|
Change
Oct 17, 2008 16:13:33 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Oct 17, 2008 16:13:33 GMT -5
As a child growing up in the 2X2 community, one aspect of the belief structure that gave me real and lasting comfort was the belief that "God's word" (i.e. "our" faith) was immutable, changeless, ageless, unalterable, and invariant.
This was probably a comfort for a variety of reasons. There were many confusing and conflicting pressures and choices that weighed upon my growing/maturing mind. It was comforting to believe that amidst all of this clutter and confusion that there was something "out there" that was constant and unchanging.
My family traveled quite a bit and I recall being comforted by the similarities of the Sunday Morning meetings.
I did, however, notice small differences in "dress code" some places that we went and other "minor" differences from one geographical region to another. But, while I remained within the community, none of these differences seemed to assault my fundamental belief in the constancy of the practice of the faith.
Then, I stopped going to Sunday Morning meetings and pretty soon, I drifted away from the 2X2 community. Until, some forty years later, I was made aware of internet sites that were discussing the fellowship of my youth. This fact alone, startled me! At first, I could not believe that anyone who believed as I once had believed would ever use the internet!
I understand how naive this must sound to some, but it was just inconceivable to me that the "friends" would be using the internet.
Then, in a conversation with a friend a little while ago, I was told that the workers all have cell phones now and they have their own laptops and communicate with others in the community via e-mail. Upon hearing this, I sat there with my mouth open. How could this be, I asked.
I remember the workers coming to our home and if they stayed a few days, I remember them sitting at the dining room table with one of their satchels open beside them as they wrote (in long hand) letters to some of the friends. Somehow this seemed to be the way things are supposed to be. Again, very naive.
After hearing about the workers and laptops, I got to thinking about other "changes" that I had witnessed over the years in the 2X2 community. I guess one of the most famous is the slow change over time from "black stockings" to dark heavy stocking to dark stockings to plain stockings to whatever it is that is accepted practice today.
So then, after this very long preamble, I come to my question.
In the 2X2 community, what beliefs/practices are considered immutable?
A second question might be: With respect to outward appearances and "worldly" goods (televisions, radios, stereos, desk top computers, laptops, land-line telephones, cell phones) how is it determined what is "acceptable" and what is not?
When I was growing up, televisions and radios in the home were not considered appropriate. But now workers have their own laptops. What are the criteria that are being used to codify these distinctions?
I think that it is fair to say that watching the Ed Sullivan Show or The Mickey Mouse Show in the 50's would have represented far less of an assault on the moral fabric of an individual than opening up almost any internet site or spam mail on the web today.
I do not intend any of my comments to be offensive nor derogatory. Rather, I would really like to understand how the 2X2 community is able to simultaneously accept a lifestyle that remains a step or two behind the popular culture and at the same time profess a faith in the immutability of God's way. These are meant to be honest questions and I look forward to honest responses.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Change
Oct 18, 2008 4:23:50 GMT -5
Post by otto2 on Oct 18, 2008 4:23:50 GMT -5
yknowwhat yknot, yours are very good questions. I've asked similar questions myself on occasion; and in general, if they are difficult questions they go unanswered. Take a look at the thread 'The Unchanging Way' on the European board.
The position in my parents house seems to be that so long as a particular activity or item has moved from cutting edge fashion, or it no longer defines a particular image, then it tends to become permissable. If it has become 'old fashioned' then it is almost certain to be accepted. Music is a good example, 60's and possibly 70's music might be close to being acceptable amongst the younger members because it is not 'cool' to like that type of music anymore. When I was young, Trilby hats were de rigueur amongst the older workers, whereas to wear one today would be seen as the height of affectation and fashion, given that the only people who seem to wear them are horse racing types and pop stars.
Lets hope someone can answer you questions more fully than me!
Regards, Otto.
|
|
|
Change
Oct 18, 2008 8:18:26 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Oct 18, 2008 8:18:26 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Otto2, it is good to know that one does not stand alone in their uncertainty. The questions I have posed are not just for workers to answer. I would love to have folks who are professing now comment on these questions as well.
I guess what I am trying to sort out is the distinction between "the faith" and "the practice of the faith" in the fellowship of my youth. When I was young I lacked the will and comprehension to draw these distinctions. Now that I am much older, I have some appreciation of the importance of these distinctions.
With everyone's forebearance, I would like to tell one of my life experiences.
I worked for a large corporation that made consumer goods. In the quality control department, they had a panel that would test the quality of selected products off the production line with a "gold standard" product that had been selected at the time the product was first introduced. Using this procedure, product sales continued to grow and customer satisfaction was high. Other pressures on the business, however, required that effort was put into cost reduction and "product improvement". Before long it was no longer possible for the quality control department to pass products off of the production line because they did not test favorably against the "gold standard". As a consequence of this dilemma, management took the decision to change the quality standards so that the quality control panel now would compare the current production products with last years product, rather than the "gold standard". Within two years of this change, product sales headed south, customer dissatisfaction increased and eventually the product was pulled from the market.
This personal experience taught me a powerful lesson. It is within the context of that lesson learned that I ask the question that is the subject of this thread.
|
|
|
Change
Oct 18, 2008 8:38:24 GMT -5
Post by irvinegrey on Oct 18, 2008 8:38:24 GMT -5
As part of my research a few weeks ago I went along to a gospel meeting held in a primary school in Co Armagh Northern Ireland. It was my first time in a 2x2 meeting for more than 30 years. Perhaps the most visible change I noticed was that the women folk no longer wear hats to meetings. A number of years ago this would have been unheard of and certainly unacceptable.
I too believe that the Bible should be our only rule of faith and practice but care must be taken that we do not get into the situation that Paul found himself in with the church in Galatia. We too must accept that salvation is by faith alone, by grace through Christ alone. Salvation is not by grace plus the addtion of legalism that negates grace.
Change is something we all must live with and that in no way for the child of God takes away from the fact the Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. How I identify with the hymwriter's words. Naught have I gotten but what I have received. Grace hath bestowed when I believed. Boasting excluded, pride I abase. I am only a sinner saved by grace.
|
|
dollface
Junior Member
Never dig a hole deeper than you can crawl out of
Posts: 141
|
Change
Oct 19, 2008 12:46:10 GMT -5
Post by dollface on Oct 19, 2008 12:46:10 GMT -5
Yknot, your observations are astutely communicated. Being raised in the church myself, these changes to "the Unchanging Way" become interesting.
If the church is changing to the "good", ie, less exclusive, more mainstream, then what church is it now? How "unique" is it now?
It is not the church I was raised in, adhering to strict dress codes, behaviors, meeting attendance requirements, participation requirements, homeless ministry, etc.
A group of people who define themselves largely by the things they "did not" do but refuse to write down the rules, are now "allowing" other behaviors and dress codes.
So, what is the church? Are people still attending a church that doesn't even exist anymore and they just think they are still in The Truth? Workers who are technology driven are a far cry from Jesus and the "no where to lay my head" manifesto.
I personally think it's great that, according to what I read here on the boards, people attending this church are becoming more spiritually savvy. It's great that dress codes for women are beginning to evolve, tolerance for deviant behavior, (sins of smoking, drinking, movies, sports, marital variations, etc), are happening.
However, members can't claim they are attending the same church, The Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever. That church.
That church is gone. A new one has started. Perhaps like Wm. Irvine started his experiment back in the day. It resembles the original yet is quite different.
A level of honesty must then be applied. A stand up and admitting, yes, things are different now.
Apologies to all those members severely chastised for "misbehaving" within the confines of the old religion. Apologies for how it's affected peoples lives. The choices members made because The Workers's approval was paramount over personal good sense and internal guidance.
Yes, let's see some honesty here in these New Days of Revelation.
Guess that's what started people writing about the church on the internet in the first place. Looking for honesty and validation of their experiences.
|
|
|
Change
Oct 19, 2008 17:01:49 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Oct 19, 2008 17:01:49 GMT -5
Thanks for your very interesting response Dollface.
Reading through your response it seems as if our experiences in the 2X2 community were somewhat different and the circumstances under which we left the fellowship may also have been different. But you describe the changes in the practices of the community in a very interesting way.
I read your response as suggesting that the 2X2 community is like an organic entity that evolves over time (just as any other organic entity would be expected to do). I have never really thought of the observed changes in this context before. It is a very interesting perspective and I will need to think about it more.
Your response forces me to consider what I really mean by changes in the practices of the community.
In the extreme, the absence of any and all change since Jesus would require a dress code of tunics and sandals, transport by foot/donkey, communication by stylus and papyrus. I don't think that is what I had in mind. Alternatively another extreme would be a community that follows every popular culture fad. I don't thing that is what I had in mind either.
So in all honesty, your response almost makes me admit that I expect the community to remain exactly the same as I remember it in the 1950's! I bet I can't find any biblical justification for that expectation.
Thanks again, you have made me think!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Change
Oct 26, 2008 15:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 15:27:38 GMT -5
There was a time when the preaching about the "unchanging way" meant "unchanging legalisms" to the listeners. And, perhaps that was intended at the time to discourage outward change.
Today, "the unchanging way", "the same the world over" is no longer heard, or if it is, it's extremely rare.
Still, it remains true that Jesus is still the same. The thing is, He didn't preach legalisms and outward show, in fact He preached against it. I think the church is slowly coming to understand this, and are beginning to separate the non-changing essentials from the ever changing non-essentials.
|
|
|
Change
Oct 26, 2008 17:28:02 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Oct 26, 2008 17:28:02 GMT -5
Excellent response.
Thank you all very much.
Years ago there was a song called "Freeze-frame". I think that perhaps my view of the 2X2 fellowship is frozen (unrealistically) in a time that is no more.
|
|
|
Change
Oct 26, 2008 19:03:54 GMT -5
Post by lin on Oct 26, 2008 19:03:54 GMT -5
I believe several things have brought some changes for the good. one is the ease of travel. Friends and workers from all over the world are meeting together, either in the homes or in conventions. So the teaching is not so localized to what someone with seeming authority envisions. Also if Jesus is truly preached, you are going to see people that have a conviction of their own and a relationship that is between them and God. Spirit led people are not rule driven.
|
|
dchaplin
New Member
Innocent until proven guilty. Liberty and justice for all. Let forgiveness prevail!!!!
Posts: 34
|
Change
Oct 26, 2008 21:10:43 GMT -5
Post by dchaplin on Oct 26, 2008 21:10:43 GMT -5
yknot, just a quick thought or two. When I read your post, that hymn #16 Yesterday, Today Forever immediately came to my mind. The chorus says: Yesterday, today, forever, Jesus is the same; All may change, but Jesus never! Glory to his name. That is as true today as when you were a child growing up in this way. I believe it is the maturing of the bride of Christ, tradition has nothing to do with serving the Lord. It is about the Heart and not all that other stuff. If we are truly feeding on the Lamb that will be evident in our life. Jesus preached against the Hypocrisy of the Pharisee's, they were so caught up with the outward appearance of their service. Their dress and so on. All for now, Dave.
|
|
ddowdy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Change
Nov 11, 2008 13:14:35 GMT -5
Post by ddowdy on Nov 11, 2008 13:14:35 GMT -5
What an outstanding topic Ynot! Also, kudos to the many fine contributions to the thread.
I think, unfortunately that at its highest levels the 2x2 cult operates very much like a business. Through a combination of strict rules and guidelines along with enormous social pressure the cult's hierarchy is able to exert a great deal of control over the vast majority of followers. However, when the leadership of the cult begins to take notice of certain violations becoming more and more widespread (easy for them to do because they are living amongst the cult members) to the point that any specific rule or stricture is becoming either an issue or an impossibility (so far as enforcement), they (cult leaders) are quite adept at being very proactive and relaxing or easing aside the rule in question. Up until the present the cult's leadership has been exceptionally effective at accomplishing this without relinquishing almost any of the overall control they posess over their subjects.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2008 0:31:52 GMT -5
Post by pianoman on Nov 12, 2008 0:31:52 GMT -5
I think that there has been a mixing of spiritual, and natural "laws" that have brought so much dissension into the "truth". At the age of 60, I have seen workers that preached Jesus, and folks that followed, Jesus. I think that man's participation has changed from an emphasis on the spiritual to an emphasis on the "natural". Yes, the workers have, for the most part, departed from being servants, and have become the elite and that is the saints part. One that left the work lately, mentioned how that as the world changes, things of the spirit are bound to change. As has been mentioned, many things that are not "cool" now are ok and things that are new and fashionable are taboo. This is simply something that Jesus left alone. He said, "If you will follow me,... He never told people what to do, or else. We need to keep the spiritual things unchanged for we know the world will always be changing. Read the post of the week from Sapphire on Nov. 4th and you may get a better outlook of what I am trying to relay. Since Jesus never was involved in any political, or social happenings, maybe we need to leave those things out of our spiritual realm. Is the "truth" the same? Certainly not, but Jesus is still the same and wants the same. We need to find that and follow it, regardless of anything else. Nothing matters but salvation! Hope this helps as it helped me.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2008 7:20:07 GMT -5
Post by lin on Nov 12, 2008 7:20:07 GMT -5
There is a difference too in practices and doctrine. Doctrine is unchanging. Practices can change with time.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2008 7:45:31 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 12, 2008 7:45:31 GMT -5
There is a difference too in practices and doctrine. Doctrine is unchanging. Practices can change with time. I found that what is considered "doctrine" to some may not be considered "doctrine" to some others--instead, it's considered tradition and vv. What some consider "tradition" is considered by others to be "doctrine." A good question might be: What is the criteria for a practice or belief to be "doctrine" per the Bible?
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2008 8:29:41 GMT -5
Post by pianoman on Nov 12, 2008 8:29:41 GMT -5
Doctrine per the Bible is the only thing that counts, for even Christ said, "this is not my doctrine, but my Father's". If we are sincere and truly search the scripture, and then God will lay on our hearts what doctrine he wants us to know and follow. I know that David ate the Shew bread, but that did not become practice or change doctrine. I believe that the doctrine must remain unchanged, and it is there for those that are seeking. Cherie, you have it nailed. We need to remember that God has hidden things from people in the "mystery of the Gospel" as Christ said, "father I am thankful that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent..." So, I think that if we have the wrong motives for finding Doctrine, we will never find it, but a needy and humble heart will always find what they need. God's word is unchanging, but that and "our faith" (the 2x2) are not the same thing. The rules we all don't like, came from man and not from scripture. A lot of the rules are supposed to be derived from the scripture, but man is and always be man.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2008 21:54:27 GMT -5
Post by Brick on Nov 12, 2008 21:54:27 GMT -5
That church is gone. A new one has started. Actually, it is more like a quantum church. Two churches currently exist in the same place. The old and the new. Surprisingly, some of the old is actually part of the new.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 13, 2008 9:56:09 GMT -5
Post by lin on Nov 13, 2008 9:56:09 GMT -5
We need to remember that God has hidden things from people in the "mystery of the Gospel" as Christ said, "father I am thankful that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent..." So, I think that if we have the wrong motives for finding Doctrine, we will never find it, but a needy and humble heart will always find what they need. God's word is unchanging, but that and "our faith" (the 2x2) are not the same thing. The rules we all don't like, came from man and not from scripture. A lot of the rules are supposed to be derived from the scripture, but man is and always be man. Pianoman: I liked what you said about motives for finding doctrine. Could you elaborate a little?
|
|
|
Change
Nov 13, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5
Post by lin on Nov 13, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5
Hebrews 6:1&2 tell us the principles of doctrine.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 4:56:53 GMT -5
Post by otto2 on Nov 14, 2008 4:56:53 GMT -5
The problem I have with too much doctrine; is that I usually require someone else to explain it all to me, and then if I'm not careful I'm following someone else's rules. Those rules can then, over time deviate from the true gospel. I like to think of serving God as being like looking after one's elderly and infirm parents. Lets assume that they're quite rich! We should look after them because we love them; and because of what they have done for us, and of course to do that we need to understand and appreciate what it is that they have done for us. If we do this we may well find that they leave us some of their wealth as our inheritance. However if we look after them in order to inherit their wealth, ie: we feed them and clean them up and nurse them etc, then that would be like following a set of rules, a behaviour pattern which we believe will cause then to leave us their money in their will. To an outsider looking in, the two types of behaviour would look very similar, almost identical in fact; but the motives of the heart would be quite different. So if we love God with a pure motive I believe we will find ourselves following the right track. I enjoyed this sermon by John Piper on how exactly we should be living (I don't think it contradicts what I've written above!!) It's on Hebrews 12:1-2 ' Therefore, since we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.' He's saying that if we were to run in a race to win, we would not expect to carry a load of extra stuff with us. That stuff my not be directly sinful; but it's not helpful to us winning the race. It slows us down. Some of the stuff we wish to carry will be different from person to person, therefore it's not possible to legislate with rules. If we have pure motives we will run the race unencumbered. www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1997/1005_Running_with_the_Witnesses/
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 8:56:32 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Nov 14, 2008 8:56:32 GMT -5
I fear this thread has gone off track and before I comment on the last post, I want to thank everyone for their insight and comments on this topic. By reading through these comments, I am beginning to think of the experiences of my youth as good and special memories but regretfully those memories are shallow and superficial with respect to meaningful spirituality. These thoughts make me sad but realistic as to the spiritual needs that should occupy my efforts going forward. Thank you all, the spirit of your responses has been edifying.
I must, however, comment on the last post (even though my post will be off topic) because I had such a sharp reaction as I read it.
My reaction: "My gracious, how Christianity has changed since last I looked!"
I must be missing something, but I read the entire post as suggesting that we do good so that we get something in return! Is this what everyone believes now-a-days? Is it the money that decides whether or how we take care of parents in their infirmity? Do we run the race because of what someone gives us as a prize at the end? Wow, that is a whole different take on Christianity than I have ever known.
In the spirituality, I seek, we give succor to those in need because they are in need, period.
Whatever may or may not come before or after is irrelevant in my theology. What am I missing here folks? Start a new thread somewhere, anywhere but please someone give me hope that we are good and ethical people for some reason other than winning a prize!
Let me ask Otto2 directly: "Otto2, how would your analogy have changed if you had said 'Lets assume that they're dirt poor' referring to elderly parents?"
Moderators, please accept my apology for violating thread rules, I just don't know how to move the thread and keep the discussion momentum.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 12:10:46 GMT -5
Post by emy on Nov 14, 2008 12:10:46 GMT -5
Yknot, I read the meaning of Otto's post directly opposite. I read him to say that the right motive for elder care would be the love we have for them. Just as the right motive for serving, obeying, following Christ would be our love.
This statement in particular stood out to me:
It seems like it would apply to people who believe the f&w fellowship are doing something to "earn" a reward, when in fact many - probably most - are doing it all out of love.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 12:44:51 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Nov 14, 2008 12:44:51 GMT -5
I will certainly concede my error of interpretation.
I simply have no concept of the relevance of riches or inheritance if we "are doing it all out of love."
Surely I am missing something because for me ANY reference to riches or inheritance represents an 'entanglement' that interferes with selfless expressions of love and compassion.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 13:28:58 GMT -5
Post by otto2 on Nov 14, 2008 13:28:58 GMT -5
I must apologise to you yknot for my post causing you so much concern. It is indeed a flawed illustration as the point I was trying to make simply doesn't work if the parents were poor.
My point was indeed as emy has suggested; and I am grateful to her for her post. It was that on the outside our behaviour can look the same; but inwardly our motive can be very different, as in: I go to church, I read my bible, I pray, I try and do good to others etc etc, and because of this I hope to receive my reward in heaven. Alterternatively, I recognise the great sacrifice that my Lord has made for me, and I appreciate the great love he has for me; and what he has done. I therefore seek to obey him and do his will out of sheer gratitude, and I find myself doing all the above things because of that. Yet from the outside the two behaviours may look the same. My attempt at the link to the thread was along the lines of, the 2x2 practices of no TV, long hair, meetings in the home etc etc were perhaps in the category of deeds done in order to acheive the reward.
Apologies for the confusion and for going somewhat off thread. I'll delete the posts if you prefer yknot.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 14:42:57 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Nov 14, 2008 14:42:57 GMT -5
No apologies necessary. I think I understand the point you are trying to make. My only concern about the tropic drift relateds to the the rules of this sub-board as set by the moderators.
The basis for my confusion rests in my inability to grasp the significance of being concerned about how others view my behaviour. I am incapable (thankfully) of controlling how others interpret my behaviour. I can only strive each day to live my life mindfully with an understanding and open heart.
I suspect we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 16:47:28 GMT -5
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 14, 2008 16:47:28 GMT -5
yknot, I want to congratulate you on starting this topic. Here there is a meaningful and useful exchange. Otto2, I am pleased that you listen to John Piper. I enjoy his preaching of relevant Bible truth. Keep the exchange flowing, I am finding some useful ideas for my research.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 17:48:38 GMT -5
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 14, 2008 17:48:38 GMT -5
Moderators, please accept my apology for violating thread rules, I just don't know how to move the thread and keep the discussion momentum.No problem. This is just expanding on the original topic here. There is no violation of rules. The purpose of the board is to stimulate conversation and discussion, and that is happening. The title says it is for 'Workers and Friends'. ('Friends' can be interpreted a couple of ways.... and I like to think that most people who are discussing in this manner are doing so in a 'friendly' manner) I understand both of your points here by the way, and you are both right in my opinion. I believe that otto2 is simply saying that others may not see what we are doing as 'right' or interpret our actions differently from what they truly are. You on the other hand are saying that you don't worry what others think, it is what you know in your heart that matters. Both good points in my belief, and actually saying the same thing! (and of course I may be wrong in how I am interpreting this exchange.....) Scott
|
|
|
Change
Nov 14, 2008 18:30:41 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Nov 14, 2008 18:30:41 GMT -5
Thanks Scott.
Just to clarify, it is not that I don't worry what others think, it is just that I accept that I can't 'control' what others think (as I said, that is a GOOD thing!)
|
|
|
Change
Nov 15, 2008 13:28:43 GMT -5
Post by pianoman on Nov 15, 2008 13:28:43 GMT -5
Scott, If I am interpreting what you are interpreting, what otto2 was interpreting what, F&W's were interpreting, I may be interpreting all of this from a different or contrary perspective. The point is the word "interpreting". When we trust what God lays on our hearts, we need to search the scriptures for anything close and I don't feel that we can go astray on that point. When we listen to others, we need to realize that they may have received a wonderful Revelation, but in trying to pass that on, they just don't get it out right. How many times have we tried to explain something only to be criticized because we don't get it just right. I think that sometimes God reveals things to us and we only need to respond with action, not words and that is hard to "Miss-spell" , an action. I don't think I should try to explain any more on the subject as I am starting that journey that leads you into stress full thinking and walking in circles. Hopefully people will see the humor and simplicity in this, as no one can really explain doctrine. That is something we all need to experience.
|
|