|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 23, 2013 2:32:56 GMT -5
Very interesting article. "Cult" in these times is almost considered a dirty word. And when the word "cult" doesn't sound bad enough, David Koresh prompts the phrase "dangerous cult". The word "sect" seems a bit less subjective. I said all the rest in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 4:37:45 GMT -5
I'm all for constructive criticism of the 2x2 church - bring it on. But adoption of the Jesus=God theory has nothing to do with a church being a "dangerous cult". IG belongs to a Baptist church and has "researched" the 2x2 church through a Baptist College. Is it not reasonable to conclude that he's had support and encouragement from the Baptist movement? Wouldn't it be more productive to research and label the Westboro Baptist Church as a "dangerous cult"? This is what "dangerous cults" provoke: Why should he research the Westboro church and not the 2x2s? The 2x2s are as good as any group to research. Maybe he should have asked your permission first!?!
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 4:48:34 GMT -5
Because of this extreme focus on the leader, Leaders - Yes
Control Over Life and Death
Worker worship could fit here. They do think they determine who goes to heaven or hell but then that was not the meaning of the question.
Commission of Felonies
Yes..... ripping each other off and yes other things.
Strict Control Over Lives of Members Control, yes, strict control, not quite so much these days.
Separation From Contacts Outside the Group In some families more than others. Non members are treated different from professing family members.
Polarized Worldview The group represents the only correct living, while everything outside of the group is dangerous and corrupting, reinforcing the notion that all are lost without the guidance and protection of the group.
Yes.
Living in Communal Isolation The workers have got enough control over their members they do not have to have them living in a commune to control them.
Large Required Donations
Money is more an issue than what they make out. Workers treat those who give money differently from those who do not.
Conformity: Subjection of Individual Desires and Thoughts Members are expected to always consider the group first and themselves second. Focusing on individual wants or needs can be seen as sinful, and independent thought, including criticism or questions regarding the group, is strongly subverted.
Criticism or questions is strongly subverted – yes.
Punishment for Defection or Criticism Yes, those who leave are said to be bitter, disgruntled, mental etc..
Dangerous cults warn of dire consequences for those that speak or act against the group,. Yes - bitter enemies of the truth
Shunning and ex-communication are the main tools of behaviour control.
Group Is Small – yes but not as small as those groups which lead people to their deaths. Scientology is considered a cult, is it not and it is certainly not small so I do not think size fits it really
There are varying degrees of cult practices. Where does it cease to be mainstream or a sect and a cult. On this check list the group certainly fits into many of the categories. Not Like Jones Town or some of those but certainly enough to be concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 5:09:06 GMT -5
The word "cult" is being bandied rather liberally here, as though “cult” were necessarily negative. Because the word is so frequently used subjectively to demean a group, it’s better not to use the word “cult” in “mixed company” unless it is used academically. The REAL definition of “cult” refers to any group sharing respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person, and is characterized by their devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work – for example: Michael Jackson, libertarianism, the Holy Grail, Celtic Revival Movement, or Doctors Without Borders. All religions are by definition cults, because their focus is devotion to usually more than one among person, idea, object, movement, or work. When applied to religions, the word “cult” means formal religious veneration, and in academic settings (including religious studies) every denomination has its cultic traditions. Examples: the sacraments, their dogma, their doctrines, their calendar, their habits/customs, the Pope, head coverings, relics – any such things that they consider reflective of their focus of devotion. By definition, the only religious groups who are not cultic are ones that have no formal religious teachings or practices – which pretty much applies to no groups. The term “cult” in modern times has been popularly used to apply to the New Religious Groups, especially because orthodox groups disapprove of them for some reason. This makes “cult” a particularly difficult term to use in this group because we have more than one unorthodox and/or NRG category represented. To consider a "cult" dangerous because it can lead someone to hell -- is a subjective judgment and not worth discussing. All religious groups can do that -- according to other religious groups. Bob, please join St Anne down the corridor in the Intelligent Room. Shaz is taking the class in half an hour. What you have written is why I do not get taken up with the word "cult," but rather with the potential for using, either wittingly or unwittingly, "adverse" cultic practices. As you, CD, Mr Grey, myself and many others have readily discovered, there are enough definitions of cult out there to suit all of our individual needs.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jun 23, 2013 5:59:04 GMT -5
Quiz, then someone might sue us for calling ours "The Truth". More likely, they could sue us for our registered names containing "Christian" or "Christ." While we all use the word "the Truth" to describe the meetings, we're using it in the same way as does Jehovah Witness - internal pet name, not official, registered name.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2013 10:46:32 GMT -5
The word 'cult' is defined in so many different ways that it almost renders it meaningless. The thing to consider is what it means to those who read the book. How will 'they' define the word? Will it be the more common definition that have less than favorable connotations? Add dangerous to it and you have an even more derogatory implication. In the end, it probably matters little what IG meant by the label 'dangerous cult'. It is going to be the definition his readers give it that ultimately will give definition to the group called 2x2.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 13:47:00 GMT -5
The word 'cult' is defined in so many different ways that it almost renders it meaningless. The thing to consider is what it means to those who read the book. How will 'they' define the word? Will it be the more common definition that have less than favorable connotations? Add dangerous to it and you have an even more derogatory implication. In the end, it probably matters little what IG meant by the label 'dangerous cult'. It is going to be the definition his readers give it that ultimately will give definition to the group called 2x2. Interestingly, Mr Grey concluded his book with what you consider an "almost meaningless" word, combined with the word "dangerous" to give it an "even more derogatory implication". Its bad enough that the Baptist College stoops to endorsing such amateurish bigotry, but Queens University as well? They do things differently in Northern Ireland it seems. If the 2x2 church is a dangerous cult, I wonder if Mr Grey has an opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church? Is the Westbro Baptist Church OK because it endorses Jesus=God orthodoxy?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2013 15:16:14 GMT -5
The word 'cult' is defined in so many different ways that it almost renders it meaningless. The thing to consider is what it means to those who read the book. How will 'they' define the word? Will it be the more common definition that have less than favorable connotations? Add dangerous to it and you have an even more derogatory implication. In the end, it probably matters little what IG meant by the label 'dangerous cult'. It is going to be the definition his readers give it that ultimately will give definition to the group called 2x2. Interestingly, Mr Grey concluded his book with what you consider an "almost meaningless" word, combined with the word "dangerous" to give it an "even more derogatory implication". Its bad enough that the Baptist College stoops to endorsing such amateurish bigotry, but Queens University as well? They do things differently in Northern Ireland it seems. If the 2x2 church is a dangerous cult, I wonder if Mr Grey has an opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church? Is the Westbro Baptist Church OK because it endorses Jesus=God orthodoxy? fixit by saying this word is almost meaningless wasn't my intent to under estimate it's damage. I'm sorry if that is how my post came across. I am sure Mr. Grey would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a dangerous organization. I don't see the 2x2 church even comparing with that organization.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 15:26:06 GMT -5
Clearday wrote re: definition of a dangerous cult:
Commission of Felonies Condoning the transgressions of major laws is one of the quickest ways a group can get labeled as a dangerous cult. Such behavior can include murder, suicide, rape (including statutory rape), kidnapping (holding members against their will), illegal stockpiling of weapons, and extortion.
Clearday relied: Whoa, 2x2's don't even like getting speeding tickets!
Are you forgetting the sexual abuse and rape by workers including head workers not to mention the lies that have been circulated by the workers about their history going back to Jesus since the early days? I put these in a lot worse category than parking tickets. Breaking the law in business is not uncommon amongst those in meetings. It was only a few years ago that an accountant, an elder got struck off the register for false filing of documents not to mention other rip offs by other professing people. I know of 2 high up professing men who were visiting ummmm - I won't say who - and one boasted about it to me. Inappropriate sexual behaviours are not uncommon in the group. There is enough to make your hair stand on end.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 15:52:38 GMT -5
fixit by saying this word is almost meaningless wasn't my intent to under estimate it's damage. I'm sorry if that is how my post came across. I am sure Mr. Grey would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a dangerous organization. I don't see the 2x2 church even comparing with that organization. Snow, I'm sorry I gave that impression. I quoted your post because I appreciate it, not because I have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 15:57:31 GMT -5
Clearday wrote re: definition of a dangerous cult: Commission of Felonies Condoning the transgressions of major laws is one of the quickest ways a group can get labeled as a dangerous cult. Such behavior can include murder, suicide, rape (including statutory rape), kidnapping (holding members against their will), illegal stockpiling of weapons, and extortion. Clearday relied: Whoa, 2x2's don't even like getting speeding tickets! Are you forgetting the sexual abuse and rape by workers including head workers not to mention the lies that have been circulated by the workers about their history going back to Jesus since the early days? I put these in a lot worse category than parking tickets. Breaking the law in business is not uncommon amongst those in meetings. It was only a few years ago that an accountant, an elder got struck off the register for false filing of documents not to mention other rip offs by other professing people. I know of 2 high up professing men who were visiting ummmm - I won't say who - and one boasted about it to me. Inappropriate sexual behaviours are not uncommon in the group. There is enough to make your hair stand on end. To label an entire faith group as "a dangerous cult" is unprofessional, amateurish, disingenuous - possibly even dangerous. If you want to criticise sexual impropriety or abuse in the group, I say bring it on. But failure to endorse Catholic Jesus=God theology doesn't make a group dangerous or a cult.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 16:13:11 GMT -5
Do you really believe that IG classified it as a dangerous cult based on the trinity? Now if he did I would be with you on that one even though I am a Trinitarian. Do I believe the father and Son are one - no, that is not the trinity which some on here seem to think it is - that is oneness Pentecostalism, but I believe that God is made up of 3 parts - Father, Son and HS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 16:31:30 GMT -5
Do you really believe that IG classified it as a dangerous cult based on the trinity? Now if he did I would be with you on that one even though I am a Trinitarian. Do I believe the father and Son are one - no, that is not the trinity which some on here seem to think it is - that is oneness Pentecostalism, but I believe that God is made up of 3 parts - Father, Son and HS. HF. This seems to be the basis of his "dangerous cult" designation: "One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, 'therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ." So it comes down to the trinity. The workers largely reject that creed as it stands, or at least avoid it. The blatant error in the above is that the workers do affirm the deity/divinity of Christ. The interesting aspect here is that the worker position on Christ and the mainstream position of deity is merely a knife-edge of difference....mostly semantic really. After all, the workers all believe that the Godhead dwelled fully within Christ,they just don't go any further than that. By reading the conclusions, it would appear that Mr.Grey has built a house of cards in his book, and then proceeds to blow it all down in his conclusions. So glad to hear you are now "with" fixit on this!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2013 17:49:27 GMT -5
fixit by saying this word is almost meaningless wasn't my intent to under estimate it's damage. I'm sorry if that is how my post came across. I am sure Mr. Grey would say that the Westboro Baptist church is a dangerous organization. I don't see the 2x2 church even comparing with that organization. Snow, I'm sorry I gave that impression. I quoted your post because I appreciate it, not because I have a problem with it. Ok, that's good then.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 20:52:40 GMT -5
Would I go as far and say it is a dangerous cult in todays society. - No! I would say it is not even a threat to society as its impact on society is nearly nil. Very few, if anyone buys its deceptive teachings. It teachings are dangerous to its members - yes and it carries many of the marks classified as a cult by those in the field. Perhaps IG words were more correct in the past. It was dangerous for my ancestors who were dubbed into believing it was started by Jesus, and dangerous for all us who grew up in it and had our childhood programmed by needless deception but in this information age it is hardly a danger to outsiders. It is to those being brought up in it though. However, this board and the other info about the group on the internet has minimised the danger. I have no problem with people not believing the trinity but if I think about it, I do not think I can think of a group who does not believe in the trinity that is not an exclusive, we are the truth, kind of group.
As was posted earlier by Cherie and again by me just now on another thread - This is what I call dangerous and the blind leading the blind into a ditch.
One worker preached this at a gospel mission:
I hope as you look at our lives that you can see two people [the two workers] spending their lives in exactly the same way that Jesus spent his life and that those early apostles spent their lives. I hope you don't see any different and that can be nothing that can confuse you. That as you can read our hearts, read our lives, that you can see an epistle clearly spoken that tell you what Jesus established many, many years ago still works today.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 23, 2013 21:15:03 GMT -5
Is believing they are spending their lives in exactly the same way as Jesus spent his life and that there is no difference between them and Jesus then that is either saying the workers believe they are divine or that Jesus was a mere man like them. NO, they seem to exalt themselves to the same level as Jesus. It is this kind of teaching by a worker that Irvine appears to have based his conclusion on.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2013 21:19:31 GMT -5
Is believing they are spending their lives in exactly the same way as Jesus spent his life and that there is no difference between them and Jesus then that is either saying the workers believe they are divine or that Jesus was a mere man like them. NO, they seem to exalt themselves to the same level as Jesus. It is this kind of teaching by a worker that Irvine appears to have based his conclusion on. I interpreted that to mean that they were trying their hardest to be like Jesus in the way they lived. Not that they thought they were Jesus. Isn't that what all Christians are trying to do? I'm obviously missing something...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 21:27:05 GMT -5
Would I go as far and say it is a dangerous cult in todays society. - No! I would say it is not even a threat to society as its impact on society is nearly nil. Very few, if anyone buys its deceptive teachings. It teachings are dangerous to its members - yes and it carries many of the marks classified as a cult by those in the field. Perhaps IG words were more correct in the past. It was dangerous for my ancestors who were dubbed into believing it was started by Jesus, and dangerous for all us who grew up in it and had our childhood programmed by needless deception but in this information age it is hardly a danger to outsiders. It is to those being brought up in it though. However, this board and the other info about the group on the internet has minimised the danger. I have no problem with people not believing the trinity but if I think about it, I do not think I can think of a group who does not believe in the trinity that is not an exclusive, we are the truth, kind of group. As was posted earlier by Cherie and again by me just now on another thread - This is what I call dangerous and the blind leading the blind into a ditch. One worker preached this at a gospel mission:
I hope as you look at our lives that you can see two people [the two workers] spending their lives in exactly the same way that Jesus spent his life and that those early apostles spent their lives. I hope you don't see any different and that can be nothing that can confuse you. That as you can read our hearts, read our lives, that you can see an epistle clearly spoken that tell you what Jesus established many, many years ago still works today.
I think you make a good point up there. " Perhaps IG words were more correct in the past." I noticed a glowing commendation from The Secret Sect authors. That tells me that the Parkers are seeing in this book an outdated picture of the fellowship, perhaps dating back to the '50's or '60's. There is likely some justification to that, as I understand that Ireland is a bit more traditional than a lot of places in the world. I wouldn't doubt that if I described my lifestyle and fellowship situation to the Parkers, they wouldn't believe me. Even then, I doubt that the 2x2's could be considered a dangerous cult 50 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 21:31:57 GMT -5
Is believing they are spending their lives in exactly the same way as Jesus spent his life and that there is no difference between them and Jesus then that is either saying the workers believe they are divine or that Jesus was a mere man like them. NO, they seem to exalt themselves to the same level as Jesus. It is this kind of teaching by a worker that Irvine appears to have based his conclusion on. I interpreted that to mean that they were trying their hardest to be like Jesus in the way they lived. Not that they thought they were Jesus. Isn't that what all Christians are trying to do? I'm obviously missing something... Exactly. He was talking about living the homeless ministry lifestyle and trying to emulate Jesus' and the apostles' lifestyle during their mission years. He said "our lives are an epistle" not "We are Jesus".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 23, 2013 21:38:49 GMT -5
I have not read IG’s book, but I have read portions of the concluding chapter. From what I have read I would not worry that any professional would accept his conclusions as objective because he very clearly identifies his biases – I can’t imagine it being acceptable in a non-denominational institution.. I would be more worried that the uneducated reader would miss the bias and accept it as rigidly exact.
One of his operating definition for “cult” was:
His other stated definition was:
His final conclusion was:
His concluding justification doesn't mention anything physical or emotional -- even spiritual -- just theological.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 22:01:18 GMT -5
I have not read IG’s book, but I have read portions of the concluding chapter. From what I have read I would not worry that any professional would accept his conclusions as objective because he very clearly identifies his biases – I can’t imagine it being acceptable in a non-denominational institution.. I would be more worried that the uneducated reader would miss the bias and accept it as rigidly exact. One of his operating definition for “cult” was: His other stated definition was: His final conclusion was: His concluding justification doesn't mention anything physical or emotional -- even spiritual -- just theological. We do know that while his conclusions do not point out physical, emotional or spiritual dangers, he does allege broadbased worker coverups of CSA. So it would be easy to connect the dots between alleged systemic criminality and "dangerous" cult. Also, he says the book examines and analyzes the sociology of the group so it cannot be claimed that he has limited his analysis and conclusions to theological conclusions. That's why I am not surprised to see criminal allegations appear in the book. I would be interested in reading your analysis of the book if you ever get a chance to read it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 22:21:08 GMT -5
I have not read IG’s book, but I have read portions of the concluding chapter. From what I have read I would not worry that any professional would accept his conclusions as objective because he very clearly identifies his biases – I can’t imagine it being acceptable in a non-denominational institution.. The missing piece of the puzzle for me is why a British Government Institution's name (Queens University) is attached to what amounts to a sectarian tract.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2013 22:29:05 GMT -5
I have not read IG’s book, but I have read portions of the concluding chapter. From what I have read I would not worry that any professional would accept his conclusions as objective because he very clearly identifies his biases – I can’t imagine it being acceptable in a non-denominational institution.. I would be more worried that the uneducated reader would miss the bias and accept it as rigidly exact. One of his operating definition for “cult” was: His other stated definition was: His final conclusion was: His concluding justification doesn't mention anything physical or emotional -- even spiritual -- just theological. This is a traditional theological definition of a cult, used by Walter Martin, and also by evangelical Christian academics, such as those who worked on the ESV Bible. In the appendix, they label JWs and Mormons as cults using the criteria you described. The implication some individuals take from this is that 'cult' in this sense is a neutral classification without any stigma, but it is simply not the case. It's true that the theological definition of cult on its own, and when properly understood, has less influence in today's secular world. However, the original intention of this kind of classification was definitely to stigmatize and marginalize, and even to persecute, and I've posted elsewhere about that so won't repeat. I'm frankly surprised that, given the historical associations, any church would try to brand another church as a cult purely on a theological basis, but if it was for their internal use only, then who cares. But actually the intent is very much to stigmatize, whereas in days gone by the heretic (the basic idea of a cult is that they believe in heresy) was killed, today the evangelicals seek society's disapprobation for the 'cult'. They are appropriating the word cult with all its sinister implications for those they deem heretics. It's a very elegant way of attempting to suppress thoughts and ideas that threaten your own doctrine and the hierarchy empowered by that doctrine. Elegant because you have to prove only the thing you dislike before you apply the condemnatory label. The insidious thing is that there is no defence against being defined as a cult in this manner. You're a cult because you don't believe what we believe. And who gets to do this? The friends don't get to call the Baptists a cult because they don't follow the friends' Biblical beliefs. No, those who have power within a society, control the language and use language to oppress those they don't like. It's the tyranny of the majority, of the established and entrenched interests. I have difficulty believing that the examiners from QUB let this one pass; it boggles the imagination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 22:31:59 GMT -5
I have not read IG’s book, but I have read portions of the concluding chapter. From what I have read I would not worry that any professional would accept his conclusions as objective because he very clearly identifies his biases – I can’t imagine it being acceptable in a non-denominational institution.. The missing piece of the puzzle for me is why a British Government Institution's name (Queens University) is attached to what amounts to a sectarian tract. I wonder if IG disclosed his agenda (doing this work to glorify God) while he was working on this, or did he conceal his sectarian agenda until after the book launch? If he concealed his sectarian agenda until after he received his degree, that may be a partial explanation as to why a secular government-funded institution would back a sectarian attack-piece. Also, he may have altered his conclusions for the book, leading the academics to believe that his work lead to a conclusion of a more benign organization. Unless he has stated the two are the same, it is unlikely that the book and the thesis are exactly the same. Just some possibilities. I have asked Mr.Grey about the second possibility, but Mr.Grey isn't forthcoming on answering questions.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 23:33:20 GMT -5
I wonder if IG disclosed his agenda (doing this work to glorify God) while he was working on this, or did he conceal his sectarian agenda until after the book launch? If he concealed his sectarian agenda until after he received his degree, that may be a partial explanation as to why a secular government-funded institution would back a sectarian attack-piece. Also, he may have altered his conclusions for the book, leading the academics to believe that his work lead to a conclusion of a more benign organization. Unless he has stated the two are the same, it is unlikely that the book and the thesis are exactly the same. Just some possibilities. I have asked Mr.Grey about the second possibility, but Mr.Grey isn't forthcoming on answering questions. The poster below refers to the book as a research thesis, which suggests that his research thesis and his book are the same work. What's next for the British taxpayer-funded Queens University - a study of Catholicism concluding its a "particularly dangerous cult"? Or do they only attack smaller groups? BTW, I'm disappointed that Faith Mission Bookshops stooped to the level of distributing such drivel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 23:44:42 GMT -5
I wonder if IG disclosed his agenda (doing this work to glorify God) while he was working on this, or did he conceal his sectarian agenda until after the book launch? If he concealed his sectarian agenda until after he received his degree, that may be a partial explanation as to why a secular government-funded institution would back a sectarian attack-piece. Also, he may have altered his conclusions for the book, leading the academics to believe that his work lead to a conclusion of a more benign organization. Unless he has stated the two are the same, it is unlikely that the book and the thesis are exactly the same. Just some possibilities. I have asked Mr.Grey about the second possibility, but Mr.Grey isn't forthcoming on answering questions. The poster below refers to the book as a research thesis, which suggests that his research thesis and his book are the same work. What's next for the British taxpayer-funded Queens University - a study of Catholicism concluding its a "particularly dangerous cult"? Or do they only attack smaller groups? BTW, I'm disappointed that Faith Mission Bookshops stopped to the level of distributing such drivel. The last time I talked to the top guy at Faith Mission, I got the impression they didn't like the 2x2's very much, so they are probably quite happy with helping distribute this attack book.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 0:04:00 GMT -5
The missing piece of the puzzle for me is why a British Government Institution's name (Queens University) is attached to what amounts to a sectarian tract. I wonder if IG disclosed his agenda (doing this work to glorify God) while he was working on this, or did he conceal his sectarian agenda until after the book launch? If he concealed his sectarian agenda until after he received his degree, that may be a partial explanation as to why a secular government-funded institution would back a sectarian attack-piece. Also, he may have altered his conclusions for the book, leading the academics to believe that his work lead to a conclusion of a more benign organization. Unless he has stated the two are the same, it is unlikely that the book and the thesis are exactly the same. Just some possibilities. I have asked Mr.Grey about the second possibility, but Mr.Grey isn't forthcoming on answering questions. Before IG launched into his research he corresponded with me, and I decided not to continue a correspondence with him about his project because he said that his objective in studying the 2x2s was to attract people to [his brand] of Christianity. I had no problem discussing the culture of the 2x2s, and I have no problem supporting academic research -- but I was uncomfortable with the notion that I might be participating in some kind of sectarian message I disagreed with. That's precisely the reason I disassociated myself from the workers.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 0:09:46 GMT -5
BTW, I'm disappointed that Faith Mission Bookshops stopped to the level of distributing such drivel. IG's work is apparently theological in focus -- and all such work is drivel to someone. I doubt the Faith Mission considers it so.
|
|