|
Post by StAnne on Feb 1, 2010 0:09:58 GMT -5
How do you access the site? I click the link and get "permission denied". (I got a login page the first time, looked up my google acct info--permission denied).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 0:16:50 GMT -5
Bert makes a reasonable point in saying that workers and many friends have never taught that there was an actual history or succession lineage back to Galilee, that the linkage was spiritual. The point is further made that the actual history, William Irvine et al, is irrelevant to what we know and believe spiritually.
I think this was my experience in the 1980s when we professed, although there were some friends who spoke of research into an actual lineage back to Bible days.
But most friends spoke vaguely of this or that relative who first professed in their family, and the clear implication was that everyone encountered Truth somewhere, and the succession went on back and back into the mists of time. After hearing a number of these testimonies, it seemed that things were reasonably clear back until 1900 or so, and very misty before that. But of course, that's generally true of most peoples' personal family history so I never thought too much of it.
In Europe I once saw a medieval painting of Jesus and the 12 disciples, decked out in knight's armor and sitting astride horses. The painter drew them as he understood heroes to look, and assumed that the heroes of his day, had been ever thus. This is what we also do. In the absence of the actual history, the "whole" truth, we make assumptions. We just kinda assume that the way we do it, is the way it always was done.
We think it's unseemly to question, and this can lead to errors in our thinking. It's not that we shouldn't conduct our meetings and organization in the way that we do, but the problem begins when we think things must be a certain way to be right. And that starts us to thinking everyone else is wrong.
Instead, we should accept as fellow Christian everyone "that acknowledges that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (1 John 4). Notwithstanding we know that some of those that confess this are false, but that's not for us to judge.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 0:31:13 GMT -5
The Bible state we should examine ourselves. That is true personally, and also collectively. And I believe our history is a part of that examination. How can we examine ourselves if we don't have all the information about ourselves, be it contemporary issues relating to CSA, or our particular history through the decades?
Lam 3:40 Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 1, 2010 0:56:30 GMT -5
In Europe I once saw a medieval painting of Jesus and the 12 disciples, decked out in knight's armor and sitting astride horses. Fascinating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 1:15:54 GMT -5
Questions regards your own church:1 - Do you take on board religious traditions which have evolved since 1st Century Judea? 2 - Can you itemize ANY DOCTRINE which was NOT found in the 1st Century Judean churches? If you can honestly say "No" to these two questions then you can say that your church goes back to the shores of Galilee.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 1, 2010 6:59:28 GMT -5
Questions regards your own church:1 - Do you take on board religious traditions which have evolved since 1st Century Judea? 2 - Can you itemize ANY DOCTRINE which was NOT found in the 1st Century Judean churches? If you can honestly say "No" to these two questions then you can say that your church goes back to the shores of Galilee. Bert, the doctrine of celibacy requirement was not found in the 1st Centurey Judean churches, and it is found in the USA today. And before you tell me there are married workers, think about this: If any employer with several hundred employees claims to not discriminate on the basis of sex, but employees no women, that employer will be found by any court of law to have a discriminatory policy on employment in practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 7:17:36 GMT -5
Gene, recall my list of Paul's possible companions? 1. Paul and Sosthenes. 2. Paul and Barnabas 3. Paul and Timothy 4. Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus 5. Paul and Aristarchus 6. Paul was likely with Ephaphras 7. Paul and Demas 8. Paul was likely with Titus 9. Paul and Sopater I am sure Paul was single, and I certainly hope all these other guys (note - guys, not gals!) were also single. Otherwise, they could be liable to the charge of dereliction of duty? Being "celebrate" is more a common sense policy than a doctrine. You simply find it hard to preach, itinerant style, when you have a family in tow. Some workers were married in the "early days" prior to being in the ministry, I believe. Same happened when Jesus called some into ministry, too. And ps - we have women preachers too! People who met in homes Went out preaching Forsook all Had women preachers Had no name were considered very strange in their time.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 1, 2010 7:56:38 GMT -5
The Bible state we should examine ourselves. That is true personally, and also collectively. And I believe our history is a part of that examination. How can we examine ourselves if we don't have all the information about ourselves, be it contemporary issues relating to CSA, or our particular history through the decades? Lam 3:40 Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord. I agree with this What: The history is a part of our examining ourselves. Shouldn't though the source of the history be more conclusive. What I know of the history,and heard from many of the players of the history is not even complete. Do we even have all the info that surrounds the bible The Secret Sect,and a website are far from credible.Neither are trying to inform,but rather are naysayers.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 1, 2010 8:08:39 GMT -5
So are you saying, Lin, that its no use to pick up a shovel because you can't dig a hole to China?
May I suggest re researching the history...you could start by attempting to prove/disprove everything in Parkers book--or my website.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 1, 2010 8:16:43 GMT -5
Cherie: Did you ever personally interview or talk to any of the actual people involved with the beginning of this way or is all your information second handed. More like a compilation than a history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 8:36:52 GMT -5
What, let's assume bert, Jesse and kiwi are right. That is, the workers all taught that it was strictly a spiritual lineage back to Christ and that all workers were clear in their own minds that the church started in the late 1890's. Let's just start with that assumption, as those three members seem to suggest is the case. Now, let's take the next assumed fact. There were, and still are, thousands of friends who misunderstood the message. They heard the preaching about "this way goes back to the shores of Galilee" and that all apostles and evangelists were "workers", all believers were "friends" and they then mistakenly believed that there was a continuous succession of workers and friends going back to the ministry of Christ. All these people who got it wrong from the workers experience a tremendous degree of trauma when they discover that they were wrong in their fundamental belief about the church. OK, assume the first two paragraphs to be the accurate description of what happened. Now tell me, what next? How should a healthy church and its leaders respond to such a situation? Bert makes a reasonable point in saying that workers and many friends have never taught that there was an actual history or succession lineage back to Galilee, that the linkage was spiritual. The point is further made that the actual history, William Irvine et al, is irrelevant to what we know and believe spiritually. I think this was my experience in the 1980s when we professed, although there were some friends who spoke of research into an actual lineage back to Bible days. But most friends spoke vaguely of this or that relative who first professed in their family, and the clear implication was that everyone encountered Truth somewhere, and the succession went on back and back into the mists of time. After hearing a number of these testimonies, it seemed that things were reasonably clear back until 1900 or so, and very misty before that. But of course, that's generally true of most peoples' personal family history so I never thought too much of it. In Europe I once saw a medieval painting of Jesus and the 12 disciples, decked out in knight's armor and sitting astride horses. The painter drew them as he understood heroes to look, and assumed that the heroes of his day, had been ever thus. This is what we also do. In the absence of the actual history, the "whole" truth, we make assumptions. We just kinda assume that the way we do it, is the way it always was done. We think it's unseemly to question, and this can lead to errors in our thinking. It's not that we shouldn't conduct our meetings and organization in the way that we do, but the problem begins when we think things must be a certain way to be right. And that starts us to thinking everyone else is wrong. Instead, we should accept as fellow Christian everyone "that acknowledges that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (1 John 4). Notwithstanding we know that some of those that confess this are false, but that's not for us to judge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 10:20:16 GMT -5
Questions regards your own church:1 - Do you take on board religious traditions which have evolved since 1st Century Judea? 2 - Can you itemize ANY DOCTRINE which was NOT found in the 1st Century Judean churches? If you can honestly say "No" to these two questions then you can say that your church goes back to the shores of Galilee. Yes. Yes. Not really. It could also mean you are honestly not aware of the differences.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 10:53:23 GMT -5
There have only been two proactive serious sources of the history story: The Secret Sect by Doug Parker and the Telling the Truth web site by Cherie Kropp. Do you know any other proactive source? The truth came out loud and clear around 1980 and we still can't come to terms with it. A few months ago I asked a long time worker what she told people about the history when asked. She said "I tell them there isn't much out there........" Jesse, if it wasn't for Parker and Kropp, everyone except you, bert, kiwi and a few others who misunderstood the church line on the history would still be in the dark, The history is incomplete, no one knows the background of those who "rose from the earth as one man" and the life experience and influence they brought to the fellowship. Not knowing means no hard lines should be drawn. The bulk of the history from the early days is recorded as near counter-advocacy in publications like the Impartial Reporter. Even an uninvolved wiki editor noted the flavor of some of those articles - that they were not friendly by any stretch of the imagination. That editor wondered if the article on the wiki CC page should be removed - I said I didn't think so because it would show readers the flavor of the source. Thinking there is an carnal connection to Galilee does not automatically cause self-righteousness or a feeling of superiority, same with silence before meetings and things like that. Man has always shown a tendency of self-righteousness using whatever reason he wants, man's always known it's much easier to make yourself look good by making others look bad. Interesting even the counter-advocacy shows signs of self-righteousness and moral superiority maybe knowing history makes them that way too? Self-righteousness should be dealt with straight on by itself, in other words blame self-righteousness or feelings of superiority on self-righteousness or feelings of superiority NOT that history or whatever isn't shouted from the platform.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 11:03:52 GMT -5
I think the best way to deal with carnal history, well anything carnal, is in conversation outside of meetings.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 1, 2010 11:13:47 GMT -5
I think the best way to deal with carnal history, well anything carnal, is in conversation outside of meetings. So it was OK to publicly teach the history incorrectly, suppress the real history and cover it up with other stories/myths-- but you're saing that it doesnt deserve to be "untaught" or corrected publicly? Why?
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 1, 2010 11:23:21 GMT -5
Cherie: Did you ever personally interview or talk to any of the actual people involved with the beginning of this way or is all your information second handed. More like a compilation than a history. Cherie: I'll ask this question that you are evading again. Did you have conversation with any of these men? This is very important to being credible. Or is it all hearsay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 11:43:20 GMT -5
There have only been two proactive serious sources of the history story: The Secret Sect by Doug Parker and the Telling the Truth web site by Cherie Kropp. Do you know any other proactive source? The truth came out loud and clear around 1980 and we still can't come to terms with it. A few months ago I asked a long time worker what she told people about the history when asked. She said "I tell them there isn't much out there........" Jesse, if it wasn't for Parker and Kropp, everyone except you, bert, kiwi and a few others who misunderstood the church line on the history would still be in the dark, The history is incomplete, no one knows the background of those who "rose from the earth as one man" and the life experience and influence they brought to the fellowship. Not knowing means no hard lines should be drawn. The bulk of the history from the early days is recorded as near counter-advocacy in publications like the Impartial Reporter. Even an uninvolved wiki editor noted the flavor of some of those articles - that they were not friendly by any stretch of the imagination. That editor wondered if the article on the wiki CC page should be removed - I said I didn't think so because it would show readers the flavor of the source. Jesse, what's wrong with simply telling what we do know? Why would a worker say "oh, there's not much out there" and then stop there? No one has to go on and on quoting the Impartial Reporter or any counter-advocacy group. We know a lot of information that would be construed as facts by any professional historian. What's wrong with Dr Jaenen's work as a basis for workers to tell what they now know about the history? I'm not interested in any hard lines, just let's be open and honest about what we do know. As I have said often, this problem that doesn't seem to want to go away will go away if we adopt an openness and honest approach. Sure, there will be a few boo birds pointing fingers about how we got it wrong and were forced to admit it, but who cares? We will gain a great deal of respect and credibility if we own up to our mistakes and the boobirds will be flogging a dead horse. You're right that it does not "automatically" cause self-righteousness, but it is a powerful influence toward pride and self-righteousness. I see smugness because of our little "only way" group all the time.......but true, not with everyone. The self-righteousness of the counter-advocacy matters little to me. It's a bit like saying that because my neighbour beat up his spouse, then it's ok for me to at least slap mine. Frankly, it also matters little to me what method is undertaken to straighten this out. Platform, gospel meetings, fellowship meetings, privately.....whatever, but let's just do it. If I was a worker, I might open every series of gospel meetings with a short preamble about who we are, our historical background and what we practice in today's fellowship. New listeners deserve to know a little background of our group, then we can get on with preaching about what is important......the good news of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 12:15:36 GMT -5
I think the best way to deal with carnal history, well anything carnal, is in conversation outside of meetings. So it was OK to publicly teach the history incorrectly, suppress the real history and cover it up with other stories/myths-- but you're saying that it doesn't deserve to be "untaught" or corrected publicly? Why? Why? Because what you say hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of a lot of people I know. I haven't been taught history incorrectly nor has anyone tried to cover it up with other stories/myths. So I think care is required before declaring there was/is, without any doubt, universal, deliberate, coordinated, cover up, suppression, and/or incorrect teaching about anything including carnal history. The same kind of care should be used before or if attributing any agenda to what you've felt moved to do. You would feel that is a misplaced or inaccurate attribution, well, so might the workers and friends about what you state as if objective universal truth. Problems start when people aren't careful about extrapolating individual experience/reaction into universal truth statements/conclusions. It seems Paul outlined what formal meetings should be - a place where there are Spirit ordered words of edification, exhortation, and comfort, not debate, a soapbox, and/or carnal conversations/questions/discussion. That said I have heard accurate though general references to the history in meetings, even mentioned some myself a time or two. Still I still think out of meeting conversation as the best place to discuss carnal things like history.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 1, 2010 12:22:26 GMT -5
So the lie was told publicly, but telling the truth should be done privately? Thats what you're advocating, Jesse?
I just cant get over the double standards I am seeing here.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 12:26:59 GMT -5
Questions regards your own church:1 - Do you take on board religious traditions which have evolved since 1st Century Judea? 2 - Can you itemize ANY DOCTRINE which was NOT found in the 1st Century Judean churches? If you can honestly say "No" to these two questions then you can say that your church goes back to the shores of Galilee. In regards to this it's interesting to look at the Stone-Campbell movement, also restorationist. They split in the 19th century into 2 or 3 denominations. One of the main causes of the split was that one of the ministers introduced a musical instrument into the congregation because they sang so badly (been there! . So, some supported the idea, but a great many said "they didn't have one in NT days, we shouldn't have one either". Well, that sounds silly now, but it does raise the question as to what we mean when we take our doctrine from NT days. Does it mean we take principles only? Many churches can honestly make that claim. Or does it mean we literally, minutely apply an intepretation of the NT, which is what Stone-Campbell, at least some of them, tried to do? Or, somewhere in between. Unsurprisingly, I have a view on this but will leave it here for now.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 12:36:21 GMT -5
Jesse, what's wrong with simply telling what we do know? Why would a worker say "oh, there's not much out there" and then stop there? No one has to go on and on quoting the Impartial Reporter or any counter-advocacy group. We know a lot of information that would be construed as facts by any professional historian. What's wrong with Dr Jaenen's work as a basis for workers to tell what they now know about the history? I'm not interested in any hard lines, just let's be open and honest about what we do know. As I have said often, this problem that doesn't seem to want to go away will go away if we adopt an openness and honest approach. Sure, there will be a few boo birds pointing fingers about how we got it wrong and were forced to admit it, but who cares? We will gain a great deal of respect and credibility if we own up to our mistakes and the boobirds will be flogging a dead horse. Frankly, it also matters little to me what method is undertaken to straighten this out. Platform, gospel meetings, fellowship meetings, privately.....whatever, but let's just do it. If I was a worker, I might open every series of gospel meetings with a short preamble about who we are, our historical background and what we practice in today's fellowship. New listeners deserve to know a little background of our group, then we can get on with preaching about what is important......the good news of Christ. Absolutely nothing wrong with it from what I can see but then I am a unemotional objectivist like Bert and Spock, and you. The carnal history is not a threat to my faith. The only reason I brought up the self-righteousness of the counter-advocacy is to show that self-righteousness is obviously a primary problem - one which must be delt with seperately from any contributing factors. Since the contributing factors are not really the primary problem fixing them doesn't ever fix the primary problem.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 12:40:11 GMT -5
The Bible state we should examine ourselves. That is true personally, and also collectively. And I believe our history is a part of that examination. How can we examine ourselves if we don't have all the information about ourselves, be it contemporary issues relating to CSA, or our particular history through the decades? Lam 3:40 Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord. I agree with this What: The history is a part of our examining ourselves. Shouldn't though the source of the history be more conclusive. What I know of the history,and heard from many of the players of the history is not even complete. Do we even have all the info that surrounds the bible The Secret Sect,and a website are far from credible.Neither are trying to inform,but rather are naysayers. Personally, I think we should throw in the towel on the "no history" concept, and get involved with it. I believe if we did, the history would go in a whole new direction. A key focus of the history as it stands on the web site has been to counter the denial. But personally I am fascinated by the entire 19th century restoration movement, and I think an inquiring and positive mind would find there are a lot of rocks to turn over yet, and also, the story would be one of inspiration, faith and courage. As well as setbacks, power struggles and animosity. My thought here again is not just on Irvine but all those movements that Jaenen has described in his book. I personally believe this was more than an experiment of Irvine's and that God's hand has worked with the church right through history from the shores of Galilee. But perhaps not in the way we're given to understand ... by either the friends, or the ex's. I think we have to move from "only way" thinking to "best way" thinking, and "work in progress" thinking. Yes, I believe there is unavoidable bias in the current accounts, but I also think that Cherie is a person of integrity.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 1, 2010 12:44:49 GMT -5
Scripture is not always a good measurement of what is right or wrong. I don't believe scripture should be used to prove right and wrong. What makes something right for me is experience. I believe this is the point that Jesse is making. There are thousands of people in this way that declaring a history to, would not mean anything to them. Where they came from had a history,whatever the movement. What means the most to these people is their own experience and what this way has brought into their religious experience that was not there before. That is what makes this the only way to them. It has nothing to do with whoever introduced them to it. I have heard a lot of people say they knew what they were looking for,long before they ever heard of this. In Ireland in the beginning hundreds went in for this knowing full well of the history,because they were a part of the history.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 12:51:16 GMT -5
What, let's assume bert, Jesse and kiwi are right. That is, the workers all taught that it was strictly a spiritual lineage back to Christ and that all workers were clear in their own minds that the church started in the late 1890's. Let's just start with that assumption, as those three members seem to suggest is the case. Now, let's take the next assumed fact. There were, and still are, thousands of friends who misunderstood the message. They heard the preaching about "this way goes back to the shores of Galilee" and that all apostles and evangelists were "workers", all believers were "friends" and they then mistakenly believed that there was a continuous succession of workers and friends going back to the ministry of Christ. All these people who got it wrong from the workers experience a tremendous degree of trauma when they discover that they were wrong in their fundamental belief about the church. OK, assume the first two paragraphs to be the accurate description of what happened. Now tell me, what next? How should a healthy church and its leaders respond to such a situation? Bert makes a reasonable point in saying that workers and many friends have never taught that there was an actual history or succession lineage back to Galilee, that the linkage was spiritual. The point is further made that the actual history, William Irvine et al, is irrelevant to what we know and believe spiritually. I think this was my experience in the 1980s when we professed, although there were some friends who spoke of research into an actual lineage back to Bible days. But most friends spoke vaguely of this or that relative who first professed in their family, and the clear implication was that everyone encountered Truth somewhere, and the succession went on back and back into the mists of time. After hearing a number of these testimonies, it seemed that things were reasonably clear back until 1900 or so, and very misty before that. But of course, that's generally true of most peoples' personal family history so I never thought too much of it. In Europe I once saw a medieval painting of Jesus and the 12 disciples, decked out in knight's armor and sitting astride horses. The painter drew them as he understood heroes to look, and assumed that the heroes of his day, had been ever thus. This is what we also do. In the absence of the actual history, the "whole" truth, we make assumptions. We just kinda assume that the way we do it, is the way it always was done. We think it's unseemly to question, and this can lead to errors in our thinking. It's not that we shouldn't conduct our meetings and organization in the way that we do, but the problem begins when we think things must be a certain way to be right. And that starts us to thinking everyone else is wrong. Instead, we should accept as fellow Christian everyone "that acknowledges that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (1 John 4). Notwithstanding we know that some of those that confess this are false, but that's not for us to judge. I answered this in post #166. And a whole lot more, so here is the short answer. "Partial truth" is not truth. So with the benefit of hindsight, we should have been more open about the actual history. Personally, I've tried to be more explicit about that history in my dealings for some years now. It may also help to have more Dutch people in the fellowship and fewer English. Germans are good too. More beer and sausage, less tea and teensy sandwiches.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 12:52:36 GMT -5
In Europe I once saw a medieval painting of Jesus and the 12 disciples, decked out in knight's armor and sitting astride horses. Fascinating. I tried to find something by Googling images, and wasn't successful, but I'm fairly sure it was the Cluny Museum in Paris. So perhaps anyone who has been there will remember some strange paintings of Jesus and the disciples dating to early medieval times.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 13:17:19 GMT -5
So the lie was told publicly, but telling the truth should be done privately? Thats what you're advocating, Jesse? I just cant get over the double standards I am seeing here. And I can't get over the continuing collective attribution/guilt fallacy I'm seeing. "the lie was told publicly" is a subjective attribution of a collective motive, a personal interpretation/opinion/perception NOT a universal collective absolute truth that applies to every single friend and worker that ever existed. I and many others do not feel we were lied to publically or privately. We are not braindead, brainwashed, indoctrinated, worker worshipping morons that cannot think for ourselves. This is a fact that the counter-advocacy so often overlooks - which makes stating "the lie" as a universal timless absolute a fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 13:25:46 GMT -5
Well, that's right, Jesse. However, it's often carnal knowledge that counteracts the universal tendency to self-righteousness, or in modern parlance, ego- or ethno-centrism. Head of gold and feet of clay. Should the workers speak of the actual movement history either when they are asked, or, as clearday suggested, right in the meeting if there are newcomers. I know you would agree with the former, but what about the mention of the actual history in a gospel meeting? Why does the latter not occur? One good reason is that we wish to emphasize the gospel message, not the particular history of our own people. That's a good motive. But at the same time, I think there is the thought that we do "carnally" go back to the time of Christ. And we don't explicitly teach that, but we plant a little seed and then water it bit by bit. Past experience has taught the workers that there are one or two things the novice listener is not ready for, so those are held back and left to the guiding of the Spirit. That makes sense in situations but are we sometimes deluding ourselves as to why we do this?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 1, 2010 14:04:02 GMT -5
The history is incomplete, no one knows the background of those who "rose from the earth as one man" and the life experience and influence they brought to the fellowship. Not knowing means no hard lines should be drawn. The bulk of the history from the early days is recorded as near counter-advocacy in publications like the Impartial Reporter. Even an uninvolved wiki editor noted the flavor of some of those articles - that they were not friendly by any stretch of the imagination. That editor wondered if the article on the wiki CC page should be removed - I said I didn't think so because it would show readers the flavor of the source. Jesse, what's wrong with simply telling what we do know? Why would a worker say "oh, there's not much out there" and then stop there? No one has to go on and on quoting the Impartial Reporter or any counter-advocacy group. We know a lot of information that would be construed as facts by any professional historian. What's wrong with Dr Jaenen's work as a basis for workers to tell what they now know about the history? I'm not interested in any hard lines, just let's be open and honest about what we do know. As I have said often, this problem that doesn't seem to want to go away will go away if we adopt an openness and honest approach. Sure, there will be a few boo birds pointing fingers about how we got it wrong and were forced to admit it, but who cares? We will gain a great deal of respect and credibility if we own up to our mistakes and the boobirds will be flogging a dead horse. Thinking there is an carnal connection to Galilee does not automatically cause self-righteousness or a feeling of superiority, same with silence before meetings and things like that. Man has always shown a tendency of self-righteousness using whatever reason he wants, man's always known it's much easier to make yourself look good by making others look bad. Interesting even the counter-advocacy shows signs of self-righteousness and moral superiority maybe knowing history makes them that way too? Self-righteousness should be dealt with straight on by itself, in other words blame self-righteousness or feelings of superiority on self-righteousness or feelings of superiority NOT that history or whatever isn't shouted from the platform. You're right that it does not "automatically" cause self-righteousness, but it is a powerful influence toward pride and self-righteousness. I see smugness because of our little "only way" group all the time.......but true, not with everyone. The self-righteousness of the counter-advocacy matters little to me. It's a bit like saying that because my neighbour beat up his spouse, then it's ok for me to at least slap mine. Frankly, it also matters little to me what method is undertaken to straighten this out. Platform, gospel meetings, fellowship meetings, privately.....whatever, but let's just do it. If I was a worker, I might open every series of gospel meetings with a short preamble about who we are, our historical background and what we practice in today's fellowship. New listeners deserve to know a little background of our group, then we can get on with preaching about what is important......the good news of Christ. Good post. The best way to diffuse all of this is to come clean, tell the truth and I also think it's a good idea to let new comers know the history so they can make an informed decision. It's really no big deal that Irvine started the religion. What is a big deal is not acknowledging this, saying it's something else and then when people find out, not admitting it. There would be no "issue" for people to complain about if it became known to "everyone". I think another question should be, why is it so important to people in the truth, to be the only right way? Do they really want to think that everyone else is going to hell?
|
|