under normal circumstances? Local businesses with often help families if it means free publicity, but helping the Bates and the Duggars is different than helping the John Q Nobody family with their six kids and meager income. It bothers me. I've read a blog where a well-known family built a home and solicited funds to get others to help them lay their water and sewage lines for new construction. Should that be an expectation for all families? I always feel like it can't hurt to ask for help, as the worst that someone can say is "No." But if every homeschooling family asks for the same, is that right and fair? Is it right and fair to give people this expectation. What does that say of Christians? If the Bible teaches that a workman is worth his hire and that we should labor to pay for our needs, does it make sense to get Christians to expect to ask to get special treatment? That is different from being a Second Hand Rose and never paying retail. I certainly didn't hear what Gil Bates shared at the ATIA conference. But I come from a background where most ministers we had at our church worked as "tentmakers" (the apostle Paul made tents to pay bills). People were happy to bless them. Like I do, they did lots of Tightwad Gazzette practices to help make ends meet, but that is different from having an expectation that local businesses are going to help every family. I believe that on this forum recently, I mentioned my friends who decided that God didn't expect them to have to go into debt on a house. People in their church became very angry because they all had to pay rent or a mortgage, yet this family felt like they were entitled to a free home. They eventually had to buy a place because no one would rent to a family with 9 people. I'm not at all against giving gifts to the less fortunate. My family growing up was blessed by this kind of giving (we did not have means), and I was raised to be very generous with material things and to help people. I'm not concerned about that but about the expectation that because one is on a QF mission from God that someone (the church and society) owes it to them to pay for their expenses. Was Gil Bates promoting entitlement?
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Sept 3, 2010 11:06:06 GMT -5
You it strikes me in reading through this thread that if you look at the Bible, God *expected* debt was going to happen to some people because of the fallen nature of the world in which we live. And when it did happen, here is how to handle it. He instituted the gleaning laws, the year of Jubilee, etc. It wasn't to say that debt is evil and sinful and those who fall into it are somehow less than. Shit happens. God knows that. I think He is a lot more reasonable and *practical* in His approach to us than we are in our approach to Him and others through Him. At least, that is what I am finding.
The whole debt free mantra is being presented as a moral imperative and THAT is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Sept 3, 2010 11:33:37 GMT -5
You it strikes me in reading through this thread that if you look at the Bible, God *expected* debt was going to happen to some people because of the fallen nature of the world in which we live. And when it did happen, here is how to handle it. He instituted the gleaning laws, the year of Jubilee, etc. It wasn't to say that debt is evil and sinful and those who fall into it are somehow less than. Shit happens. God knows that. I think He is a lot more reasonable and *practical* in His approach to us than we are in our approach to Him and others through Him. At least, that is what I am finding. The whole debt free mantra is being presented as a moral imperative and THAT is the problem. I agree!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 3, 2010 12:05:03 GMT -5
It's my concern that people are essentially put in a place where they feel obligated to bless
Thank you, Cindy. I myself have been coerced, guilted and/or manipulated into giving so often that anything along the lines of "If you were REALLY a good Christian, you'd give!" just gives me a terrible taste in my mouth.
It's not about whether someone is "deserving" or not. It's about whether the giving is allowed to be truly voluntary or not.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 3, 2010 16:57:16 GMT -5
Huh? I sure didn't start this storm, km. I have had to continually defend myself against accusations of callousness/right-wing poor bashing- like what you just did to me again. People like me are why you don't go to church? The part that is most unfair is that I have been homeless myself, and have opened my own home to the homeless on several occasions, and have a house guest staying with me now who would be in that situation if not for good people like me helping. I often have people in my home, for meals, etc. I am a huge giver- not to the church necessarily (that too though) but to people. People. Single moms. Homeless teens. My disabled twin sister. And yes, QF families in dire financial need. And yet, even generous, giving people like myself do not want others to depend on us to rescue them as their mainstay. It is good for each of us to be truly self-sufficient as far as one possibly can be. If you are out of work you should be looking for work, not just praying for it. If you can't work, because of disability or whatever, that would be one thing. But this thread was about QF financial plans, and my posts specifically were about waiting around for other people to feel sorry enough for you to meet your need. And it happens! If you can't support your family on the money you currently make, don't add to the numbers purposefully and then call it the will of God. And if someone bails you out, by all means thank God, but don't see it as a sign that you are doing everything right and you don't need a better financial plan. I have no idea why you, km, and arrietty are so offended by this. As I said before, I am sorry you are offended by my opinion, but don't go beyond what I have written and slander my character by insinuating I am selfish and hard-hearted. A forum is for sharing thoughts; lets share with a bit less acrimony, please.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 3, 2010 18:17:11 GMT -5
Huh? I sure didn't start this storm, km. I have had to continually defend myself against accusations of callousness/right-wing poor bashing- like what you just did to me again. People like me are why you don't go to church? The part that is most unfair is that I have been homeless myself, and have opened my own home to the homeless on several occasions, and have a house guest staying with me now who would be in that situation if not for good people like me helping. I often have people in my home, for meals, etc. I am a huge giver- not to the church necessarily (that too though) but to people. People. Single moms. Homeless teens. My disabled twin sister. And yes, QF families in dire financial need. And yet, even generous, giving people like myself do not want others to depend on us to rescue them as their mainstay. It is good for each of us to be truly self-sufficient as far as one possibly can be. If you are out of work you should be looking for work, not just praying for it. If you can't work, because of disability or whatever, that would be one thing. But this thread was about QF financial plans, and my posts specifically were about waiting around for other people to feel sorry enough for you to meet your need. And it happens! If you can't support your family on the money you currently make, don't add to the numbers purposefully and then call it the will of God. And if someone bails you out, by all means thank God, but don't see it as a sign that you are doing everything right and you don't need a better financial plan. I have no idea why you, km, and arrietty are so offended by this. As I said before, I am sorry you are offended by my opinion, but don't go beyond what I have written and slander my character by insinuating I am selfish and hard-hearted. A forum is for sharing thoughts; lets share with a bit less acrimony, please. First, let me say that I agree with everything you just said. Second, there is more than one discussion going on in this thread. One is theoretical 'what should good Christians (or people in general) do to help when faced with those in need?' and the other is much more personal and specific 'is it wrong to get tired and not want to sign up for the post-birth meal delivery ministry or similar type charity when the recipients make no effort to help themselves and instead expect others to provide for them etc?' The thread seems to dip in and out of these two different situations and I think that is causing a lot of the acrimony. Just my opinion after reading it for awhile now. Yes, we show them we are Christians by our love. We act charitably. We help when and where we can. Those are important values to have and there are many ways the Church honors this. Formal ministries to the needy such as food banks and orphanages in foreign lands and homeless shelters and drug rehab centers and hosting twelve step meetings etc. Those are larger charitable functions the church may be involved in that provide for those in need. Then there's the very personal ministry of visiting the sick at home, giving rides to the disabled and elderly - to church and for general life purposes, bringing a casserole to a family who has just suffered a loss or the birth of a baby. Sometimes these are official ministries and sometimes they are more informal volunteerism. That would depend upon the church. I may be wrong but I don't see any sign that anyone here is saying that we shouldn't do any of the above things for those in need. I think the larger and more personal ministries toward the poor and in need are being handled by most churches. But there is another kind of 'help' that happens in churches and that is more among friends and more closely involved folks and that is where you either donate time and money and goods and services to a particular family/person in need and/or drum up this kind of support from others on their behalf. And that is much more personal and subjectively applied. This kind of help tends to favor the popular members disproportionately as others have mentioned. While the popular members thank everybody for being so generous to them in their time of need I can almost guarantee you that there are other very devoted members of the congregation whose need was as great or more great sitting there wondering why they were left to make do for themselves. It is intrinsically unfair and it happens in a lot of churches. And this kind of help is the kind of help that tends to be taxed when you get a family that people at first want to help and go out of their way to do so. Especially when you see a family struggling with lots of cute kids and suffering, you want to help them. It's natural. They are no more 'worthy' than the single person who falls on hard times but the whole 'family' thing puts them out there more and the 'poor kids' deal plays a big role in opening wallets. So there's that. But if that family has decided that their modus operandi is to 'trust in God' and make their need known constantly so that their fellow members are eventually feeling guilted into helping them then that's a problem. That's not fair to the other members, to expect to be supported when you are not doing what is necessary to support yourself. In a non-church example, I worked with a woman who was pregnant with her first baby. She and her husband had saved up enough money so that she could have a nine month maternity leave. Her sister was a stay at home mom with two children whose carpenter husband was self employed. For some reason he started getting less work and (gasp!) they might have to have her sister go back to work to help support them. This was such an awful prospect to them that they started lobbying my coworker to give them her maternity leave savings so the sister could remain home with her kids. And my coworker's whole family was mad at her when she refused! Somehow she was supposed to give up her time with her baby so that her older sister could stay at home with her kids instead. And no one in her family saw how unfair and inconsistent this was. In fact they were pressuring her so hard I had to point this out to her because their irrationality was working on her. Once she saw what was really happening she stiffened up and kept her maternity leave, as she should. The transaction was not fair to her or her own little family. And this is the problem. Every act of charity among regular working people is a transaction. I give up something so that I can give something to you. It's a trade. And it works because some have more and people give back when they are able (assuming they are ever able and not disabled in some way). And if someone is genuinely always in need due to circumstances they cannot control then that's okay, you'll get yours back in other ways even if it's just the satisfaction of knowing you did what you could for them. I have done that a lot of times myself, with no expectations of any kind. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned. But the family who has decided that God is going to give them what they need yet take the actual assistance from their friends and neighbors without giving back and without attempting to find other solutions is fixing the game. The transaction becomes unfair. When I pay your electric bill something of mine is lost or postponed. And I will do that if I know you need that more than I do. But if I know that you only need it because you refuse to consider other options and take care of yourself, indeed continue to add to the problem you are having without thought of the position it puts you in, then I have a huge problem with that. Don't ask me to sacrificially give to you when you sit there and just let it all happen with no effort on your own part. And this is what I think is the difference between the two conversations we are having on the thread: true charitableness versus someone gaming the sympathies of others as their due as people who 'trust in God'. Finally, I do think that those who refuse to sign up to take a single meal to a woman who just gave birth to whatever number baby it is, although they may be burnt out, it's still petty to me. It is just a frickin' meal. I would not count bringing a meal to a woman's family post birth as an uneven transaction no matter what other unrealistic demands that same family might make upon the congregation. That particular gift is something I would expect would be given across the board regardless of whatever else is going on, if that is a ministry that the church members have taken upon themselves. Visiting the sick would be another ministry like that, if you are sick then you should get the same consideration as any one else. And I believe that humbletigger did say that she was the one who met that need and was simply remarking on the reactions of her fellow members who were flagging under the weight of the constant demands. I have not heard her say that she was personally advocating telling people in need to eff off and help themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Sept 3, 2010 22:03:41 GMT -5
I've already forgotten to take a meal to someone because I was out of town helping my mom while she had radiation for breast cancer. (I spent about two months splitting half of each week out of town.) It did not go over very well, and my husband asked why no one ever invited him over for a meal or brought him anything when I was out of town with my mom and while on several short-term missions trips.
I've also been the only person who helped moms on baby 5 and more when they had hypertension. I was very worried about one woman, took her meals daily for more than two weeks, and put in many hours daily in her own kitchen. I insisted that she go to the OB one morning and they admitted her with early signs of HELLP. I ended up watching the troops (dad was out of town for work), and the kids all caught the flu. No one else could be bothered, though I understand a whole parade of people went to the hospital. I was so glad when they got back from the hospital because I felt about dead when it was over.
I've also made a bunch of meals for an elderly couple when the wife went into the hospital. Someone at church asked me to make extra meals to take to them because she was too busy to "get out there" to do it herself. I, too, was glad for the Gentle Spirit freezer meal plans. I was going out of town and was already in the mode for making meals for my husband, and I'm glad I went a little overboard with freezable casseroles. I was the only one from church to take them anything.
I suppose that it's experiences like this that make me a little upset sometimes. Some people received all sorts of help and attention, and others got bupkis. It's a barrel of laughs when I've declined helping because I was helping one of the dregs.
That is one of my contentions; the Duggars get help and the Bates get help. Fat moms and the mom with the hairy mole on her cheek doesn't get much.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Sept 7, 2010 10:06:26 GMT -5
"Debt-Free Duggars vs. Quiverfull Reality" ~ Story Call!ShellyC ~ can we quote you? Yes, that is fine. Let me add in though. As I am against having as many children as you can, and not providing a good hearty standard of living for them, as well as attention from BOTH mom & dad..This is not a good thing to do.. I do not believe into going into dept though. But too each his own, so what! Kwim? My family has a house payment, and that is it. No credit cards, car payments etc. For us, it is a form of modern day slavery, and not a religious thing. We never quote the dept bible verses to back up our feelings about running yourself ragged, just to have the latest and greatest home, cars, or new outfits, in order to keep up with the Jones. If we can afford it, we get get it. Otherwise we save up for the big purchases..and despite the people that will roll there eyes at me.. I have prayed about specific things( big things) and had them given to me! This is not by going out there airing my dirty laundry sort of speak..just silently praying a big need, and having someone say..Hey, need some bunk beds? etc..I hope I am getting out what I mean.. To me, there comes a time when I just can not say.."Oh, that is a nice coincidence!" There are many people that are not religious, and do not believe in having dept. I do not think anyone realizes this.. Just like there are many people who want to live in a rural areas, and use some good work ethics to live off their land, or have a home business. It is just their choice! Not all of us enjoy waking up for the 9-5 jobs...Not all of us are into following the crowds..Does this make sense? I guess, it just has never sat well with me with all the stereotype that I sometimes read here. That all said, Having your kids do more then you do in the house is bluntly wrong, but teaching your kids as soon as they are old enough to not just jump on the couch all day while rattling off orders for mom to get them this or that...or sleep till noon, and give you the eyes if you ask them to start a load or wash etc...Then just cough it up to teenage rebellion, that ALL kids go through..is hilarious! What about balance? Know what I mean? Since when did teaching kids to be self dependent, have a good work ethic, and think of others first..become a bad thing? Too me, we have some how got off track and have become nothing more then crowd followers in this area... I am NOT talking about the robotic kids that you see in the QF movement, but the things like, helping their parents being portrayed as idiotic..same goes for us homeschoolers...Have we all become that warped by others and the media, that our kids should run the show? Why do so many EX-QFers think that it is sooooo wrong for kids to help out? It has become a big 180 it seems. Is it out of guilt? I suppose that would make sense of it all. I am only human. I made a mistake,Took the wrong road, but moved on, and have found a great happy medium. Everyone makes mistakes. Should we spend the rest of our days regretting, and feeling so guilty that we need to go the complete opposite now? Does that help us sleep better at night? Another stereotype that I have been reading is on the Home school subject. I would never dream of sending my kids to a Public School if I am fully capable of teaching them at home. I actually enjoy spending time with my kids!! ;D I hear other mothers complain, and complain about their bratty kids..To them--Public school is the answer because that gives them at least 8 hours to not have to deal with them at home. Throw in all the extra curricular activities after school, and maybe they can get away with only seeing them a couple hours a day at most. For these moms, I want to donate a jumbo box of condoms too!! This does not seem odd to anyone?? My decision to not put them in public school~lying,cheating,bulling, drugs, alcohol,sex, etc..that they will surely get at at any secular, OR private school if their there long enough. I keep reading.."Oh, why shelter your kids...?" My question is... Why would anyone deliberately WANT to expose their kids to these sort of things at such young ages? This baffles me. Is it because we all had to go through it..so damn well make sure our kids go through it too? All my kids know about the big bad world..They know about cheating, lying, stealing,bulling etc...They actually learned all that in Sunday School!!! ;D I can say more, but I just think there should be a more balanced reading. Sometimes it comes off as just bashing the home-schoolers, dept-free folks, and the alike. I just hate labels so much..and this is why I guess. Thanks for letting me come out of hiding and share my thoughts. Shelly. You write like this and you homeschool? This is...a problem. You cannot do a good job homeschooling your kids when you do not write good English yourself. Spelling "debt" as "dept"? Really? That is maybe a fourth-grade-level error. Random capitalization ("Public School") is no better. Maybe you were just in a hurry, but seriously, if this is your usual standard of writing (and I don't remember whether your NLQ series was like this, but it may have been proofread), you shouldn't be homeschooling.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 7, 2010 10:29:09 GMT -5
Yes, that is fine. Let me add in though. As I am against having as many children as you can, and not providing a good hearty standard of living for them, as well as attention from BOTH mom & dad..This is not a good thing to do.. I do not believe into going into dept though. But too each his own, so what! Kwim? My family has a house payment, and that is it. No credit cards, car payments etc. For us, it is a form of modern day slavery, and not a religious thing. We never quote the dept bible verses to back up our feelings about running yourself ragged, just to have the latest and greatest home, cars, or new outfits, in order to keep up with the Jones. If we can afford it, we get get it. Otherwise we save up for the big purchases..and despite the people that will roll there eyes at me.. I have prayed about specific things( big things) and had them given to me! This is not by going out there airing my dirty laundry sort of speak..just silently praying a big need, and having someone say..Hey, need some bunk beds? etc..I hope I am getting out what I mean.. To me, there comes a time when I just can not say.."Oh, that is a nice coincidence!" There are many people that are not religious, and do not believe in having dept. I do not think anyone realizes this.. Just like there are many people who want to live in a rural areas, and use some good work ethics to live off their land, or have a home business. It is just their choice! Not all of us enjoy waking up for the 9-5 jobs...Not all of us are into following the crowds..Does this make sense? I guess, it just has never sat well with me with all the stereotype that I sometimes read here. That all said, Having your kids do more then you do in the house is bluntly wrong, but teaching your kids as soon as they are old enough to not just jump on the couch all day while rattling off orders for mom to get them this or that...or sleep till noon, and give you the eyes if you ask them to start a load or wash etc...Then just cough it up to teenage rebellion, that ALL kids go through..is hilarious! What about balance? Know what I mean? Since when did teaching kids to be self dependent, have a good work ethic, and think of others first..become a bad thing? Too me, we have some how got off track and have become nothing more then crowd followers in this area... I am NOT talking about the robotic kids that you see in the QF movement, but the things like, helping their parents being portrayed as idiotic..same goes for us homeschoolers...Have we all become that warped by others and the media, that our kids should run the show? Why do so many EX-QFers think that it is sooooo wrong for kids to help out? It has become a big 180 it seems. Is it out of guilt? I suppose that would make sense of it all. I am only human. I made a mistake,Took the wrong road, but moved on, and have found a great happy medium. Everyone makes mistakes. Should we spend the rest of our days regretting, and feeling so guilty that we need to go the complete opposite now? Does that help us sleep better at night? Another stereotype that I have been reading is on the Home school subject. I would never dream of sending my kids to a Public School if I am fully capable of teaching them at home. I actually enjoy spending time with my kids!! ;D I hear other mothers complain, and complain about their bratty kids..To them--Public school is the answer because that gives them at least 8 hours to not have to deal with them at home. Throw in all the extra curricular activities after school, and maybe they can get away with only seeing them a couple hours a day at most. For these moms, I want to donate a jumbo box of condoms too!! This does not seem odd to anyone?? My decision to not put them in public school~lying,cheating,bulling, drugs, alcohol,sex, etc..that they will surely get at at any secular, OR private school if their there long enough. I keep reading.."Oh, why shelter your kids...?" My question is... Why would anyone deliberately WANT to expose their kids to these sort of things at such young ages? This baffles me. Is it because we all had to go through it..so damn well make sure our kids go through it too? All my kids know about the big bad world..They know about cheating, lying, stealing,bulling etc...They actually learned all that in Sunday School!!! ;D I can say more, but I just think there should be a more balanced reading. Sometimes it comes off as just bashing the home-schoolers, dept-free folks, and the alike. I just hate labels so much..and this is why I guess. Thanks for letting me come out of hiding and share my thoughts. Shelly. You write like this and you homeschool? This is...a problem. You cannot do a good job homeschooling your kids when you do not write good English yourself. Spelling "debt" as "dept"? Really? That is maybe a fourth-grade-level error. Random capitalization ("Public School") is no better. Maybe you were just in a hurry, but seriously, if this is your usual standard of writing (and I don't remember whether your NLQ series was like this, but it may have been proofread), you shouldn't be homeschooling. In all fairness, everyone makes typos and uses more 'spoken' English when participating in forums than they would do otherwise. I myself am an idiot savant of spelling but when typing quickly I have been known to type 'your' instead of 'you're' without thinking although I know the difference and would never actually make that mistake when writing something formally or teaching another. I will use more informal sometimes grammatically incorrect English in a speaking style when writing forum posts rather than the more formal perfect written English. I might even split an infinitive. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by ShellyC on Sept 7, 2010 12:12:42 GMT -5
[/quote][/b]Shelly. You write like this and you homeschool? This is...a problem. You cannot do a good job homeschooling your kids when you do not write good English yourself. Spelling "debt" as "dept"? Really? That is maybe a fourth-grade-level error. Random capitalization ("Public School") is no better. Maybe you were just in a hurry, but seriously, if this is your usual standard of writing (and I don't remember whether your NLQ series was like this, but it may have been proofread), you shouldn't be homeschooling. [/quote][/b] Ummm, lay off! I went to Public School!! Couldn't resist.. Seriosuly, I have my kids state tested each year, and they are 2 years ahead of the game for their grades. No worries there. This is why teachers themselves use teachers keys/books. I pay no attention to how I type, as I type with my heart, and have no plans to ever change. I am fine being judged I suppose, otherwise I'd actually read all the adult grammer books that I have bought in the past that are collecting dust on the book shelf. I write for the fun of it. Sue me! I really am not here to debate, just to be me myself. At least I am not writing as if I am texting!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Sept 7, 2010 14:36:13 GMT -5
I'm glad your kids are testing OK.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 7, 2010 18:04:29 GMT -5
Well these days, testing 2 years ahead is a bit dubious. In this state, to graduate the 12th grade, you have to test at 10th grade so testing 2 years ahead is considered to be testing overall at a 12th grade level. If a 9th grader can get a D on 12th grade exams, that's a pass, and so technically testing at a 12th grade level.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 7, 2010 18:33:50 GMT -5
To add to the discussion of members of fundamentalist religions who rely on handouts to feed their many children, I remember being outraged while reading about the FLDS men (Escaped by Carolyn Jessop) collecting the welfare money that their "wives" were getting since they couldn't legally be married to them, and thus qualified for welfare and food stamps. She described that whether she worked or got aid, the money all went to him and he, of course, led a much wealthier lifestyle than the women and children (save for his favorite wife, though he wasn't supposed to have favorites). This apparently was a common practice. I wouldn't mind the money actually supporting the children--they didn't choose the lifestyle for themselves, after all, and do have to eat--but that so much of it went to the men just burned. It's a loophole that needs to be closed because it seems to be substantially funding the cult lifestyle. BTW, more news about Warren Jeffs today: www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/07/utah.jeffs.hearing/index.html?hpt=T2
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 7, 2010 18:39:13 GMT -5
Btw, I occasionally engage in capitalizing things that don't technically need it. In the olden days of the internet, before we had graphics and could add italics and bold our text, we did so for emphasis when all we had to work with was the bald text. I still find it faster and easier if I'm pressed for time. I try not to get too carried away, though.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Sept 8, 2010 13:33:52 GMT -5
Fat moms and the mom with the hairy mole on her cheek doesn't get much. You got it! Ditto single Moms for the most part, although my Church family was a real life-saver during one spell of unemployment. There are the "right" families that everyone helps to the point they have freezers full of food and boxes of uneaten pizzas whenever someone has the sniffles. Then there are the quiet humble families that don't say a word and live on oatmeal and pancakes because they don't shout their needs loud enough to be heard. Then there's the ones who can't use birth control--more than 4 kids is often seen as a bit "much" even in fundamentalist Churches. After all, how will they pay for them all to go to the Church's school or will the "right" Moms have to let them in the super-select homeschool co-op in spite of their out-of-style clothing. Lots to rant about in Churches for sure, but also there are GOOD decent people who truly believe and truly help, too. That often gets lost in the snarking!
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Sept 9, 2010 22:37:03 GMT -5
Fat moms and the mom with the hairy mole on her cheek doesn't get much. You got it! Ditto single Moms for the most part, although my Church family was a real life-saver during one spell of unemployment. There are the "right" families that everyone helps to the point they have freezers full of food and boxes of uneaten pizzas whenever someone has the sniffles. Then there are the quiet humble families that don't say a word and live on oatmeal and pancakes because they don't shout their needs loud enough to be heard. It's exactly this "favored families" stuff that gradually eroded my church going down to a few times a year, and the church I was at was really perfectly good, egalitarian, pro-women blah blah.. really a good place in many ways. But the favored families were feted, prayed for, pizza-blessed out the wazoo while other families were just unseen. It wasn't in the least malicious. It was really at its heart a club and you were either in it or you were fringe. Fringe people made friends with fringe people, you never got to be friends with the club. This always bothered me but it wasn't until I started meeting all kinds of non-church people through pre-school that I realized I had always blamed myself for being one of the unseen ones. All of a sudden I re-discovered that I am perfectly fine at making friends, get along with a wide variety of people and that all kinds of people like me and are friendly with me.. that there is a social world outside of the club of church and damn it is a lot less work. I spent too long internalizing feelings of fault because I didn't fit in there and now I just don't want to go any more. And no, I don't want to go anywhere else either, LOL.
|
|
kathe
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kathe on Sept 9, 2010 23:04:16 GMT -5
Same for me. I was never part of the "in group". My children were never in the "in group". I'm not entirely sure why, and I long ago ceased to care, at least for myself.
My three children had a good family, lots of love and support and encouragement. Freedom to become whatever they wanted, to pursue their interests and do most of the things they wanted to do. They had everything we could give them - not so much possessions as guidance and love. Still they were all to some extent hurt by the very people, Christians, who were supposed to love and accept them.
My kids aren't strange, there's nothing special that separates them from the church "A list". They're creative, and tend to be free thinkers (ok, yeah, that does make them different). The guys don't like sports that much (in the South, in a Baptist church). That alone made them odd. But this was church. This was a Christian group. Those things aren't supposed to matter are they?
I don't have a huge group of friends, but I have enough. One of them came from my church years but she didn't fit either. The friends I have are people I care about, who like me. It's a lot less work than trying to fit in with a group of people who don't really care about you. Fortunately my children are all adults now, and seem to have recovered from their church experience. None of us go to church any more, and I have no desire to go. I find it difficult to forgive this church, this group of mainly good people, for harm that they, probably unintentionally, brought to those I love most.
|
|