|
Post by placid-void on Apr 16, 2012 16:13:30 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be the case, but it often is the case. Many churches to me are off in the wrong direction. A major element of their focus is essentially to be a social club. So instead of making a difference, either materially or spiritually, they put their mindshare and their money into buildings, worship, even gymnasiums and other trappings for their members. They build a small self-contained box that is their "club". Of course, that's not all they do. But often the things they do that are outward-facing into the world, are just tokenism. I have been attending a local church that is not like that. They rent a meeting room at the local rec complex. They are intentional toward social issues, and helping in the inner city, and also helping new Canadians. Lots of other things they're active with. That's a church that I am interested in. They have the money for a building, but the leaders do not want to build a conventional church building. They may never build or if they do, it'll be downtown and serve people in need. Here's another example. My cousin in western Canada has worked with YWAM for many years. They used to run a resort ranch where people could attend Bible classes, attend a retreat, or train to be religious leaders and facillitators. The entire team decided to leave the ranch, and move to a town of 10,000 people where they could make a tangible difference. They run a restaurant/ coffee shop and just "get into" the community. They still do the other things too, but they felt out on the ranch they were too isolated. I have visited various congregations all over the country .. these days when we visit with people I like to worship with them, and I greatly enjoy it. But many churches seem to be out of step in the same way the friends are. They are too inward focused. And I think that is why they are losing people, because it's out of touch with the need that is in the world right now. What, I truly admire your commitment to active and visible compassion towards those less fortunate, as taught by Jesus. I notice, however, that you identify religious organizations that do not share your passion for explicit manifestations of compassion as being “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused”. Would you expound on these points a little further? Would you be willing to compare and contrast two fictitious individuals? Individual A is a member of a Christian church that teaches the ministry of Jesus including the message of compassion and also lives that message by actively participating in the welfare of their community by explicitly engaging in social issues and the needs of people in the inner city. Individual B is a member of a Christian church that teaches the ministry of Jesus including the message of compassion. Individual B reflects on these teachings and internalizes them such that he/she becomes a sincere and compassionate person. Individual B then makes the personal choice and decision to engage social issues and the problem of world hunger by taking an active role in ‘Action Against Hunger’. If the Christian church attended by Individual B had successfully raised that individual’s “spiritual consciousness” to the point of personal commitment, by what criteria would one judge that church as being “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused”? Is there greater Christian merit in the compassion of a collective than in the mere compassion of a sincere individual? These questions are asked with the full knowledge that it is very difficult for an outside person to measure and judge the merits of an individual’s compassion. It is easier to measure the collective merits of a group where the individual is subsumed by the group and contributions are presumed to be “equally” distributed among all members.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 17:47:20 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be the case, but it often is the case. Many churches to me are off in the wrong direction. A major element of their focus is essentially to be a social club. So instead of making a difference, either materially or spiritually, they put their mindshare and their money into buildings, worship, even gymnasiums and other trappings for their members. They build a small self-contained box that is their "club". Of course, that's not all they do. But often the things they do that are outward-facing into the world, are just tokenism. I have been attending a local church that is not like that. They rent a meeting room at the local rec complex. They are intentional toward social issues, and helping in the inner city, and also helping new Canadians. Lots of other things they're active with. That's a church that I am interested in. They have the money for a building, but the leaders do not want to build a conventional church building. They may never build or if they do, it'll be downtown and serve people in need. Here's another example. My cousin in western Canada has worked with YWAM for many years. They used to run a resort ranch where people could attend Bible classes, attend a retreat, or train to be religious leaders and facillitators. The entire team decided to leave the ranch, and move to a town of 10,000 people where they could make a tangible difference. They run a restaurant/ coffee shop and just "get into" the community. They still do the other things too, but they felt out on the ranch they were too isolated. I have visited various congregations all over the country .. these days when we visit with people I like to worship with them, and I greatly enjoy it. But many churches seem to be out of step in the same way the friends are. They are too inward focused. And I think that is why they are losing people, because it's out of touch with the need that is in the world right now. What, I truly admire your commitment to active and visible compassion towards those less fortunate, as taught by Jesus. I notice, however, that you identify religious organizations that do not share your passion for explicit manifestations of compassion as being “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused”. Would you expound on these points a little further? Would you be willing to compare and contrast two fictitious individuals? Individual A is a member of a Christian church that teaches the ministry of Jesus including the message of compassion and also lives that message by actively participating in the welfare of their community by explicitly engaging in social issues and the needs of people in the inner city. Individual B is a member of a Christian church that teaches the ministry of Jesus including the message of compassion. Individual B reflects on these teachings and internalizes them such that he/she becomes a sincere and compassionate person. Individual B then makes the personal choice and decision to engage social issues and the problem of world hunger by taking an active role in ‘Action Against Hunger’. If the Christian church attended by Individual B had successfully raised that individual’s “spiritual consciousness” to the point of personal commitment, by what criteria would one judge that church as being “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused”? Is there greater Christian merit in the compassion of a collective than in the mere compassion of a sincere individual? These questions are asked with the full knowledge that it is very difficult for an outside person to measure and judge the merits of an individual’s compassion. It is easier to measure the collective merits of a group where the individual is subsumed by the group and contributions are presumed to be “equally” distributed among all members. You will have noticed that I didn't actually name any church in my description. So, the ones that are “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused” are simply the ones that are “off in the wrong direction”, engaged in “just tokenism”, “out of step” and “too inward focused”. Matthew 25: 35 to 46 might be helpful on this subject. I suppose though that the issue is not with what many churches don't do, but with what they do do, which in many cases strikes me personally as wasted and pointless effort. My assessment is not based on what individuals do or feel, but on what different churches, denominations, missions, charities, groups and organizations offer. It took me a little while to understand what you meant with the two examples, 'A' and 'B'. So I'll rehash what I believe you are asking. Church 'A' facilitates compassion actively and directly through specific works. Church 'B' stresses compassion through personal development but leaves the acts up to the individual. You are asking me which is better. I would say that all things work together for good to those that love and fear God's name. Why do I have to choose 'A' or 'B'? Why not do both. Why not participate, support or engage as the Spirit might guide one. There are many ministries, many charities, many organizations that one could participate with or in, simultaneously. Some work on the soul directly, some on personal improvement, some on physical health, some on various intentional works. There is also the question of one's personal gifts and fitting in where you can fit in. But I'll make a couple of points. I'm reluctant to participate in an organization that wishes to monopolize all my time, energy and talent. Far too risky. And, we also have to assess the opportunities that come across our way, and the quality that I dislike in an organization is self-seeking. IOW, an organization whose primary goal appears to be to perpetuate itself, its buildings, its salaries, its overhead, its culture, its habits, and even some of its works, which can become just a form. An organization whose members have the marks of Jesus will live and work in active relation to the needs of humanity, and not just its own needs. But this is a very abstract standard. You can't "report card" organizations in any objective or overall way by this standard. As an individual all you can do is be "out there", and be Christ-centred, not just in terms of the church community, which is just one aspect of the total picture, after all, but in everything you do.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 16, 2012 18:43:16 GMT -5
For many, the shorter the handle, the better: Nameless Church; No-Name Church are other nicknames that have been applied to them that are shorter Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. Sold. I will now refer to the church without a name as the church without a name. Sort of like He Who Must Not be Named (Voldemort) in the Harry Potter book series. The church without a name is even more catchy than 2x2. I like it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 18:57:01 GMT -5
For many, the shorter the handle, the better: Nameless Church; No-Name Church are other nicknames that have been applied to them that are shorter Sold. I will now refer to the church without a name as the church without a name. Sort of like He Who Must Not be Named (Voldemort) in the Harry Potter book series. The church without a name is even more catchy than 2x2. I like it. Thanks! Remember the un-cola? How about the un-church. That's short. Actually, "the un-denomination" would be even better. They could have un-denominational gospel meetings.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 16, 2012 20:18:54 GMT -5
I've attended several ex-2x2 "unconventions."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 20:33:55 GMT -5
Having only the Bible (complete works) as your doctrine can be a very dangerous thing. You can use it to slay those whom are not of the same belief as yourself. Or like Solomon you can have.....how many was it? 800 wives? And as many concubines. I used to swallow the "only doctrine is the Bible" belief, but now it doesn't make sense. What did the "workers" in the first few centuries use for their doctrine, ie before the NT was written/compiled? What did the workers pre-King James use before the printing/translation of the NT? I think it is more appropriate to use: 1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and 2) To love your neighbour as yourself. Now there's a Bible that others will read! It is also sound doctrine! Furthermore, and very importantly, it is a nice, short list for Bert to compile! If the bolded sentence above is a complete thought, I think most believers would think it just as weird as workers saying "we have no doctrine". The bible is dangerous? I don't hear that very often from fundamentalist-leaning Christians! That said, I do agree with you. Many centuries have passed and many horrible crimes have been committed as a result of bible "doctrine", and there have been almost infinitely more arguments over meanings and interpretations of the bible. Some church systems have extra biblical writings and doctrines which are far more extensive than the bible itself in its attempt to explain and interpret the bible. So saying "the bible is our doctrine" will raise eyebrows from knowledgeable bible people. In fact, the widely accepted need for an extra-biblical written doctrine is actually a tacit admission of a failure of the bible to communicate sound doctrine with clarity. The bible is a complex document and often engulfs the simple and essential two doctrines that you cite.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 16, 2012 21:30:58 GMT -5
In fact, the widely accepted need for an extra-biblical written doctrine is actually a tacit admission of a failure of the bible to communicate sound doctrine with clarity. The bible didn't come into being until around 400 AD, so salvation doesn't hinge on it.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 16, 2012 21:42:40 GMT -5
In fact, the widely accepted need for an extra-biblical written doctrine is actually a tacit admission of a failure of the bible to communicate sound doctrine with clarity. The bible didn't come into being until around 400 AD, so salvation doesn't hinge on it. JO An excellent overlooked fact Thanks for the reminder ken
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 16, 2012 22:06:26 GMT -5
In fact, the widely accepted need for an extra-biblical written doctrine is actually a tacit admission of a failure of the bible to communicate sound doctrine with clarity. The bible didn't come into being until around 400 AD, so salvation doesn't hinge on it. Borrowed ... link below ... The first Christians were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42, 2 Timothy 1:14) long before the New Testament was written and centuries before the New Testament canon was settled. The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is preached (1 Peter 1:25), that the Apostles successors were to teach what they have heard (2 Timothy. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both by word of mouth [and] by letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corrithians 11:2).
Not everything Christ did is recorded in sacred Scripture (John 21:25). New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels. Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 1:20-21, 3:15-16).
Christ left a Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Matthew 16:13-20, 18:18; Luke 10:16). The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Churchs teaching from corruption (Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20; John 14:16).
The Church (and not the Bible alone) is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Bible does not refer to Scripture as the exclusive source of the Word of God. Jesus Himself is the Word (John 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thessolonians 2:13, St. Pauls first epistle, he refers to the Word of God which you heard from us. There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching: Tradition. www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/120254-growth-and-development-in-catholic-tradition-is-not-apostolic/page__st__40
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 17, 2012 0:18:49 GMT -5
Having only the Bible (complete works) as your doctrine can be a very dangerous thing. Now there's a statement for one of Bert's lists. Boy you sometimes come up with some far out comments at times. ;D How many times you have heard a worker say that it is ok to have more than one wife? There's another one for Bert. Here's an insight into how I think.... I figured that seeing we know about the first "workers", it is because the story is about them, and that is because they were actually there at the time, and if they were there, they didn't actually need to read about themselves, because they are them.... or something. Maybe you think differently to me though Probably used whatever language was available at the time. Funny you should mention this, because it happens to be in the Bible... the Bible that you said was a dangerous thing.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 17, 2012 0:32:59 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? Why is it that our footy group hasn't taken a name, when quite obviously it desperately needs one? It's one of life's mysteries... or not Our footy group doesn't take a name, but assumes a name when needed. Usually gets called things like "footy" or "the game". There is no problem really.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 17, 2012 0:37:10 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? Why is it that our footy group hasn't taken a name, when quite obviously it desperately needs one? It's one of life's mysteries... or not Our footy group doesn't take a name, but assumes a name when needed. Usually gets called things like "footy" or "the game". There is no problem really. Does your footie team have 100,000 members? Does your footie team send members out to proselytize to foreign countries? Does your footie team take in multi-millions of dollars in estate moneys each year? Does your footie team clandestinely own multi-millions of dollars worth of real estate? Have the members of your footie team molested children and been prosecuted because of it? If these happen within your footie team--then people may start talking about your footie team. And if they do start talking about your team--then they will probably come up with a name to make it easier for everyone to know which group they are referring to. Now--if you give them a name--"Todd's Team" they will probably use that name. But if you refuse to give them a name--they just might decide to refer to your footie team by whatever THEY find descriptive. Something like "those child-molesting, perverted, prevaricating friends of that dumb#** Todd" might satisfy them--yet leave you unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 17, 2012 1:45:38 GMT -5
Now--if you give them a name--"Todd's Team" they will probably use that name. So "William Irvine's Team" might work for us?
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 17, 2012 1:52:28 GMT -5
Now--if you give them a name--"Todd's Team" they will probably use that name. So "William Irvine's Team" might work for us? whatever you are happy with. my thought is just that when people talk about something--they are going to need a way to refer to it. And if you don't choose a name for yourselves--then outsiders may do it for you--and they may not choose something that you will be happy with.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 17, 2012 3:36:13 GMT -5
Why is it that our footy group hasn't taken a name, when quite obviously it desperately needs one? It's one of life's mysteries... or not Our footy group doesn't take a name, but assumes a name when needed. Usually gets called things like "footy" or "the game". There is no problem really. Does your footie team have 100,000 members? Does your footie team send members out to proselytize to foreign countries? Does your footie team take in multi-millions of dollars in estate moneys each year? Does your footie team clandestinely own multi-millions of dollars worth of real estate? Have the members of your footie team molested children and been prosecuted because of it? How many members are needed before a name is needed? Why does it make a difference? Are you aware that there ARE names given for the purpose of going into foreign countries? Are you aware that for bank accounts to be opened there MUST be a name on that bank account. Are you aware that for realestate to be owned there MUST be a name on the title? Are you aware that my footy group members are able to molest children regardless of whether there is a name or not? Yes, and to tell you the truth, I would half expect a name like that. Persecution will come even if we do try to stop it coming via the name we are called. Strangely enough, despite the fact that there are various names given to different governing bodies (and compliments to Cherie Kropp, it is relatively easy to find these names if a person wanted to), none of these names are commonly used on this forum. I guess it is a reflection of whether a person wants to be respectful or not. I'm not saying that 2x2 is really that disrespectful, except if a person is offended by it... and apparently some people are. Anyway, your choice to call us whatever you like. We'll probably work out what you mean, so it shouldn't be a drama.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 10:58:01 GMT -5
I'm not saying that 2x2 is really that disrespectful, except if a person is offended by it... and apparently some people are. Anyway, your choice to call us whatever you like. We'll probably work out what you mean, so it shouldn't be a drama. There we have it. Todd takes no offense in being called or labeled a 2x2, but some might. That pretty much addresses the subject. And yes, anyone is free to label or identify "the people that take no official name, but will assume a name for certain purposes and might appear to be a church or religious group who have gatherings in homes and farms and ranches" with whatever term strikes them as most identifiably descriptive.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 17, 2012 16:55:49 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? Why is it that our footy group hasn't taken a name, when quite obviously it desperately needs one? It's one of life's mysteries... or not Our footy group doesn't take a name, but assumes a name when needed. Usually gets called things like "footy" or "the game". There is no problem really. Funny thing. The 2x2s haven't needed a name to be noticed by others (and their ways commented upon and documented) by outsiders for over a century. Also, our not acknowledging the names given to the 2x2s hasn't kept other observers from noticing similarities in 2x2 behavior in other countries. So, it's a fun game. We ignore the names that the overseers give us. We ignore the names that outsiders give us. Still, we will be identified and named. I'm guessing this is something else we shouldn't do - name ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 17, 2012 17:28:16 GMT -5
JO wrote:
But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 17, 2012 17:40:55 GMT -5
JO wrote: But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/sarcasm] Emy, using sarcasm?....Tell me it is not so. And in spite of that I still don't know what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 18:05:31 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? Why is it that our footy group hasn't taken a name, when quite obviously it desperately needs one? It's one of life's mysteries... or not Our footy group doesn't take a name, but assumes a name when needed. Usually gets called things like "footy" or "the game". There is no problem really. Without the . . . color? . . . "The group does not need one for self-recognition, but some legalities require at least an assumed label/name for some limited recoginition."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 17, 2012 19:38:15 GMT -5
JO wrote: But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/sarcasm] Emy, using sarcasm?....Tell me it is not so. And in spite of that I still don't know what you are saying. Its lost on me too Fred. I guess our sense of humour and language use is different to the North Americans?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 19:53:07 GMT -5
JO wrote: But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/sarcasm] I think I've parsed this. Emy is saying that you haven't freed yourself of condemning others either. You give yourself a pass to condemn the wayward friends. (I suppose that none of us are free of that crucible in some way).
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 17, 2012 20:17:26 GMT -5
JO wrote: But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/irony] Emy, using sarcasm?....Tell me it is not so. And in spite of that I still don't know what you are saying. In researching the use of sarcasm (and what might be wrong with it) I decided that my statement was more like irony - so I changed it, but just in this post!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 17, 2012 20:18:32 GMT -5
JO wrote: But of course that would not include people who serve God but are wayward. Go ahead and condemn them. [/sarcasm] I think I've parsed this. Emy is saying that you haven't freed yourself of condemning others either. You give yourself a pass to condemn the wayward friends. (I suppose that none of us are free of that crucible in some way). Thank you, what. That's exactly it.
|
|
|
Post by lilwolfmisty on Apr 17, 2012 22:17:08 GMT -5
Thank you Cherie for providing a great site where people can read and make up their own minds.
I agree with you Clearday not having a name wastes valuable time when one is trying to identify if someone belongs to the group or not.
I have never been offended by the name 2X2, but when I was "in" the group I did get so tired expending the energy to say "we don't have a name but we follow the bible" instead of just being able to identify the group!
Also when I went to college I discovered that the Quakers also call themselves "friends" and other churches have conventions, so many things that are taught as they are the only ones supposedly doing it, a rude awakening for folks when they find that is not the case and start questioning everything they have ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 18, 2012 8:32:47 GMT -5
I agree with you Clearday not having a name wastes valuable time when one is trying to identify if someone belongs to the group or not. I used to "waste" the time telling people how I just follow Jesus, and maybe answering a few other "wasteful" questions about Jesus or his way. Boy this must have really drained you I wonder whether Jesus would prefer us to give the name of an earthly religion when asked about our faith, or would he prefer us to speak of him and what he has required of us. I'm sure you know the answer to this, and I am certain that Jesus wouldn't have thought it too much to ask of people to speak at least 2 or 3 sentences of him and our love for the truth, as energy sapping as that might be
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2012 8:40:31 GMT -5
I agree with you Clearday not having a name wastes valuable time when one is trying to identify if someone belongs to the group or not. I used to "waste" the time telling people how I just follow Jesus, and maybe answering a few other "wasteful" questions about Jesus or his way. Boy this must have really drained you I wonder whether Jesus would prefer us to give the name of an earthly religion when asked about our faith, or would he prefer us to speak of him and what he has required of us. I'm sure you know the answer to this, and I am certain that Jesus wouldn't have thought it too much to ask of people to speak at least 2 or 3 sentences of him and our love for the truth, as energy sapping as that might be Not having a "name" has the advantage of avoiding pigeonholing and stereotyping. It does afford the opportunity of explaining what you're about. But at other times it can be a nuisance; sometimes people can do without the sermon. Actually, saying "we don't officially have a name but a lot of people call us xyz" allows you to play it either way depending on the occasion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2012 8:42:28 GMT -5
From another thread I noticed the name "Christian Conventions" on a historical document. Orginally, the wikipedia article was written under "Christian Conventions" and later changed to "2x2"s.
It's a much better name, but it won't ever stick. It's not suitably derisory for the foes of the friends as it contains the word 'Christian', and church ministry would never endorse the name on anything other than a formal government petition. So although it's a good name, no one in either camp is going to advocate it.
|
|