Ummmm....why?
My life got measurably better when I stopped sitting in a windowless room three days a week. Why, oh why would I go back?
To prove what to who, now (in my best Homer Simpson voice)??
Take back the Kingdom Halls? What do you think?
by Dogpatch 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Corvin
Not only would it not work, but it would also be pointless. Why would you want to take back a Kingdom Hall?
Corvin
-
Undaunted Danny
"In their face in cyberspace" Luke 10:
18 And He said to them, I saw Satan falling like a lightning [flash] from heaven. http://dannyhaszard.com/Future Look of Bangor Kingdom Hall - on the alert for pedophiles!
-
ozziepost
Ummmm....why? My life got measurably better when I stopped sitting in a windowless room three days a week. Why, oh why would I go back?
Not only would it not work, but it would also be pointless. Why would you want to take back a Kingdom Hall?
I agree with you, wasa and Corvin, I really don't see the point of trying to "take back the KH". As it is I've found better places to be.....much better.
Cheers, Ozzie
-
Elsewhere
If a congregation wants to succeed from the WTS, they can. Most KH's are held by indipendent local corporations with the body of elders as the board members. All they have to do is vote to change the corporation?s by-laws that state that the KH will be inherited by the WTS should the congregation disband. Once they do that they just need to cut off contact with the WTS.
It's not like they have to perform a coup and physically take over the KH.... they are already there... its just that they are choosing to place themselves under the authority of the WTS.
-
XQsThaiPoes
I know that but we are talking normal halls. And also I dont think everyone wants to cede from the watchtower. I think it is more like they want to change thought not only bylaws.
-
kilroy2
from what i understand the socity ownes the halls, but past that, to make a ruckus at the hall will not do to much, I would love to see it happen but in the long run the people doing the disruption will be open to leagle trouble. You can not disrupt a church service and from the stand point that they can get the police and news involved to get attention, my opinion is that not many care that have not been involved in the socity, they just dont amount to much outside of those who were and are dubbers, not like the catholics where they can get attention. kind of like the difference between a hooker in vegas getting in trouble for drugs and one of the royal family doing the same. the press will hound the royals to death and you could not get a two word sentance on page 38 for the hooker, the socity is like a vegas hooker. you know I kind of like that socity = vegas hooker. I think the vegas hooker would be more fun,
-
sweetone2377
First of all, I am very glad not to ever sit in another KH again. Although, the thought has crossed my mind to go in, sit in the front and pretend to be a JW from out of town, then just as I'm leaving let the cat out of the bag and say that I'm disassociated and watch the jaws drop.
Another point, congregations are funded by the WTS but, the loans are repaid to the WTS by the individual congregation (at least that's how it was being done when I left in 98). So they are technically owned by the congregation. Another point is that, we would never make it into the hall and get to stay long enough to cause a scene of any kind. And they most definately are not going to allow us to use their Hall for "apostate" services (and why would I want to anyhow, I enjoy sunlight and comfortable chairs).
I have in the past considered sueing my former congregation (to sue the WTS is suicide for such a matter) for mental whatever. The thought crossed my mind tonight, which is why I'm here right now on this site (I am not a regular like I use to be). But even that would be fruitless since the congregation is soo poor, sending all their money to the WTS to pay for the GB's nice new suits they need so they can read their index cards at conventions.
A solution though, for all those who are all for this "take over the KH" idea is this.....meeting times really haven't changed much. And if they have, they're not hard to figure out. Be there in the parking lot after Sunday morning service, in a group. Stand on the sidewalk with your signs, peacefully. They cannot have you removed from the public sidewalk, your tax dollars paid for it. For those of us who grew up in congregations in the back woods, stand on the other side of the ditch. Very simple. It is protected by the Bill of Rights. It is peacefully assembling together for a united cause. You simply hold your sign, speak to those who stand and look at you long enough to read the sign. Do this over and over, week after week. Some will get very curious, the new ones, disgruntled ones. Eventually people will leave.
But personally, I do not want to take back a KH. I'd rather see them all burned to the ground and the GB overthrown.
-
Eden
When I very first walked away from the org....8 years ago...I thought this too..and really I am not against XJWs, or XLDS forming a non-fundamental version of the belief system they former held. Like how some Baptists broke off from Southern Baptists cause they thought they were to extreme..so then they form Progressive Baptists alternative church group. I myself don't care whether one's view of God is unitarian or trinitarian or where they believe their eternal destiny lies. What I DO care about is social justice issues and the spiritual abuse that occures in all fundamental churches and faith groups. So if XJW or X-Southern Baptists...want to break away and form their own progressive alternatives to these faiths..that's cool by me....But if one wants to be a liberal or progress ive adn STAY IN their current or previous fundamental faith group/church...I think this is shooting yourself in the foot or a striving after the wind...Here view this essay on how the moderate and progressive individuals in Southern Baptists tried to win over the fundamentalists....
-
Eden
MODERATES FIGHT TO DEFEAT FUNDAMENTALISTS RULERSHIP..BUT LOOSE
There is a sense of irony in all of the conflict since all Southern Baptists would be viewed as conservative by those outside the tradition. From the late 1970s forward, they came to veiw themselves as fundamentalists and moderates (those against the fundamentalists). Doctrinally they were not terribly different. But the moderates were vastly different in their social justice issues of equality.Dividing the two sides was also the issue of pastoral authority. The fundamentalists believed in a pattern of authority where a husband has authority over his wife and a pastor over his church. Due to this hierarchy fundamentalists saw it inappropriate for a woman to be ordained as a pastor. The moderates thought any believer should have a right to be an ordained pastor.
The two sides also tended to differ on various social and political issues as well. Fundamentalists were not supportive issues such as homosexuality, and the Equal Rights Amendment. The fundamentalists strongly believed in the issues they took a stand on and would fight diligently to see these issues implemented in the SBC. On the other side the moderates did not have anywhere close to a unanimous decision on any of these political or social issues.
The two sides differed dramatically on what they believed to be important about being a Baptist. The key for the fundamentalists was that they needed a way to get their views and ideas into the SBC, which was dominated by the moderate people who were leading the SBC in a direction, which they didn't want to go.
This controversy began to unfold within the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 1970's and continued to dominate the denomination's attention for the balance of the century.
As fundamentalists rapidly took control of the SBC they began making the necessary changes they deemed appropriate. In 1984, a resolution was passed at the convention in Kansas City, which excluded women from pastoral roles because the woman was first in the Edenic fall. By 1985, the fundamentalists had been appointing trustees for boards who were proven to be inerrantists to institute their policies. The fundamentalists were convinced that agencies were not being governed under biblical principals and they wanted the right people in office to ensure biblical principles would be applied. 24 .
For years and years the moderates continued to fight against the fundamentalists only to lose virtually every time on every issue. One can only be left to wonder how and why were the fundamentalists so successful in their endeavors to control the Southern Baptist Convention.
FUNDAMENTALISTS GATHER THE MOST LISTENERS BECAUSE THEIR SPEAKERS ARE LOUDER & THUS SEEM MORE POWERFUL
Despite the efforts of the moderates to combat the takeover by the fundamentalists they lost the battle for several reasons.The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents.
The inability of the moderates to gather support for their cause also contributed to a fundamentalist victory. The moderates could not gather enough support because only the older people who had dedicated their lives to the SBC were willing to take on the fight. Younger people simply were not willing to dedicate their lives to a fight with the fundamentalists. Still, a schism within the SBC is probably not likely. A major reason for this is the high degree of autonomy that each local congregation maintains. Ministers, and their congregations may disagree with the leadership direction of the SBC, but what happens at the national level has little, if any, affect them. Thus, if churches feel that the convention is irrelevant to them, there is little initiative to leave. In the late 1980's Nany Ammerman, the leading scholar of Southern Baptists conducted a study and concluded that most churches anticipated no changes at all in their church despite the fundamentalist takeover. If people today still feel that they and their church are autonomous from the national convention then a schism is very unlikely to occur.
