by juni 33 Replies latest jw friends
Do you feel there was a "gap" between those who had more materially and those families or individuals who had less?
Example: Did those who had "less" materially not get invited to private homes for get togethers as frequently or not at all?
Thanks for your input.
Juni
Hi Juni,
Yes there was a gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" in our congregation.
Those who had money were better thought of, particularly if they were prepared to give
more to the congreagation funds. They tended to get invited everywhete, whereas the
less well-off, particularly pioneers who would have found invitations to dinner etc beneficial,
got considerably less invitations.
well i wasnt aware of it...
but then i didnt adhere to that way of thinking.
i was more likely to include those that didnt have much...either materially or friends or family.
you know orphans and widows blah blah blah..i thought that was the point
at the end of the day i guess we get on with who we get on with..whether they be rich poor young old black white etc etc ...but i still made time for others that were a bit more of a challenge
I can't say since where I attended everyone was about the same ie middle class. It was very bad for young people without parents in the "truth", they were mainly ignored and marginalised and never became part of the social network. Only a handful of older dubs were friendly to them.
I've never picked up on that in my Congregation. Single mothers, or woman with unbelieving mates, they would not get invited out often I noticed. I can't think of money being an issue ever, but then I can't think of any really wealthy families, and most of the elders are not in high-paying jobs.
I didnt get invited to any get togethers. I was a have not.
Good afternoon to my British friends! And good morning to the little ferret!
Thanks guys for your posts. In our congregation there was a gap between, as Trev (dedpoet) stated, the "haves" and the "have nots". I wondered if this is true generally around the world or perhaps a congregational problem in certain areas.
Juni
Sadly true enough.
I lived on both ends of the spectrum. When I was very young, my father came in gung-ho and rose through the ranks fairly quickly finally winding up an Elder and a P.O. and helping out where the need was great in the area. However, he was lucky enough to have completed college first in a highly employable and decent paying field. So, we were, for a time "haves". Parties, get togethers both hosted and invited to all over the place.
Then after my dad left the organization and later "us", mom fell apart (afterall, all she'd ever planned on and trained for was being a good and dutiful wife to a rising star), she never adjusted...sadly because she was/is one of the most intelligent, well-read persons I've ever known. "my mother never know her own worth"....to quote joy luck club. Short story long, we were impoverished after that and never---N-E-V-E-R got invited anywhere (unless the occasional pity invite). We were the pariahs, basically---the worst: "orphans and widows", which no matter how much lip service the org gives to the admonitions of Isaiah to the contrary are pariahs in the organization.
It was so humiliating to go to a meeting after a huge get together and everyone talking about it in hushed and not so hushed tones.
Oh well. I never really fit in anyway, no matter which end of the spectrum.
I cant say I've noticed it, but then we only have nots in our hall
What I will say is that there is the have and have nots spiritually speaking which is much worse than not having anything materialy
Mr C
I remember being shocked when someone at the hall wasnt being included deliberately and some laughing about it...I had to say my bit......cant stand to see that type of behaviour....ninja of the underdog class and proud of it...no surrender
