The more time goes on, the more evident it becomes that some in the Church of God are involved in blatant idolatry. How can that be? It is because they have given up their responsibility to submit to the King of Kings rather than to other fallible human beings.
The ancient Israelites had freedom. God broke their bonds of slavery, and yet on more than one occasion they yearned to return to Egypt. They even rebelled and refused to enter the Promised Land! And so, that generation died in the wilderness, and their children entered in instead. Did they learn the lesson, though? Apparently not!
Time after time, they mixed their worship with that of the religions of the people of the land surrounding them. Time after time, they went back into slavery, only to call out to God and repent for a time.
After a while, they asked for a king.
The Churches of God, unfortunately, seem to be more than willing to look for a king. They crave and desire the “one man rule” even. Ironically, there is One Man Who is in charge: Jesus Christ! However, like ancient Israel, their rebellious hearts have hardened and they need that external power to exert control over their lives rather than asking Jesus to supply them the power to be willingly governed directly.
It is idolatry.
Time after time, we have seen the Tkaches, the Flurrys, the Weinlands, etc., all take advantage of this and lead people away from God. The first group, at least, has the honesty to not call themselves a “Church of God” any longer.
God cannot use anyone not submitted to Him in entirety. He will not force someone to obey (although He may make someone pretty uncomfortable!). Why? Because He needs willing participants in His family.
We need to always be mindful that we don’t place someone between us and Christ. While God does raise up leaders of various types and times, we must be careful to respect their position but realize they are still human. When they stop obeying God and it becomes obvious that the fruits of repentance are not there, it is time to re-evaluate the relationship with that leader.
That’s what many still don’t understand about the whole UCG-COGWA scenario. Certain leaders have taken power upon themselves and began to govern in ways that do not reflect the ways of God. Certain UCG leaders have been less than honest, less than transparent and treated others as less than a brother in Christ.
In the end, our allegiance is not to an organization, a group of men or even to some philosophy. Our allegiance is to be to God the Father and Jesus the Christ. Everything else must flow from that!
Otherwise, you are raising something or someone else to the level of God!
I personally don't believe it was the request for a king that was the problem. Deut. 17:14-15 made provision for Israel to have a king. The 'checks and balances' for this government were described in Deut. 17:15-20.
The problem I see with the request for a king in I Samuel 8 is that they asked Samuel to make them a king to judge them. This essentially excluded God from any say in the decision or the selection process. That was contrary to Deut. 17:15.
God wasn't against Israel having leaders. The trouble generally happened when the Israelites took the prerogative of selection to themselves, excluding God's input/say on the subject, or rejecting those God had specifically given to lead them.
@Deborah: I don't follow. Why would it be OK for judges to judge but not a king?
Saul was selected by God to lead. That didn't turn out very well. It wasn't that Israel took the prerogative as it was that God selected the type of leader Israel was looking for.
For how long should we bear with a leader who is not showing the fruits of repentance? As long as they teach no false doctrine, at what point do we stop caring about them as a brother, who we desire to come to repentance, and walk away? Furthermore, what happens if we walk away and they repent, but we are not around to see the fruits of their repentance?
Am I merely beating dead horses, or do these questions deserve an answer, if even a philosophical one?
@John: Who said it's not OK for a king to judge?
Solomon asked for this privilege I Kings 3:9 and God was so pleased with Solomon's request I Kings 3:10-11 He gave him additional blessings
I Kings 3:12-14 as well, and a conditional one based on obedience to God's commands I Kings 3:15.
I Samuel 8 records that the elders' request to Samuel did not include God's input on the subject or selection – their appeal was to Samuel, not to Samuel to ask God.
Regarding Saul, God also repented that He made Saul king – not that He had given Israel a king, as they'd requested. The end of the Book of Judges records that part of the problem was that there was no king is Israel and so everybody was doing what was right in their own eyes. Judges 21:25.
The period of Judges took place after the death of Joshua, who had succeeded Moses. There was no clear national leadership, except when God raised up judges. Judges 2.
v. 10 "When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel."
They chased after the gods of the peoples around them Judges 2:12 and God delivered them into the hand of their enemies so they could no longer stand before their enemies Judges 2:14-15, but then He would raise up judges to deliver them Judges 2:16 – but they wouldn't listen to the judges – Judges 2:17.
@Deborah: "The problem I see with the request for a king in I Samuel 8 is that they asked Samuel to make them a king to judge them." It sounded like you were saying that a king shouldn't judge. Obviously, I misread it.
"but they wouldn't listen to the judges"
And, thus, you are making my point for me.
Steven wrote: "As long as they teach no false doctrine"
I see your point. Obviously, someone could be teaching correct doctrine and be totally morally depraved. So then I would reassert that the pretext for that question becomes a matter of pinning down what is the tipping point at which you can no longer bear their actions and to what degree do they have to be negatively affecting others in order to negate their position as a leader. Regardless, the intention of the question is still valid in my opinion, and the question after it is valid independently of the validity of the second question.
I would submit the example of Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles as a potential case study.
'''Otherwise, you are raising something or someone else to the level of God''!.Hello this is you own stupid theory,Moses,Joshua,.or any other leaders never stood in-between God & us,No don't tell me they appointed by God Himself,Moses disobeyed ,lost temper,Abraham made stupid mistakes,David messed up,peter denied Christ ,still didn't God back them up as long as they didn't give up mercy & truth,You have problem,You cannot work under anyone…& you are taken bya demon!!!SORRY!!
@Steven: Well, we aren't told the immediate outcome of Paul's confrontation with Peter. However, the fact that Peter later on mentions Paul and that his writings are "scripture" indicates to me that it was probably quite quickly settled.
Oh, that all such confrontations were quickly settled!
Likewise, the man in Corinth that Paul said to put out apparently wasn't put out for very long.
Mt 18 makes it clear that the intended goal is restoration. Yet, even then, in the followup to "go to your brother", Peter asks how often he should forgive a brother. Jesus followed it with a parable.
Both the preceding and succeeding verses show that true restoration requires repentance. Paul instructing the Corinthians to let the man who sinned to come back into the congregation shows restoration of a repentant member.
You can forgive without repentance, even as Jesus did on the cross, but even that doesn't restore our relationship with God until we repent.
"Furthermore, what happens if we walk away and they repent, but we are not around to see the fruits of their repentance?"
Please allow me to turn that around. Have they truly repented if they haven't sought reconciliation?
"23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
"24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
~ Mt 5:23-24
Anonymous wrote: "You cannot work under anyone"
That's sort of funny, actually. I spent 11 years in the Army, and I know what authority is, both how to yield to it and how to dish it out.
However, if you wish to go ahead and worship men, I cannot stop you.
You wrote: "…That’s what many still don’t understand about the whole UCG-COGWA scenario. Certain leaders have taken power upon themselves and began to govern in ways that do not reflect the ways of God. Certain UCG leaders have been less than honest, less than transparent and treated others as less than a brother in Christ…"
As you said, certain leaders, relative to UCG-COGWA, have taken power to themselves. We may one day later learn that God never sent either organization a servant to lead them. The men just left their previous organization's credentials behind and just re-credentialed themselves so they could then do what seemed right in their own eyes (perhaps even vote their way to "happiness")…and it may look real good on the outward appearance.
Some have thought God can't rule through one man: that it must be a group of men that lead; however, if God couldn't rule through one man, then how could they expect God to work through 2, 4, 6, 8…whatever number of men that men may appreciate?
You wrote about: in search of a king. Thinking about that it is true that God knows all of His works:
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18
He's known about them for sometime and He's not finished working His works. In regards to a search for a king, I find it interesting that God knew that ancient physical Israel would one day have kings…long before the reality of their first king:
"The LORD shall bring thee, and thy KING which thou SHALT SET OVER thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone." Deuteronomy 28:36
And we have that example(s) preserved for us today for our admonition…
Old Member from 1958-59' What happened to our Savior's words that ministers should be servants no lording it over or controlling any of the brethren. Are we not to be worshipping Our God in Spirit and Truth' That congregations should run their own 'table & chairs. If it is a large group they should take care of their ministers or they should get a job like Paul did at times. I have attempted to fellowship with some of these groups United being one of them I'm afraid they were not very christian like others we were look upon as second class!! I must say thou I have found small independent groups very kind towards this 'old soldier'. I.m am fully aware that we are all accountable to Our Great God. He is in charge nothing slips by Him. He will take care of all this mess. Like the Good Book says God knows who are His..
John G wrote: "Some have thought God can't rule through one man: that it must be a group of men that lead…"
Really? Who said that? References, please.
Old Soldier wrote: "What happened to our Savior's words that ministers should be servants no lording it over or controlling any of the brethren."
Glad to see someone around here understands the flip side of what I'm getting at. What I don't understand is why people seek that kind of leadership instead of looking to The King.
"Both the preceding and succeeding verses show that true restoration requires repentance. Paul instructing the Corinthians to let the man who sinned to come back into the congregation shows restoration of a repentant member."
Exactly. So who needs to let who come back in to the congregation, and what does that concept even mean in today's world which requires us to have these corporate legal entities in order to function?
I have a fundamental disagreement with the entire principle of ministers leaving to form a new organization in our situation. Regardless of what happens from here on out, true restoration has become SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT because of their action in leaving. It would require either dissolving one of the existing organizations or some heavily cooperative future agreement. In reality, the best we will probably get now as far as reconciliation goes is a picture of leaders on opposite sides smiling and shaking hands in a few years after the dust settles. Contrast this to what could have been accomplished if the ministers had taken it all in stride, humbly giving up their organizationally-conferred "rank" of minister, if needed, until they could be reconciled. Instead, they chose to say "I'm a minister and no one can take that away from me," then start their own organization where they can have their organizationally-conferred title back.
Furthermore, I still find it a matter of debate as to who has made what efforts at reconciliation, but that discussion would unquestionably be beating a dead horse, so I'll spare it (unless I'm encouraged to do so, that is!)
Steven wrote: "So who needs to let who come back in to the congregation, and what does that concept even mean in today's world which requires us to have these corporate legal entities in order to function?"
I think the short answer is, "Everyone." Was Paul writing the letter to the entire congregation at Corinth or to the leadership only? Maybe someone has a better answer, but it seems to me that anyone who did not forgive the man who was put out of Corinth needs to examine themselves, and I suspect the same answer applies today.
To take that further would be beating that dead horse, I suppose. 🙂
"Contrast this to what could have been accomplished if the ministers had taken it all in stride, humbly giving up their organizationally-conferred 'rank' of minister, if needed, until they could be reconciled. Instead, they chose to say 'I'm a minister and no one can take that away from me,' then start their own organization where they can have their organizationally-conferred title back."
This I have trouble letting by so quickly. Is "minister" an "organizationally-conferred 'rank'" or is it a calling from God? If it is the latter, who is that individual to "quit" doing what has been ordained?
"If it is the latter, who is that individual to 'quit' doing what has been ordained?"
I deliberately chose my words carefully for precisely this reason. It's definitely the latter, which is why they should not be so up-in-arms about relinquishing the former title until they could work things out. You are a minister by your actions in accordance to what God has called you to do. The ONLY loss in giving up the organizationally-conferred title of "minister" would be that they would not be authorized as the main person to send mass e-mails to the congregation, to give the sermons every week, and to make certain decisions in the local area.
Perhaps I have stumbled on another relevant question: does the God-given title of "minister" give one any inherent authority? Just because you are faithful to God and devoted to serving the brethren to the degree that you become a "minister" in God's sight, does that mean that you should be the local head-honcho?
Steven wrote: "does the God-given title of 'minister' give one any inherent authority?"
Yes. Paul instructed Timothy directly in a manner that shows that the local minister has authority.
"Just because you are faithful to God and devoted to serving the brethren to the degree that you become a 'minister' in God's sight, does that mean that you should be the local head-honcho?"
If you are going to protect the local flock, then you will have to wield some authority to drive away the wolves.
Having said that, it can be abused as well. Diotrephes, for example, was putting true believers out of the church. It took John, from outside, to deal with the situation.
There has to be some system of checks and balances. The problem is that no system is full proof unless everyone is working in cooperation. And, of course, that comes back to each one yielding to God and using the Holy Spirit to govern themselves, doesn't it?
Ah, yes, I'll have to do a refresher study on Timothy as I continue to sort this out. My intuition is that the authority rendered to the minister as per the discussion in Timothy is going to be at least somewhat independent of the organizational authority of a minister. In any case, I still think that a 1 Corinthians 6 mentality would have been the correct approach for those who have left:
"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters."
I know that this is specifically referring to lawsuits, but I think it easily generalizes to disputes in general. Preferring to accept being treated wrongly makes your point obvious by your good conduct, causing those who do you wrong to see their evil and (hopefully) repent, rather than having you own poor reaction elicit further bad decisions and feelings of justification from them.
And yes, it does indeed come back to allowing each person being governed by the Spirit dwelling in them. I like the series on that concept, by the way – it's much needed in a time when many brethren will inevitably be reevaluating their stance on governance.
@ Steven Britt
"I have a fundamental disagreement with the entire principle of ministers leaving to form a new organization in our situation. Regardless of what happens from here on out, true restoration has become SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT because of their action in leaving."
Would it be easier if they were fired or booted out (which some were?)
What are they supposed to do? File an appeal?
How long are they supposed to wait before they're allowed to attend (or if ministers conduct) Bible Studies or Sabbath services or perform ministerial services while waiting a resolution of their appeal?
With all due respect, UCG's 'appeals' system is a bit of a joke (as is PCG's). A fellow who was suspended from PCG waited 6 years for his appeal to finally be denied.
Back in WCG, when someone was put out, the minister kept in touch with them until they were ready to come back. It wasn't this hup-out, who cares about you sort of attitude.
"Would it be easier if they were fired or booted out (which some were?)"
YES. They ALL should have waited until they were fired. The reason why is quite simple: it would have forced the CoE to be accountable for the action of firing them. As it stands, though, most simply left of their own accord – which brings fault on their part for giving up on resolving the issues. As soon as someone stood up and said, "hey, we can just start our own!" they took the easy way out.
"What are they supposed to do? File an appeal?"
YES. File an appeal. Call the people in charge on the phone and talk to them directly. When you reach a philosophical impasse, pray about it, think about it, and then talk to them again – either to persuade them to see the truth or to come to see the truth yourself, whatever the case may be.
If every minister or elder who has left of their own accord had remained in their position, and all of the ministers who were "forced out" or fired had patiently filed appeals and attended as mere lay members (can you feel the sarcasm?), do you not think that their case would have been heard at the GCE meetings in May? Getting mad and leaving makes you look like the bad guy, whether you are the bad guy or not.
"How long are they supposed to wait before they're allowed to attend (or if ministers conduct) Bible Studies or Sabbath services or perform ministerial services while waiting a resolution of their appeal?"
I'm not going to give you an answer in days, weeks, or months, but I will say this: You should at least do some waiting. Show me a minister who was fired/"forced out" who missed more than one Sabbath of being in charge. Every one that I know of set up alternate services immediately like it was no big deal.
"Back in WCG, when someone was put out, the minister kept in touch with them until they were ready to come back. It wasn't this hup-out, who cares about you sort of attitude. "
I want to know how anyone could know whether or not it was a "who cares about you" attitude when they gave it virtually no time to settle or heal.
This is the fruit of an organization brainwashing the people that they alone are exclusive in teaching the truth. Questions that arise when you believe this are.
How could God allow them to be wrong? and who else are you going to listen to when you discover they are wrong?
The COG leaders have took the same role that the Pope has in the Catholic Church, they try to put themselves between the people and God.
For them it's perfect control and job security as long as they can keep the people from thinking for themselves.
I completely agree with Steven. The lack of humility and overall attitude of entitlement is staggering. The ministers are there to SERVE the congregation, not themselves. And honestly, what good can come out of publicly denouncing the council to a congregation or even brethren privately (which is why many had to resign). They should have been protecting the congregations from divisions and arguments, not fueling the fire. I have been a part of the church for a very long time and the allegations against United are child's play compared to what I have witnessed over the years, including the previous President's antics! Don't get me wrong, that does not excuse their behavior, but to leave is not the answer. No matter where you go there will be disagreements. Christ did not leave his disciples or NT church when there were much more egregious divisions so what makes you think he has left the church now. And many believe that…that Christ is not leading United anymore. Good luck rationalizing that!
Anonymous wrote: "Christ did not leave his disciples or NT church when there were much more egregious divisions so what makes you think he has left the church now. And many believe that…that Christ is not leading United anymore. Good luck rationalizing that!"
I see only one serious flaw in your logic. You are assuming that if Christ is not leading United (an organization of men, BTW), then He has left them.
Over and over again, ancient Israel and Judah endured captivity, war and oppression from their neighbors. Did God abandon them? Of course not.
They left God, not the other way around. If Christ is not leading UCG (an idea I think is dangerously speculative and remains to be proven) or any other organization for that matter, then it seems to me an issue of them leaving God.
What this also means that even if UCG is not being led by Christ, that can be turned around, even as ancient Israel and Judah did (at least from time to time).
In this day & age of many groups claiming to being God,s chosen it is somewhat difficult to sort it all out!! Like God told Elijah and Paul telling the Roman assembly That God has a remnant out there who have been granted True repentance and are setting the proper conduct of their calling, As we all know we have to give an account for ourselves alone, So my brothers & sisters beware of the leavening of all those that get up to speak in the name of God, As Jeremiah said They all say they have the Law "Truth" but then watch out for the lying pen, Jer.c8v8. A good soldier has to check it all out from the good book!! Then make his stand!!
I agree it's best to wait and let the leadership make the decision to get rid of you. That's generally what we've tried to do.
Regarding appeals, I agree with your comment: "Call the people in charge on the phone and talk to them directly." And, I've done it.
But I disagree with your comment about persuasion. I believe there's a time and a place – and sometimes the situation calls for a response of stare decisis. It's Latin for 'let the decision stand.'
When a group had a habit of administrative abuses, sometimes the best teacher is letting them have the results. Accept the decision and move on. The endless system of appeals merely serves to get people to continue enabling an abusive culture.
" do you not think that their case would have been heard at the GCE meetings in May? "
No, I don't. How many appeals were filed last summer? Were any of them heard at the GCE last month?
Appeals are ultimately a waste of time because UCG generally buries them in committee or appeals to their Rules of Association that give unlimited authority to the COE.
" Getting mad and leaving makes you look like the bad guy, whether you are the bad guy or not. "
Getting fired/booted out makes you look like the bad guy too – because one cardinal rule is people will generally take the side of the folks in charge. It's one reason most all of these guys supported the disfellowshipment of Laura Flurry for the sin of resigning her job at WCG.
Sometimes, to do your job effectively, you have to be willing to look like the bad guy.
"I want to know how anyone could know whether or not it was a "who cares about you" attitude when they gave it virtually no time to settle or heal."
Experience? Because 'we've been to the puppet show and seen the strings?'
I don't know of any situations where UCG has ever been wrong.
I've seen periods where UCG has declared a general amnesty, but they inevitably revert back to the same pattern. This administration apologizes for the previous administration, but then does the same sorts of things.
E.g., UCG got a 'nice' minister. This was supposed to be an improvement over the 'mean' minister they'd had. The 'nice' minister kicked out a deacon who disagreed with the Hillel calendar.
That's UCG's prerogative.
Of course, they didn't offer him tapes or materials in the meantime.
They weren't concerned about the hurt to his wife or his friends at UCG.
Oh, but they did invite him to the church hall a year or so later after services for cake and ice cream.
And, most everyone in UCG is perfectly OK with this culture.
"And, most everyone in UCG is perfectly OK with this culture."
I would be careful against making generalizations. Everyone I know (a limited and anecdotal example, I know) is either unaware that this sort of thing happens or they disagree with it. Perhaps your experiences are different, or perhaps you think that people not taking vocal action against such things is a sign of approval. Either way, You can't make that statement in the affirmative any more than I can make it in the negative.
"How many appeals were filed last summer? Were any of them heard at the GCE last month?"
Any appeal that they filed back then has now, in effect, been nullified by their action in joining another organization – it's now a moot point because they took matters into their own hands by walking away from the appeal. Furthermore, going back to the summer, not a single one of them (to my knowledge) followed the process that I suggested. Perhaps if they had been patient, gentle, peaceable, and mild then the people who fired them would have seen their own faults, repented, and reinstated them in love. I guess now we'll never know – how convenient for those who left who want to point fingers!
"Getting fired/booted out makes you look like the bad guy too – because one cardinal rule is people will generally take the side of the folks in charge."
So then maybe I should make an even stronger assertion: walking away makes you the bad guy. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Why not suffer for doing good, that you might be rewarded for it?
"Sometimes, to do your job effectively, you have to be willing to look like the bad guy."
What part of their job were they inhibited from doing effectively that required people to leave rather than waiting to be fired? I know that this is going to degenerate into personal perspectives, so I might as well offer mine now and get it over with. Part of their job was to promote peace, well-being, and spiritual health in God's Church, and, specifically, in the organization that they associate with. They could have done a better job of that by helping the leaders to see that they were wrong by pleading with them privately and persistently rather than being the ones to bring it out into the open and rip the organization apart by leaving and starting a new congregation. If it's going to be made public, force the council to be the ones to make it public by forcing them to fire you because of private disagreements. As much as it depends on you, don't make it a public spectacle.
None of what happened was any excuse to resort to bad protocol and embarrass the Church of God in this way. If the CoE embarrasses the Church by firing people without proper cause, then that's their problem that they have to account to God for – don't add to the embarrassment of God's Church with a childish mass exodus. Stay. Do your best to work things out in a positive way. Be insistent on reconciling. Do not become weary in doing good.
If every minister and elder who left of their own accord had stayed and pleaded fervently with their brothers who were doing wrong and then had been fired for whatever spurious reason, then there would be a clear right-or-wrong side in this whole mess. Instead they have become at least as guilty as the current UCG leadership in causing confusion and sowing discord. When they were part of UCG, they held a certain amount of influence in the organization, giving them the ability to have their voices heard in a number of ways. Whether you claim that their voices would have been heard or not, by leaving UCG they forfeited any positive influence that they could have had.
Steven wrote: "What part of their job were they inhibited from doing effectively that required people to leave rather than waiting to be fired? I know that this is going to degenerate into personal perspectives"
Actually, I think it already had 🙂
"so I might as well offer mine now and get it over with. Part of their job was to promote peace, well-being, and spiritual health in God's Church, and, specifically, in the organization that they associate with."
And when that isn't possible? Even a marriage can get to the point where it requires a separation. What if there will be no peace unless one or the other leaves?
"They could have done a better job of that by helping the leaders to see that they were wrong by pleading with them privately and persistently rather than being the ones to bring it out into the open and rip the organization apart by leaving and starting a new congregation."
That's an assumption. The claim has been made more than once that this has been tried. Frankly, it still comes down to who you believe the most.
"If it's going to be made public, force the council to be the ones to make it public by forcing them to fire you because of private disagreements."
Well, it did start with some rather public forced resignations, followed by the firing of Leon Walker. Are you stating that each and every minister should have waited to be fired?
"As much as it depends on you, don't make it a public spectacle."
I don't know that many who have left didn't do so in order to avoid such a public spectacle. AFAIK, it did start with attempts to privately work it out. AFAIK, the COE wasn't willing to listen, and they more often than not were willing to make the difficulties public. They were unwilling to listen to anyone with an opposing viewpoint, as I have both witnessed and heard from others.
In such an environment, about the only sane thing left to do is separate.
Yes, yes, a substantial part of this entire discussion does come down to who you believe the most. As far as the whole mass exodus thing goes, some people see it either strictly as a trail of tears or strictly as a bridge-burning party. I tend to view it as both, depending on exactly who is being discussed. Either way, I think that actual reconciliation has been at least hindered, if not altogether forsaken, by the act of people willingly leaving to form their own organization, primarily due to the fact that there is diminished incentive to reconcile now that both parties have their own organization.
I think I've done enough harping on the past for one comment thread, so perhaps a bit of positive forward-thinking is in order. The absolute best that we can do now is try to learn from the mistakes made on both sides and struggle to heal the present rift in whatever ways are available to us as individuals. I would really like to see everyone get their act together and be reconciled BEFORE Christ comes and makes us come together.
Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.