|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 15:03:23 GMT -5
That's a good question, emerald. I have been asking myself why I do care. I don't care about creating a good impression. It will be what it will be, and as an ex-member it's no longer a direct concern of mine. I do care that in the process of creating an impression, whatsoever it may be, that the players play fair, and the impression is an honest and truthful one. Using a "back door" archaic definition of the word 'cult', then telling all the world under the imprimatur of Queen's University Belfast, that the friends and workers are a 'cult', strikes me as misguided at best, malevolent at worst. How about all the books and websites that list it under a cult, or is it just Grey who you are obsessed with? No I'm obsessed with all of them. And not only the friends, but all books and websites that refer to non-Trinitarian churches such as the UUs, Mormons, JWs and other groups as cults. I'm particularly concerned with the so-called Counter Cult Movement who actively promote against any non-orthodox religious group. You can read about them here - www.religioustolerance.org/ccm.htm
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 1, 2011 15:07:12 GMT -5
The definition given by irvoinegrey is “its modern or current” theological definition. Let's examine this statement about the modern theological definition of a cult. From the original post: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture.The first portion of this definition appears to be written in an article by Charles Braden in 1949. Not exactly modern. From a book published in 2003 that calls Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Mormonism cults: www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cults-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2/?tag=rayprit-20No obvious reference source. Perhaps it would help to read Steve Bruce's definition of cult in Religion in the Modern World published by Oxford Press. He even mentions the 2x2s in this book. The other definition published here in 1996 seems to be a sociological definition rather than a theological definition of a cult. I've got the book on order from a library, so it will be a few days before I can confirm whether Steve Bruce's definition matches the one in the original post.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 15:08:16 GMT -5
Is it possible that some exes reject the word cult to describe the 2x2, because they thought they were too smart to get hookwinked into a cult.....but found they weren't?
....Just asking.....is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 1, 2011 15:13:56 GMT -5
How about all the books and websites that list it under a cult, or is it just Grey who you are obsessed with? No I'm obsessed with all of them. And not only the friends, but all books and websites that refer to non-Trinitarian churches such as the UUs, Mormons, JWs and other groups as cults. I'm particularly concerned with the so-called Counter Cult Movement who actively promote against any non-orthodox religious group. You can read about them here - www.religioustolerance.org/ccm.htmSo you agree with a group which promotes religious tolerance. All roads lead to God. I thought you were a Christian but maybe i was wrong. Grey's research is written from a theological perspective. You stick to your non Christan bias and let Grey stick to his. You seem to limit cults to non-trinitarian churches. This does not define a group as a cult and nor do I see it as a defining character in cult literature. One of the defining factors of these groups however, is that they see themselves as the true church and the only way to God, not whether they are non-Trinitarian. The notion of these groups is brain washing and lying to its members in order to get their members to believe this. Yes, Christianity as a whole tells people that it is the only way, but it does not cross the threshold of brainwashing like these "we are the only way" churches do.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 1, 2011 15:16:31 GMT -5
Is it possible that some exes reject the word cult to describe the 2x2, because they thought they were too smart to get hookwinked into a cult.....but found they weren't? ....Just asking.....is that possible? Excellent observaton. People have expressed exactly that, especially those who joined as adults.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 15:19:39 GMT -5
I have been dating the definition by when it was in vogue. No layman today would define a cult against a baseline of "normative expressions of religion in our total culture". It's difficult in today's multicultural secular world to even say what is normative in terms of religion. 100 years ago, "normative" in the British Isles meant either Church of England or Catholic, and this definition was commonly used to identify "cults". So this is why I say the definition is archaic; it no longer holds. Today most people do not define cults in theological terms. Many people have little grasp of church doctrine, let alone a grasp or consensus of what might be considered "normative". I think the essay I posted from religioustolerance.org is a more realistic definition or framework for defining what a "cult" is.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 15:23:54 GMT -5
Is it possible that some exes reject the word cult to describe the 2x2, because they thought they were too smart to get hookwinked into a cult.....but found they weren't? ....Just asking.....is that possible? Hmmm. You might be on to something. Exploring deep subconscious. Nope, no problems there that have surfaced at this time. You might try the alternative hypothesis that I am a closet worker clone.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 15:34:52 GMT -5
No I'm obsessed with all of them. And not only the friends, but all books and websites that refer to non-Trinitarian churches such as the UUs, Mormons, JWs and other groups as cults. I'm particularly concerned with the so-called Counter Cult Movement who actively promote against any non-orthodox religious group. You can read about them here - www.religioustolerance.org/ccm.htmSo you agree with a group which promotes religious tolerance. All roads lead to God. I thought you were a Christian but maybe i was wrong. Grey's research is written from a theological perspective. You stick to your non Christan bias and let Grey stick to his. You seem to limit cults to non-trinitarian churches. This does not define a group as a cult and nor do I see it as a defining character in cult literature. One of the defining factors of these groups however, is that they see themselves as the true church and the only way to God, not whether they are non-Trinitarian. The notion of these groups is brain washing and lying to its members in order to get their members to believe this. Yes, Christianity as a whole tells people that it is the only way, but it does not cross the threshold of brainwashing like these "we are the only way" churches do. The traditional notion of a 'cult' and the one that both the CCM and Irvine Grey are referencing is basically this: any non-Trinitarian movement is a cult, because Trinitarian = normative. It's a definition that has provided good job security for the clergy, if you want to be cynical about it. The idea of a 'cult' that you are describing .. based on misdeeds and socially repugnant behaviour regardless of the theology involved .. is a more modern one. That's the kind of definition that I prefer seeing used. The bone of contention between you (believer) and I is probably this: how socially repugnant should the behaviour be, before we call a cult a cult. But that's a side issue and not my concern with Irvine Grey's definition.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 15:38:39 GMT -5
Why bother defining who is or is not a cult? What is the gain in engaging in judgmental carnal works like that? Treasure in Heaven? Do carnal works like that earn salvation?
Judgment and condemnation is inherent when applying the cult label. No way around it. But judging and condemning your neighbor is not one of the commandments;
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Love 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
Yet what we see all to often are people pre-emptively and subjectively judging and condemning others and in so doing becoming exactly what they're judging and condemning! Just like the man looking in a glass and straightway forgets what manner of man he is.
Flat out bizarre. No wonder Paul reminded us "are ye not yet carnal" - that kind of judgment and condemnation is born of the carnal not the Spirit. And there is no condemnation to those who seek to walk after the Spirit - none. That is because the work of the Spirit is perfect - the Spirit's work cannot be less than perfect. So carnal condemnation of any who walk after the Spirit is of no ultimate effect. That again begs the question, why go there?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 1, 2011 15:46:48 GMT -5
Why bother defining who is or is not a cult? What is the gain in engaging in judgmental carnal works like that? Treasure in Heaven? Do carnal works like that earn salvation? Judgment and condemnation and is inherent when applying the cult label. No way around it. But judging and condemning your neighbor is not one of the commandments; 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love 'em all and let God sort 'em out! In spite of that what we see is people pre-emptively and subjectively judging and condemning others and in so doing become exactly what they're judging and condemning! Just like the man looking in a glass and straightway forgets what manner of man he is. Flat out bizarre. Maybe you should start in your own house. I sat in many meetings hearing workers preach against churches and the clergy.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 1, 2011 15:47:38 GMT -5
The traditional notion of a 'cult' and the one that both the CCM and Irvine Grey are referencing is basically this: any non-Trinitarian movement is a cult, because Trinitarian = normative. It's a definition that has provided good job security for the clergy, if you want to be cynical about it. There are clergy on both sides of the Trinitarian fence.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 15:52:48 GMT -5
Well, Irvine Grey has posed the concern as to how to address accusations or questions of whether the f&w are a cult. My suggestion is to keep the religious tolerance essay on cults handy. It has served me well over the course of a few years. I post it almost as often as Nathan's description of the Valdois.
I don't think there is any defence for the friends in trying to show that their theology conforms to normative notions of Christianity. But even if such an examination showed that they did conform, what of it? Some people would still say it was a cult based on their perception of negative social behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 15:52:56 GMT -5
Maybe you should start in your own house. Read my edit, it's what I advocate. It's nothing new for me and my house either. Irvine Grey can quote that.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 15:59:32 GMT -5
Whether Edy, believer, etc wish to admit it or not it the word 'cult' has negative connotations.... and that actually is why they like to use word describing the fellowship! They choose to ignore impartial respected sources already quoted that confirm that the use of the word is incorrectly used to describe the '2x2' fellowship. If Irvine Grey has any wish to be looked to and respected as an impartial researcher he will drop his use of the word. If he doesn't then exes like 'what' will know they have been correct in raising the concerns that they have. noels, I wondered when you would show up....about time! I would like you to also visit the thread "What I Believed". Have you visited any "cult recovery" websites lately? I thought not! You will find the people who appeal for such help with cult recovery are from such churches such as yours. With the damage they are dealing with, I can guaran-damn-tee you that THEY agree with your conclustion the word CULT is very, very negative! They have experienced it first hand. And, YES, some of those folks are from your church, along with Mormons, JW's, COG, Amish, etc., etc. They have felt and personally experienced the issues that make a cult a cult in this day an age......accepted language usage or not! what was not born and raised in this group as far as I remember. He hasn't experienced having his childhood robbed from him and being in a world where we seldom fit in after leaving the cult! So until you experience what we have, you really can't speak to the issue. I completely agree with you, noels, that cult is a very negative word in our world.....and I intend to continue using it to describe your church as long as I see my own family painfully strewn around and serious divisions because of it!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 16:00:22 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Nov 1, 2011 16:04:25 GMT -5
I quickly went through the whole thread before replying. I then read the Wikipedia (WP) entries for cult and sect ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect). I understand the debate about the use of the term «cult». In fact WP clarifies the issue as follows: In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.[13][14] Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture. Some began to advocate the use of new terms like "new religious movement", "alternative religion" or "novel religion" to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as "cults",[15] yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the word as one fit for neutral academic discourse,[16] while researchers aligned with the Anti-cult movement have attempted to reduce the negative connotations being associated with all such groups by classifying only some as "destructive cults".I have been a (rather prominent) member of the 2x2 for several years (though never a worker) and I do believe that the 2x2's are a more or less non destructive cult (although some of the workers have certainly caused a lot of damage in CSA and other sexual type scandals). I also consider the 2x2s a sect, as they in fact are an organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. And because they consider themselves as very different and unique from the rest of the Christian denominations, although the historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, I do believe that the term does apply to the 2x2s as they consider themselves a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox. More details available at request ...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 16:06:34 GMT -5
Maybe you should start in your own house. I sat in many meetings hearing workers preach against churches and the clergy. What about your house? Does the timless fact that carnal man has always preached against his fellow man give you the justification to preach they are a cult?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 16:08:09 GMT -5
Of course, noels....I absolutely admit that I think your church is a cult of the negative kind!
And the most dispicable are those who promote it, and even "make their living" at doing so! Can you admit that is where your "living" comes from? I doubt it!
In IG's opening he said HE was not giving it a negative connotation....or did you miss that? So now the thread is about me? Not what IG asked?
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 16:15:58 GMT -5
One more point Irvine since you just mentioned Legge, when evaluating what's been published about the friends and workers pay attention to what clearly has an apostate-turned-counter-advocate flavor vs what's written from a more unbiased point of view. Watch how much the obvious counter advocates cross quote each other, note how much of the counter advocacy doctrine can be traced back to the root of 2x2 counter advocacy, the Impartial Reporter or the article in Heresies Exposed. Endless quoting, cross quoting, and re-quoting something like "they claim" "they believe" etc does not make what's being quoted, cross quoted, and requoted objectively true. Case in point is the Through the Desert in a Cult with No Name article. It was so bad that one of the most vehement protesters was an exe! The counter advocacy does itself no favors by preaching a dogma that is that far removed from reality. And now you are running in to the side effects - friends and workers who won't be bothered to contact you. So then JL, which one are you talking about in your post? Who is your “ex” that you are grinding upon to this day like an old axe? You have shown that you are dedicated to naming those YOU decide are wrong, so what’s holding you from your usual arrogant practice now – provably no supporting evidence for your claims perhaps? Our author responds: The sources for this article are good and solid. One of the many sources I used is The Church Without a Name, a book by ------ -------, who is also a former member. She differs with the other former No Names member who asked for a clarification. Given the loose organization of the No Names, I feel that ex-No Names members have many varied experiences and therefore have different opinions. -------- ------- calls what happens within the No Names mind control. I can only conclude that the person asking for a clarification was looking for an article closer to their own subjective experience rather than the broader article I wrote. To say that the article was not well researched would not be a true statement. Ken Armstrong, Grants Pass, Oregon Where YOU the one asking for “clarification” JL? And perhaps because you did not get what you wanted to soften the blow, you are still grinding your axe against the author? You brought this up, and I checked it out because you once again provided NO supporting evidence for your attack against the article. And I saw NO " vehement protesters was an exe!" there -- go have a look for some evidence for a change, huh?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 16:18:11 GMT -5
I quickly went through the whole thread before replying. I then read the Wikipedia (WP) entries for cult and sect ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect). I understand the debate about the use of the term «cult». In fact WP clarifies the issue as follows: In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.[13][14] Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture. Some began to advocate the use of new terms like "new religious movement", "alternative religion" or "novel religion" to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as "cults",[15] yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the word as one fit for neutral academic discourse,[16] while researchers aligned with the Anti-cult movement have attempted to reduce the negative connotations being associated with all such groups by classifying only some as "destructive cults".I have been a (rather prominent) member of the 2x2 for several years (though never a worker) and I do believe that the 2x2's are a more or less non destructive cult (although some of the workers have certainly caused a lot of damage in CSA and other sexual type scandals). I also consider the 2x2s a sect, as they in fact are an organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. And because they consider themselves as very different and unique from the rest of the Christian denominations, although the historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, I do believe that the term does apply to the 2x2s as they consider themselves a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox. More details available at request ... Thanks for that post, as it generates a little more light than heat on the subject. I'm personally quite comfortable with the term sect in a theological context. It doesn't come with all the baggage of the other term. Your post certainly establishes the importance of coming to terms in an academic inquiry on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 16:21:37 GMT -5
Of course, noels....I absolutely admit that I think your church is a cult of the negative kind! And the most dispicable are those who promote it, and even "make their living" at doing so! Can you admit that is where your "living" comes from? I doubt it! In IG's opening he said HE was not giving it a negative connotation....or did you miss that? So now the thread is about me? Not what IG asked? IG did say that. But I don't see how he can withdraw the negative connotation of the word simply through his own good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 16:23:04 GMT -5
Of course, noels....I absolutely admit that I think your church is a cult of the negative kind! And the most dispicable are those who promote it, and even "make their living" at doing so! Can you admit that is where your "living" comes from? I doubt it! In IG's opening he said HE was not giving it a negative connotation....or did you miss that? So now the thread is about me? Not what IG asked? You have expressed your thoughts and opinions and that is what is forum is for! The pat on the head was nice. My thoughts and opinions? OH! I see you didn't notice that I also asked you some questions. But, as usual, you don't "have to answer" if you don't feel like it. I guess that is also what the Board if for! noels ignoring the challenges of the exes, or being sarcastic in public but soft and sweet as a kitten in PM's!
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 16:24:30 GMT -5
Is it possible that some exes reject the word cult to describe the 2x2, because they thought they were too smart to get hookwinked into a cult.....but found they weren't? ....Just asking.....is that possible? Hmmm. You might be on to something. Exploring deep subconscious. Nope, no problems there that have surfaced at this time. You might try the alternative hypothesis that I am a closet worker clone. Not likely to check out that alternative....I know your wife
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 16:28:11 GMT -5
Noels, far better that he gives a clear understanding of what he means by the term "cult" and provides the reasons as to why he uses the term!
Assuming he has a sound foundation upon which he uses the term as he understands it, this would be a far greater indicator of impartiality and fairness than abandoning the term, which would be an indicator of bias on his behalf if he holds information which supports his definition of a cult!
If he has no sound basis which would justify his use of the term, then he should abandon it.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 16:31:14 GMT -5
To put an end ot the speculation my first definition is Braden's cited in Walter Martin's, The Kingdom of the Cults, page 11. (The 2x2s are not mentioned!)The other is from The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A Elwell.
At this stage I neither agree nor will I defend David Legge's statement. I purely quoted it as an example of what has been published. I must reach my own conclusions based on the evidence and was hoping this thread might provide some. The difference is that Legge's conclusion appears in a book that he authors and I guess apart from the normal legal guidelines has no other accountability. I know David and I am fairly sure that he holds a Bachelor of Divinity from Queens. He is well regarded in Northern Ireland as an evangelist and Bible teacher.
If I were to draw the same conclusion I would have to satisfy, my university supervisor, an internal examiner and an external examiner brought in from another university. You will understand that any view and conclusions reached in my thesis have got to be justified.From the outset I never made a secret of the fact that I am an evangelical Christian but there is no reason why this should conflict with my research.
As Jesse has suggested, and he and I have exchanged pms before now, you may feel more comfortable passing your views to me on a pm or if you feel very daring you could email me: irivnegrey@yahoo.co.uk.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 16:39:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 16:42:18 GMT -5
To put an end ot the speculation my first definition is Braden's cited in Walter Martin's, The Kingdom of the Cults, page 11. (The 2x2s are not mentioned!)The other is from The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A Elwell. At this stage I neither agree nor will I defend David Legge's statement. I purely quoted it as an example of what has been published. I must reach my own conclusions based on the evidence and was hoping this thread might provide some. The difference is that Legge's conclusion appears in a book that he authors and I guess apart from the normal legal guidelines has no other accountability. I know David and I am fairly sure that he holds a Bachelor of Divinity from Queens. He is well regarded in Northern Ireland as an evangelist and Bible teacher. If I were to draw the same conclusion I would have to satisfy, my university supervisor, an internal examiner and an external examiner brought in from another university. You will understand that any view and conclusions reached in my thesis have got to be justified.From the outset I never made a secret of the fact that I am an evangelical Christian but there is no reason why this should conflict with my research. As Jesse has suggested, and he and I have exchanged pms before now, you may feel more comfortable passing your views to me on a pm or if you feel very daring you could email me: irivnegrey@yahoo.co.uk. I am quite confused about Queens now. Is it a seminary or an Institute of Theology or a liberal arts college? In any case, in our country, evangelists and preachers aren't used as academic sources. They might be used as primary text for the purpose of critical evaluation. With all respect, Martin's book also does not strike me as an academic work. www.waltermartin.com/cults.htmlAre you working for an institution that is sponsored by a specific denomination by any chance? Mr. Grey on your web site you say that you are doing "postgraduate research for a Master of Philosophy at Queen’s University". Then it turns out that you are actually at the Institute of Theology, not at the university at large, and now I suspect at a specific church-run college. Should this not be fully disclosed? It is material to my own analysis whether your thesis is coming from a secular or a denomination-run school, and would account for your choice of works in defining your terms. Incidentally, you could have avoided the speculation by properly citing your sources in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 17:00:27 GMT -5
My dear What ou seem to have a very narrow view of what defines an academic. An theology academic is not one who necessarily pursues academic research and work only but may also be involved as Legge is as an evangelist and Bible Teacher. I don't think David would class himself as an academic but he has ability as a writer. As for Martin he has four degrees with his doctorate from California Coast University. How that rates I would not have a clue.
When you say your country which I understand to be the US men such as John Piper, a pastor in Bethlehem Minneapolis can stand alongside any college academic with his Th.D. from Munich and has written many books that are on the reading list of many British University theology faculties.
Queens is a university and since you have been on their website I am sure you will have noted that they are an well established university, highly respected in many disciplines, especially medicine and engineering (as well as theology!)
I can assure you that I am neither sponsored by or under the auspices of any religious organisation. I look upon my research as a labour of love!
|
|