|
Post by Sylvestra on Aug 12, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
In some of the other threads "bridge building" is being mentioned fairly often. In order define the term and make sure everyone is talking about the same thing, maybe some of you could answer these questions.....and furthermore, add anything you think I've missed.
What kind of bridge do you envision? What is it's purpose? Why is it important? And what to you expect from the "other side" to make the bridge begin as you envision it?
Best regards, Edy
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 12, 2011 11:49:16 GMT -5
Here are some of my feelings and thoughts copied from another post I made:
"Building bridges" between F&W & Exes is not my goal--never has been.
"I try to provide help for the Friends and Exes who come to me. I direct them to sources of support and information. I dont go out seeking F&W to "lure" away from meetings...nor do I make a special attempt to be friends with the F&W. Last week I had 5 emails asking for info--people who found me via TTT. Having said that, I do have some friends whose friendships I value who are among the Friends...nearly all are non-exclusive - or are seriously questioning the 2x2 belief system.
"Most exes are not into "building bridges." That is not their thing. Wouldnt even cross their minds. They have BURNED their bridges and just want to leave it all behind, like a bad dream. To recover and get on with their lives. And when life deals them some hard knocks - they know they can come back to TLC and lick their wounds and talk about it and find solace and empathy there.
"The common denominator of all regular TLC members is that every member has rejected the meeting system...and that they no longer are members. They have made the break - divorced themselves and left the system behind. Some professed; some were B&R and never professed. No F&W can truly understand the effects that making this break has on someone--unless they make the break themselves."
Just like no one can fully understand the pain of a divorce, a betrayal, or death of someone close - unless they have experienced it.
"... It's something you have to experience to truly understand. If you have, no explanation is necessary. If you haven't, no explanation is possible."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 11:58:08 GMT -5
I'm not into building bridges either. Simply, I tend to not see "sides" or "take sides" in terms of personal relationships and in spite of my own distinct opinions which may differ from others.
I believe we are all connected, particularly all who have had a long history of a relationship with the F&W system. We are all part of one sort of "tribe". Whether you are an ex or an innie, an apologist or an apostate, deist or an atheist......you get the same treatment from me. I don't believe that God is a respecter of persons, so I shouldn't be either.
People do have barriers between them, often it's just a lack of understanding of the other person's POV or a lack of knowledge or truth. The truth sets us free and I like to work on seeking the truth which leads to empathy between people.......so if that's bridge building, I suppose I do engage in that.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 12, 2011 12:25:44 GMT -5
If the friends and workers were into building bridges, wouldn't that activity start in the meetings? We could meet at pot-lucks with other churches, or work with other churches on charitable activities.
Why would we single out the exe-2x2s for building bridges?
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 12, 2011 12:57:21 GMT -5
My definition of bridge building: Breaking down communication barriers (especially on sensitive issues) so both parties can express their views. In an ideal world, the two parties could agree to disagree on certain issues, without unnecessarily sacrificing important personal relationships.
Some of the most common things I've heard from people who leave meetings is that their professing friends or family members exhibit unpleasant behaviors: 1) shunning, 2) dropping unwanted hints about local gospel meetings or sending the workers over for a surprise visit, 3) avoiding important religious milestones for children/adults that take place in another church.
To me, building bridges means making it possible to talk about these types of issues and reactions to those behaviors. When I hear that someone is "burning all their bridges", that means that they are cutting off those relationships completely--and expressing a desire not to be contacted by the people on the "other side" of those bridges. In my opinion, that can mean disastrous results for family relationships.
When someone's child/parent/brother/sister/best friend leaves the meetings, it's often the first time that professing person has had to deal with that type of situation. The professing person may react badly, and likely won't understand the other person's motivations for leaving unless both parties are willing to talk about it.
Sometimes, old habits need to be validated. "Dad, I may not be at Sunday morning meeting, but that doesn't mean I will refuse an invitation to go fishing with you on Saturday."
Sometimes, new boundaries need to be defined. "Auntie, I know you love the workers, but please don't send them over to my house for a surprise visit."
Sometimes, questions need to be asked. "I know you recently left meetings. I thought we were friends who shared an interest in woodworking/sewing/cycling. Why have you stopped returning my calls? Is there something I've said? Is there something prohibiting us from spending time together now?"
Building bridges is not a one-sided activity. If someone on either side says or does something hurtful, the other party needs to speak up and explain why it is hurtful. When someone's worldview changes--as often happens when people leave meetings, get married, have children, or go to college--their reactions and priorities also change. If both sides have respect and value the relationship enough to work out some of the problems, they can both grow from the experience.
A few key things to remember: 1. Professing people shouldn't shun their friends and relatives who leave meetings. It reflects poorly on them. 2. People who leave meetings need to be clear about their boundaries when friends or workers try to get them to return to gospel meetings. Also people who leave meetings need to be aware of boundaries when they say things to professing people that might be considered proselytizing ("come to my church with me so you can get saved") or insulting ("you belong to a cult"). That's a quick way to shut down communications in both directions. 3. Building bridges is NOT trying to get people to return to meetings.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 12, 2011 13:59:54 GMT -5
Clearday ~ I appreciated what you relayed on this thread and I agree completely. Barriers are usually caused by a lack of understanding of the other person's POV or no desire to entertain it unless it agrees with their own perspective on things. If both parties are interested in seeking after truth and what the Word of God clearly teaches on different issues and can discuss this in a civil and courteous fashion, I call this "building bridges." You don't have to convince the other party of your POV ~ just share respectfully your thoughts and why you believe this way. Sometimes while doing this, you find you have more in common than you realized before and can work on your differences.
Clearday shared...
Sherry ~ I also appreciated what you shared below and would find it to be the perfect solution to real bridge building!
Sherry shared...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 12, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -5
If you don't burn you bridges, or have them burnt for you, then you don't have to worry about building them either. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for ex's to burn their bridges; in some cases it is advisable perhaps. But if your family is professing do you burn your bridges when you leave?
Personally the strategy I'm using is as follows: 1) no exit letters, 2) one discussion session for close friends, 3) maintain the friendship and take religion out of the relationship, ... I notice that scholargirl's post provides practical examples along this line ... 4) don't know what step 4 is as we are not there yet. We may not use this formula in all cases, but it seems to work.
What do you think of this as a strategy?
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 12, 2011 14:41:10 GMT -5
What is being bridged? A physical bridge is used for travel over a chasm and/or a large body of water.
I think there is no application for this in the bible. The closest analogy(?) would be extending a branch over a wall, as Joseph is/was. He is/was the branch.
But let us not forget "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
So, what is the "barrier" between one person and another in the F&W/exes situation? Is it man-made as a wall or is it naturally occuring as a small canyon or a river?
I suppose the exclusivist would think it a "spiritually" occuring chasm, while the non-exclusivist would consider the separation as a wall.
Oh well, I'm probably taking the analogy/parable(/) too far.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 12, 2011 14:44:52 GMT -5
My definition of bridge building: Breaking down communication barriers (especially on sensitive issues) so both parties can express their views. In an ideal world, the two parties could agree to disagree on certain issues, without unnecessarily sacrificing important personal relationships. Some of the most common things I've heard from people who leave meetings is that their professing friends or family members exhibit unpleasant behaviors: 1) shunning, 2) dropping unwanted hints about local gospel meetings or sending the workers over for a surprise visit, 3) avoiding important religious milestones for children/adults that take place in another church. To me, building bridges means making it possible to talk about these types of issues and reactions to those behaviors. When I hear that someone is "burning all their bridges", that means that they are cutting off those relationships completely--and expressing a desire not to be contacted by the people on the "other side" of those bridges. In my opinion, that can mean disastrous results for family relationships. When someone's child/parent/brother/sister/best friend leaves the meetings, it's often the first time that professing person has had to deal with that type of situation. The professing person may react badly, and likely won't understand the other person's motivations for leaving unless both parties are willing to talk about it. Sometimes, old habits need to be validated. "Dad, I may not be at Sunday morning meeting, but that doesn't mean I will refuse an invitation to go fishing with you on Saturday." Sometimes, new boundaries need to be defined. "Auntie, I know you love the workers, but please don't send them over to my house for a surprise visit." Sometimes, questions need to be asked. "I know you recently left meetings. I thought we were friends who shared an interest in woodworking/sewing/cycling. Why have you stopped returning my calls? Is there something I've said? Is there something prohibiting us from spending time together now?" Building bridges is not a one-sided activity. If someone on either side says or does something hurtful, the other party needs to speak up and explain why it is hurtful. When someone's worldview changes--as often happens when people leave meetings, get married, have children, or go to college--their reactions and priorities also change. If both sides have respect and value the relationship enough to work out some of the problems, they can both grow from the experience. A few key things to remember: 1. Professing people shouldn't shun their friends and relatives who leave meetings. It reflects poorly on them. 2. People who leave meetings need to be clear about their boundaries when friends or workers try to get them to return to gospel meetings. Also people who leave meetings need to be aware of boundaries when they say things to professing people that might be considered proselytizing ("come to my church with me so you can get saved") or insulting ("you belong to a cult"). That's a quick way to shut down communications in both directions. 3. Building bridges is NOT trying to get people to return to meetings. I've nominated this for post of the week. #1 needs a corollary, imo. People who leave meetings shouldn't avoid friends and relatives who still attend. It's even good PR to go to meeting together once in awhile. I would not mind having it made clear it is just a courtesy, and would also return the courtesy.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 12, 2011 14:46:04 GMT -5
What is being bridged? A physical bridge is used for travel over a chasm and/or a large body of water. I think there is no application for this in the bible. The closest analogy(?) would be extending a branch over a wall, as Joseph is/was. He is/was the branch. But let us not forget "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" So, what is the "barrier" between one person and another in the F&W/exes situation? Is it man-made as a wall or is it naturally occuring as a small canyon or a river? I suppose the exclusivist would think it a "spiritually" occuring chasm, while the non-exclusivist would consider the separation as a wall. Oh well, I'm probably taking the analogy/parable(/) too far. Things to think about!
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on Aug 12, 2011 15:01:00 GMT -5
What is being bridged? A physical bridge is used for travel over a chasm and/or a large body of water. I think there is no application for this in the bible. The closest analogy(?) would be extending a branch over a wall, as Joseph is/was. He is/was the branch. But let us not forget "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" So, what is the "barrier" between one person and another in the F&W/exes situation? Is it man-made as a wall or is it naturally occuring as a small canyon or a river? I suppose the exclusivist would think it a "spiritually" occuring chasm, while the non-exclusivist would consider the separation as a wall. Oh well, I'm probably taking the analogy/parable(/) too far. As said above.... it is simply a chasm or erected obstruction. I have never understood why some people build walls/burn bridges with their friends and relatives when deciding to quit coming to meetings. To some degree is as hurtful to us left behind as it is to them leaving, to have a relationship suddenly cut off because they think someone is so wrong... what kind of a friend is that. I don't view that as much of a friendship. I hope it changes... but to have websites simply obstructing the exchange between different groups because they are opposed to the discussion is also hurtful and obstructive.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 12, 2011 15:06:16 GMT -5
To some degree is as hurtful to us left behind as it is to them leaving, to have a relationship suddenly cut off because they think someone is so wrong... what kind of a friend is that. I don't view that as much of a friendship. I hope it changes... but to have websites simply obstructing the exchange between different groups because they are opposed to the discussion is also hurtful and obstructive. Yes good point. A divorce, a betrayal, or death affects more than just one person. It's pretty self centered to think there's only one person involved and that one person holds an exclusive right to the truth of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 12, 2011 16:19:58 GMT -5
If you don't burn you bridges, or have them burnt for you, then you don't have to worry about building them either. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for ex's to burn their bridges; in some cases it is advisable perhaps. But if your family is professing do you burn your bridges when you leave? Personally the strategy I'm using is as follows: 1) no exit letters, 2) one discussion session for close friends, 3) maintain the friendship and take religion out of the relationship, ... I notice that scholargirl's post provides practical examples along this line ... 4) don't know what step 4 is as we are not there yet. We may not use this formula in all cases, but it seems to work. What do you think of this as a strategy? Great strategy, what. No bridges need to be repaired if no hard feelings exist. Regarding my own exit experience, I wanted to keep the doors of communication open and to remain close but many doors were shut in my face. I tried contacting some who would have nothing to do with me. Others have been very nice but my spirit senses the uneasiness in some of them. They will not visit with me about spiritual things, some won't ask me to pray before a meal....other things that are a clear indicator that they are not open to the same relationship we had previously. It's hurtful but God has always been there for me and I feel His love. FYI, I never sent an exit letter for that very reason. I felt it might seem to close a door. A friend of mine (a very dear woman in her 60s) left the meetings just 2 or 3 weeks after I did and she sent an exit letter to a couple of people that she had been very close to. I read her letter - it was nice and peacable. She received one very nasty phone call from one she sent a letter to and another that she drove to meetings regularly would not even return her calls. That is our experience here. The people that we always did care the most about have stayed in touch. The rest do not greatly matter. Perhaps we would discuss spiritual topics with the friends again at some point. Your comment about saying grace reminds of something I've come to learn. The toughest spot to be in as an ex- or even as just someone who knows the friends, is to be a Christian in another denomination. The friends will just 'look through you' as if you're not even there. "Hellll-o, I'm a Christian too you know". (This hasn't been my experience, but others we know. Sounds like you've suffered a bit of this.)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 12, 2011 18:46:32 GMT -5
From my perspective, the reference to a “bridge” is a reference to the social and personal characteristics that link two or more people: trust, honesty, sincerity, empathy, etc. The traffic that flows back and forth across the bridge includes mutual respect, compassion, humor, understanding, etc. As far as I can tell, precisely the same tools are used to build a bridge as are required to maintain the bridge in good repair. Of all the components required to build and maintain a strong and lasting relationship I believe that trust is probably the most fundamental. In times of stress, it may well be that the foundations of trust are the first to be tested and perhaps the last to be reinforced.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 12, 2011 19:37:48 GMT -5
I believe that relationships between people (bridges) are really about communications between people. I don’t think that any communication channel is completely “noise” free. Relatively superficial communication, “Hi, how are you?” type communications, is often less “noisy” than the honest sharing of deep or meaningful feelings between two people.
I think the reason for this is that there are at least four filters between one person’s feelings and the resonance of that feeling in another person. The first filter is the way we each process our own feelings through our own emotions. The second filter is the process and manner that we use to express our feelings to the outside world (words or behavior). The third filter is the process and manner that the person with whom we are communicating interprets and internalizes our words and behavior. And the last filter is the process used by the listener to integrate our words or behavior into an emotional context that is comfortable for them.
Much of “bridge building” is the work two people do with each other as they try to align all four of the filters to be as “noise” free as possible. The more intimate the relationship the more time and effort that is required to align all of the filters. Under stress (for example: the decision to leave a specific community previously enjoyed by both parties) it is almost inevitable that all or some combination of the four filters will lose the alignment previously established. The communication channel will become increasingly noisy and the integrity of the bridge will be compromised to some degree. The decision to do the necessary repairs to the compromised bridge must be a joint/mutual decision. One party alone cannot repair the bridge and "realign" all the communication filters to accommodate the new “reality”.
As a topical example, when I stopped attending Sunday morning meetings, I proceeded to engage myself in any number of other activities not associated with the fellowship. In retrospect this behavior was a type of emotional withdrawal from the fellowship and those I knew in the fellowship. Expressions of affection that once used to flow freely now had to transit a greater emotional distance because I had moved all of my feelings further from the surface and held them more tightly. No one that I interacted with had any input into my decision to withdraw emotionally, that was all under my control and the way that I chose to “realign” my emotional, verbal and behavioral filters. I fully acknowledge that parties with whom I interacted also “realigned” their filters in response to my decision but I had no independent control over their ”realignment”, only my own. Without mutual attention to the emerging breach in communication the “bridge” might have been lost. Only through the concerted effort of both parties could the ”bridge” be sustained although it had been altered in character.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 12, 2011 22:01:21 GMT -5
If you don't burn you bridges, or have them burnt for you, then you don't have to worry about building them either. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for ex's to burn their bridges; in some cases it is advisable perhaps. But if your family is professing do you burn your bridges when you leave? Personally the strategy I'm using is as follows: 1) no exit letters, 2) one discussion session for close friends, 3) maintain the friendship and take religion out of the relationship, ... I notice that scholargirl's post provides practical examples along this line ... 4) don't know what step 4 is as we are not there yet. We may not use this formula in all cases, but it seems to work. What do you think of this as a strategy? I don't know if I like the stragegy, what. I mean, about taking religion out of the arena. It seems like a sad concession of the failure of religion.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on Aug 12, 2011 22:09:41 GMT -5
I believe that relationships between people (bridges) are really about communications between people. I don’t think that any communication channel is completely “noise” free. Relatively superficial communication, “Hi, how are you?” type communications, is often less “noisy” than the honest sharing of deep or meaningful feelings between two people. Sitting with a group of people tonight who were gathered around a man who has had some rough life experiences..... he was explaining to us how different ones had kept that line of communication (bridge) open through thick and thin. Not judging him for his actions, but providing a support for him to climb back up out of the pit on.... The thought that went through my mind was "bridge over troubled waters." Isn't it nice that there are those who know how to do that?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 12, 2011 22:46:28 GMT -5
If you don't burn you bridges, or have them burnt for you, then you don't have to worry about building them either. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for ex's to burn their bridges; in some cases it is advisable perhaps. But if your family is professing do you burn your bridges when you leave? Personally the strategy I'm using is as follows: 1) no exit letters, 2) one discussion session for close friends, 3) maintain the friendship and take religion out of the relationship, ... I notice that scholargirl's post provides practical examples along this line ... 4) don't know what step 4 is as we are not there yet. We may not use this formula in all cases, but it seems to work. What do you think of this as a strategy? I don't know if I like the stragegy, what. I mean, about taking religion out of the arena. It seems like a sad concession of the failure of religion. No, I feel very strongly about that one. Religious conversations are often agenda based. I think you have to show that you care about the person more than you care about what their religion is, or that you care about them regardless of religion. That allows a healing process to take place. Maybe later religion can come back onto the table.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 13, 2011 11:01:13 GMT -5
Bridge building between 2x2s and exes ... 2x2s regard exe's as the rich man in Luke 16:26 « And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.» Or as simply as the infidels for which true christians should follow the advice in 2 Cor 6:14 « Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.»... Exe's regard 2x2s as a sect of control freaks who do not practice the teachings of Jesus and would go to extremes to defend their group even against sins and illegal acts (stealing, adultery, coersion, pedophilia,etc.). Personaly, I have no problem communicating with «friends» as long as they ll not bring up religious issues and as far as they do not try to persuade me that the «truth» is the only way. However, I consider the workers with the outmost contempt as they are the perpetrators of the sect and are responsible for the cover-ups of all kinds of horrible acts commited by their fellow preachers. So much for bridge building ...
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 13, 2011 11:10:37 GMT -5
People who leave meetings shouldn't avoid friends and relatives who still attend. It's even good PR to go to meeting together once in awhile. I would not mind having it made clear it is just a courtesy, and would also return the courtesy. emy, I don't believe going to meetings shows courtesy at all. I would hope that my friendship with those inside meetings extends outside of the choice of where we gather for group worship. If not, it really is not a friendship but simply an organizational connection. That type of relationship has no depth. God doesn't dwell in temples or homes made with hands. He dwells in our hearts. When I visit church-going relatives in another city/state, I attend their church with them. I don't know if I would call it courtesy, but I've learned that relatives are often proud of their natural families, and enjoy "showing them off" to their church families. Visiting a church/meeting in my relatives' area also helps give me a sense of my relatives' values and religious views that can open up conversations later about traditions and practices. Some things I notice: Do my relatives attend a small or large church/meeting? Is it in a run-down, modest, large, or extravagant house/building? Do my relatives know the names of people there? Do people come running up to me and say, "oh, you must be so-and-so's <relation>, it's so nice to meet you/see you again", or do they largely ignore visitors? Are people dressed casually or more formally? Are the women dressed conservatively? Does the church/meeting have young families and teenagers? Do the teenagers look happy or glum? In meetings there are other specific details: plain wedding bands vs embellished rings and engagement rings, hair styles up or down, women's hair shoulder length or much longer, open-toed shoes and painted toenails, men dressing like hipsters, entertainment items (TV, pool table, musical instruments) in view in the house. Knowing the "norms" of my relatives' church organization can help me understand their views.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 13, 2011 11:31:55 GMT -5
I don't know if I like the stragegy, what. I mean, about taking religion out of the arena. It seems like a sad concession of the failure of religion. No, I feel very strongly about that one. Religious conversations are often agenda based. I think you have to show that you care about the person more than you care about what their religion is, or that you care about them regardless of religion. That allows a healing process to take place. Maybe later religion can come back onto the table. Yes, I hear you. Even for me, religious conversations are agenda based; I want others to become more tolerant of the various religious ideas, and as a result, I come across as an argumentative devil's advocate. But if I can keep my mouth shut, I do enjoy just hearing other people's religious experiences and convictions, and learning from them...and most people do like to talk about them, if they don't meet ridicule. shushy, for example...could anyone possibly be any different from me? But she is the most fascinating person here. I'm amazed at how much I've learned even here on TMB, after thinking that I knew everything about the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 13, 2011 12:04:15 GMT -5
I've nominated this for post of the week. #1 needs a corollary, imo. People who leave meetings shouldn't avoid friends and relatives who still attend. It's even good PR to go to meeting together once in awhile. I would not mind having it made clear it is just a courtesy, and would also return the courtesy. emy, I don't believe going to meetings shows courtesy at all. I would hope that my friendship with those inside meetings extends outside of the choice of where we gather for group worship. If not, it really is not a friendship but simply an organizational connection. That type of relationship has no depth. God doesn't dwell in temples or homes made with hands. He dwells in our hearts. Not sure how you were seeing my suggestion. I was thinking of times when you are together anyway and would see fit to simply go along to meeting. I didn't have in mind to go (though you have no interest) just because you receive an invite or to simply decide to pop in for no particular reason.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 13, 2011 21:49:52 GMT -5
Bridge building between 2x2s and exes ... 2x2s regard exe's as the rich man in Luke 16:26 « And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.» Or as simply as the infidels for which true christians should follow the advice in 2 Cor 6:14 « Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.»... Exe's regard 2x2s as a sect of control freaks who do not practice the teachings of Jesus and would go to extremes to defend their group even against sins and illegal acts (stealing, adultery, coersion, pedophilia,etc.). Personaly, I have no problem communicating with «friends» as long as they ll not bring up religious issues and as far as they do not try to persuade me that the «truth» is the only way. However, I consider the workers with the outmost contempt as they are the perpetrators of the sect and are responsible for the cover-ups of all kinds of horrible acts commited by their fellow preachers. So much for bridge building ... Ghost ~ I got a kick out of your illustration here. ;D Now that really does look like "the bridge to Nowhere" with the rocks below. However, it makes a valuable point when you think of the reasons for people leaving the faith to begin with. It usually has nothing to do with unwillingness or bitterness, but rather the unbiblical teachings that prevail along with the cover-ups that have been practiced for the longest time to keep up the image of the 2x2's. If this facade came down and people got real with one another, I'm sure some progress could be made ~ however, that may be a stretch as I contemplate the reality of building bridges? To begin with, there would have to be an element of openness and willingness to discuss the issues that have not be addressed for years, and probably wouldn't have come to light except through Internet?
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 14, 2011 2:51:07 GMT -5
Ghost ~ I got a kick out of your illustration here. ;D Now that really does look like "the bridge to Nowhere" except the rocks below. However, it makes a valuable point when you think of the reasons for people leaving the faith to begin with. It usually has nothing to do with unwillingness or bitterness, but rather the unbiblical teachings that prevail along with the cover-ups that have been practiced for the longest time to keep up the image of the 2x2's. If this facade came down and people got real with one another, I'm sure some progress could be made ~ however, that may be a stretch as I contemplate the reality of building bridges? To begin with, there would have to be an element of openness and willingness to discuss the issues that have not be addressed for years, and probably wouldn't come to light except through Internet? Both sides do not practice openess (for their own reasons). In fact they do judge each other although they both pretend to follow the biblical teachings of Math 7: « 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.» Personaly again I think that the root of the problem is religion in general and the Christian religion(s) in particular. When you are made to believe that some people can (for whatever reason) be assimilated to «dogs and swine» when at the same time you profess that man has been made at the image of your god, I do not see how you could build ANY bridge, through the internet or without it ...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 14, 2011 11:15:36 GMT -5
Ghost ~ I feel the Word of God teaches us to use righteous judgment or discernment when it comes to examining different teachings in the world today. If they don't line up with "sound doctrine" as found in God's Word, we are not to entertain it for fear of being deceived.
One teaching that has always amazed me among the 2x2's is their insistence on you being lost for all eternity, if you leave their faith or attend another church. Also, you can only hear the gospel truth through the workers and only a profession through them is valid in your salvation ~ all other professions of faith are invalid. Now that, in my opinion, is taking things to the extreme, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 14, 2011 12:03:21 GMT -5
One teaching that has always amazed me among the 2x2's is their insistence on you being lost for all eternity, if you leave their faith or attend another church. Also, you can only hear the gospel truth through the workers and only a profession through them is valid in your salvation ~ all other professions of faith are invalid. Now that, in my opinion, is taking things to the extreme, don't you think? Faune, did you accept that teaching at one time?
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Aug 15, 2011 19:12:41 GMT -5
I believe if one truly want to build bridges, parties involved must be willing to listen (without constant interruption) and discuss (without belittling and twisting words).
Within the small fellowship I attend, there are people who have different beliefs, but we have all agreed to unite around those foundational beliefs- Christ alone. We may disagree elsewhere (as in what is appropriate attire for a woman and what her role is in the church, or whether one should homeschool or not, or if it's okay to do this or that, of even if one can lose their salvation), but we have decided to love our brothers more than we love being right (and self-righteous) in our doctrine/theology.
I think this was one of the issues with the Pharisees. They loved their doctrine and their traditions more than Christ. Otherwise, they would have followed the greatest command to love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself.
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 15, 2011 21:32:14 GMT -5
I believe if one truly want to build bridges, parties involved must be willing to listen (without constant interruption) and discuss (without belittling and twisting words). Within the small fellowship I attend, there are people who have different beliefs, but we have all agreed to unite around those foundational beliefs- Christ alone. We may disagree elsewhere (as in what is appropriate attire for a woman and what her role is in the church, or whether one should homeschool or not, or if it's okay to do this or that, of even if one can lose their salvation), but we have decided to love our brothers more than we love being right (and self-righteous) in our doctrine/theology.I think this was one of the issues with the Pharisees. They loved their doctrine and their traditions more than Christ. Otherwise, they would have followed the greatest command to love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself. I think the F&W would contend they do the same as the bolded above and for the greater part, they probably do.
|
|