|
Post by Lee on Jul 28, 2013 2:07:52 GMT -5
Here's Irvine's response to my post about his conclusion. This explains his use of the term dangerous and his omission of the sacrament from his thesis. I repost it with his permission. Its a stretch to describe a theologically-extinct group as being dangerous, for the world itself is dangerous. The F&W are a theologically extinct community, however, for the world knows that excellence can not strictly proceed from obedience to law, be it consisting of meeting attendance, dress codes, asymmetrical community identification, or proprietary interpretations of scripture. Society is eternally benefiting from the binocular perspective of Judaism which began with a righteousness that summoned us to rubric and law and finished with the righteous of God as it was exhibited in Christ. The value of a society's sacraments can not exceed its ideals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 21:20:48 GMT -5
Psst. Can someone put this into plain English please? Sure: People who don't believe in God cannot understand the world around them because they cling to the idea that it's all random. Please click on Lee's profile and then click "Follow". We need your interpretive skills!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 21:29:19 GMT -5
Here's Irvine's response to my post about his conclusion. This explains his use of the term dangerous and his omission of the sacrament from his thesis. I repost it with his permission. "Just a very quick and brief response to your posting. I will try and get a fuller one to you. Why dangerous? Any movement that claims to be the sole medium of salvation and teaches that one can only profess through hearing the message from a worker is certainly dangerous. Couple that with the number of professing folk that I talked with, members and exes who on their own admission told me that their professing was simply acknowledging at the end of a mission or convention that they wanted to follow Jesus and join the meetings. When asked about repentance, a key constituent, in the plan of salvation they told me that this had never been mentioned to them. To me these folk are led into a false sense of eternal security and this is dangerous. As to the sacrament, I was never privy to the event nor was anyone prepared to discuss its significance so therefore it would have been difficult to address the subject intelligently. As to using the hymnbook as a barometer of the movement’s beliefs and teachings, this was something I was not prepared to do since there was a mix of hymns by those that the movement would perceive as ‘hirelings’ and others by those in the movement. Even when I did ask why the change of word in When I survey the Wondrous Cross, I was unable to get an answer. In fairness I was unable to get clarity on many topics that I discussed with workers and current members , for example, on a simple definition of the Gospel." Irvine Grey, 25 July 2013 The hymns of the current edition have been accepted multiple times in compilation revisions. That should be a clue that they are all considered equally authoritative...one of the best "barometers" that is possible. Mr. Grey probably wasn't getting answers about hymn word changes because he wasn't talking to the people who made the word changes. Had he asked around, he could have been put in touch with one of several participants in the 1987 revision. One of those workers isn't very far from the Emerald Isle. Had he asked a few more questions, he could also have been put in touch with a worker (also not far from him in the UK) who would have answered all his theological questions on his own terms.....and may be even been impressed.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 10, 2013 22:28:24 GMT -5
I have read the book in full. My conclusion is that Mr Grey has been blinded by his personal beliefs and has failed to provide an academically sound analysis. Irvine has had access to some recent missions and conventions but his book is focused mostly on old material which has been published previously and relates to many years ago. It is also heavily based on the few mission meetings he attended in Ireland/UK/Sweden yet suggests (incorrectly) that this is representative of the global fellowship. His analysis starts with a presumption of evangelicalism, using chosen definitions, and then tries to show that the fellowship doesn't meet that definition. The book is not a useful read as it is poorly structured, with many sections including material that has no relationship to the section heading. There is significant unwarranted puffery regarding Mr Grey’s connections, the thoroughness of his research, etc. There are a number of factual errors and many generalisations that are untrue and unsupported. Mr Grey has used a biased selection of material from previously published works, supplemented with limited quotes from recent emails. It is a shame that he has mostly ignored the extensive resources of current web sites, such as TMB, where a wide cross section of opinions from members and ex-members is apparent on a wide range of topics. What a pity he didn't examine topical issues and current trends, such as whether the WINGS web site is helping with its stated purpose of supporting victims of CSA and ridding the fellowship of CSA? Why didn't he discuss whether the decline in the number of ‘members’ in Western countries is also reflected in developing countries, and considered whether it is similar to other churches or not? Mt detailed analysis of Mr Grey's book can be read at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement where I have listed 165 quotes from the book and provided comment on each one.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 11, 2013 3:55:21 GMT -5
Irvine has written a far more accurate assessment of the group than you have '2x2 history'. You have accused Irvine of being blinded by his beliefs because they are not the same as yours. You have done exactly as you accused Irvine as doing by giving your limited opinion which is just your opinion against that of Irvine's and those he interviewed. I would say your opinion is very biased and based on your own experience. e.g. the group was not just known as the Reidites in Ireland, as you have stated. It was also called that in New Zealand too when I was growing up. I do not know enough about other countries but you could not get any further from Ireland than NZ.
You have made many incorrect comments which are just reworded statements of what Irvine stated.
p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. You wrote: The movement does not promote its organisation but clearly has a structure. It is openly acknowledged that junior workers are led by senior workers and overseers coordinate workers within a territory as well as liaising with other overseers.
All members, both workers and friends, try to be led by the Holy Spirit in all their thoughts and actions but recognise their human weakness. (Irvine is correct when he said the movement 'seeks to give the impression', which although trying to disagree with his statement you have actually confirmed what Irvine stated. I have just used this as an example as your assessment is full of statements trying to say Irvine was incorrect when you have in fact confirmed what Irvine said was correct. All you have done is reword what he has written. Why did he not do this or that? I guess he could have written another 100 pages and wrote more and more to satisfy everyone but a book to end somewhere so it did.
I wonder what qualifications you have got given that this is endorsed and passed by Queens Uni. where your assessment seems to lack intellectual standards.
L.C. - Master of Social Science and former 2x2.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 11, 2013 4:10:53 GMT -5
Although I wrote in my review on Irvine's book on 2 July 2013, that the workers/2x2s do believe Jesus is divine, I was just thinking today when reading the verses which say that Jesus became perfect through suffering, a verse which I heard workers preach on several times in my time in meetings that they believe that Jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect through suffering. So if one believes that Jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect though suffering then do they therefore believe He was divine? My answer to this would be no.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 11, 2013 4:17:04 GMT -5
Irvine has written a for more accurate assessment of the group than you have 2x2 history. You have accused Irvine of being blinded by his beliefs because they are not the same as yours. You have done exactly as you accused Irvine as doing by giving your limited opinion which is just your opinion against that of Irvine's and those he interviewed. I would say your opinion is very biased and based on your own experience. e.g. the group was not just known as the Reidites in Ireland as you have stated. It was also called that in New Zealand too when I was growing up. I do not know enough about other countries but you could not get any further from Ireland than NZ. You have made many incorrect comments which are just twisted statements of which Irvine stated. p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. You wrote: The movement does not promote its organisation but clearly has a structure. It is openly acknowledged that junior workers are led by senior workers and overseers coordinate workers within a territory as well as liaising with other overseers. All members, both workers and friends, try to be led by the Holy Spirit in all their thoughts and actions but recognise their human weakness. (Irvine is correct when he said the movement seeks to give the impression to which although trying to disagree with his statement you have actually confirmed what Irvine stated. I have just used this as an example as your assessment is full of statements trying to say Irvine was incorrect when you have in fact confirmed what Irvine said was correct. All you have done in effect is to rewords what he has written. I have not written a 2x2 history. Yes my comments are based on my beliefs and understanding after being involved with the fellowship while living in 4 different countries. The important point is that Irvine Grey trumpeted the merits of his academic study, which my analysis has shown to be sorely lacking. I have not made twisted statements of what Irvine states; I have quoted him word for word, except for abbreviating with ... where it was too long to type. The page 53 comment you mention was not actually disagreeing with Irvine Grey's comment; it was adding to and clarifying the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 11, 2013 4:34:04 GMT -5
You were quick in answering as I was making a few changes for example I changed the word 'twisted' to 'reworded' statements and a few other amendments to my post while you must have been preparing your response. I wasn't meaning you were twisting his words but as you stated not actually disagreeing with him but adding to them as you stated.
So you were involved in the group in 4 different countries you never knew it was referred to as the Reidites? The younger generation may not have known this but it is still known by some outsiders as such. I was always taught this was after a worker, Ian Reid but think I read on TMB somewhere that it was after someone else. The flattery you talk about was given by others towards the work and all but one (which I disagree is flattery) was not written by Irvine himself.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 11, 2013 11:29:37 GMT -5
I believe that the nature of our lives is that we are all blinded by our beliefs. As long as we can acknowledge that, then we don't need to put so much effort into changing someone else's. We can also acknowledge that someone else's belief isn't 'wrong' just different. We are all experiencing a different life path which require different beliefs in order to have the different experiences.
|
|
|
Post by dotberry on Aug 11, 2013 11:56:31 GMT -5
RE: So you were involved in the group in 4 different countries you never knew it was referred to as the Reidites? The younger generation may not have known this but it is still known by some outsiders as such. I was always taught this was after a worker, Ian Reid but think I read on TMB somewhere that it was after someone else.
"Reidites" came from Wilson Reid...early Irish worker/overseer. I believe the Fermanagh Co. Ireland Conv was located on Reid property for many years, and may still be owned by Reids--dont have my records available at the moment.
Cherie on Mom's computer
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Aug 11, 2013 12:17:41 GMT -5
RE: So you were involved in the group in 4 different countries you never knew it was referred to as the Reidites? The younger generation may not have known this but it is still known by some outsiders as such. I was always taught this was after a worker, Ian Reid but think I read on TMB somewhere that it was after someone else. "Reidites" came from Wilson Reid...early Irish worker/overseer. I believe the Fermanagh Co. Ireland Conv was located on Reid property for many years, and may still be owned by Reids--dont have my records available at the moment. Cherie on Mom's computer Wilson Reid was one of the Reid family of Carnteel, the location for an Irish convention in County Tyrone for many years. He became a worker and was in Africa for a number of years. He returned home and was part of the group of workers in 1928 that excommunicated Edward Cooney. He took over as Irish overseer and but returned to Africa in 1930. The Fermanagh convention was held (and still is) at Gortaloughan, the home of another branch of the Reid family. This is no longer in the Reid family. It was from Wilson Reid that the name Reidites emerged.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Aug 11, 2013 12:18:17 GMT -5
RE: So you were involved in the group in 4 different countries you never knew it was referred to as the Reidites? The younger generation may not have known this but it is still known by some outsiders as such. I was always taught this was after a worker, Ian Reid but think I read on TMB somewhere that it was after someone else. "Reidites" came from Wilson Reid...early Irish worker/overseer. I believe the Fermanagh Co. Ireland Conv was located on Reid property for many years, and may still be owned by Reids--dont have my records available at the moment. Cherie on Mom's computer Wilson Reid was one of the Reid family of Carnteel, the location for an Irish convention in County Tyrone for many years. He became a worker and was in Africa for a number of years. He returned home and was part of the group of workers in 1928 that excommunicated Edward Cooney. He took over as Irish overseer but returned to Africa in 1930. The Fermanagh convention was held (and still is) at Gortaloughan, the home of another branch of the Reid family. This is no longer in the Reid family. It was from Wilson Reid that the name Reidites emerged.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 11, 2013 15:52:22 GMT -5
I woke up in the middle of the night and remembered the name Wilson Reid. I think Ian Reid stuck in my mind because my mother professed through him and would talk about him. I never knew Wilson Reid not sure if he ever came to NZ (You would know Cherie) but know we were called Reidites by outsiders although the name Cooneyite was for sure the most well known. Maybe those from the mother country brought the name with them.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 12, 2013 15:55:02 GMT -5
Although I wrote in my review on Irvine's book on 2 July 2013, that the workers/2x2s do believe Jesus is divine, I was just thinking today when reading the verses which say that Jesus became perfect through suffering, a verse which I heard workers preach on several times in my time in meetings that they believe that Jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect through suffering. So if one believes that Jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect though suffering then do they therefore believe He was divine? My answer to this would be no. Heb 5:8-9: Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Good question HF: So if one believes that Jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect though suffering then do they therefore believe He was divine?
Guess it depends on the definition being used for the term "divine."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 13, 2013 4:53:43 GMT -5
God said it's not his prerogative to choose who sits next to him in his kingdom.
Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 11:20:14 GMT -5
You have made many incorrect comments which are just reworded statements of what Irvine stated. p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. You wrote: The movement does not promote its organisation but clearly has a structure. It is openly acknowledged that junior workers are led by senior workers and overseers coordinate workers within a territory as well as liaising with other overseers. All members, both workers and friends, try to be led by the Holy Spirit in all their thoughts and actions but recognise their human weakness. (Irvine is correct when he said the movement 'seeks to give the impression', which although trying to disagree with his statement you have actually confirmed what Irvine stated. I have just used this as an example as your assessment is full of statements trying to say Irvine was incorrect when you have in fact confirmed what Irvine said was correct. All you have done is reword what he has written. Why did he not do this or that? I guess he could have written another 100 pages and wrote more and more to satisfy everyone but a book to end somewhere so it did. I wonder what qualifications you have got given that this is endorsed and passed by Queens Uni. where your assessment seems to lack intellectual standards. L.C. - Master of Social Science and former 2x2. There are no problems with what 2x2 history has written. These are the facts: There is no formal organization or hierarchy. There is an informal organization and hierarchy. Everyone in the informal organization tries to be Spirit led. The hierarchy will activate where it perceives the Spirit to be absent in various circumstances. I would hope that your Master of Social Science education would have explained group dynamics in such a way that would have been useful in analyzing how the 2x2 system works. I also wonder why Mr.Grey doesn't quite understand how it works, especially when he had time with Tommie Gamble for this. I have it in writing from Mr.Gamble how the system works, which is not out of line with what I posted above. As well, he didn't get informal hierarchy correct in which he intimates that women are subject to men. Not true of course. Had he attended a fellowship meeting with a sister worker in attendance, he would see right away he got it wrong. And of course in reality, had he known the friends, he would have known that many women take the lead in their families and it works well for them, and no one from the church is monitoring or attempting to change any of the marriage dynamics. Females play a very significant role in the church over men (sister workers), and all marital relationships are left unhindered by the church.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 14, 2013 1:53:22 GMT -5
I am well aware of how the group dynamics of the 2x2 system works as I am sure Irvine does too as it does not take long to pick it up. I am not interested in analysing it, I will leave that for you to do if it so interests you. One does not need a degree to do that. The key word which I pointed out that Irvine used was the word 'impression'. They give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation. Of course we know that there is a formal organisation and hierarchy but the workers have long tried to give the impression that all this just happens. They try to make out that it is informal when in fact they are a well organised structure with hierarchy. If you noticed I said that '2x2 history' actually confirmed what Irvine said so maybe you need to read what I wrote again. In fact a second look shows that '2x2s history' is not correct. There is a formal organisation and hierarchy. There are junior workers, senior workers, and head workers/overseers. Nothing informal about it. This is all organised from the top down but they try and give the impression that there is no formal structure or organisation as Irvine stated but it is obvious when one looks at the group that it is formally organised. If there was not a formal structure and organisation then why would the meetings in different parts of the world all be the same format, conentions the same, special meetings held etc. The only thing that is infomal is their name which has also been made formal at times.
The statement the hierarchy will activate where it perceives the Spirit to be absent in various circumstances is not correct in the 2x2 system when it is the hierarchy who make the rules. An example of that was when Cooney wanted to continue going where the spirit lead, but the other workers told him he had to go where he was told and all the other rules that the workers have made in the group. They are told what fields to go to, individual workers are not allowed to go where the spirit leads, they have to go where they are told. The rules and regulations are made up by the workers, nothing to do with the spirit. As for women being under males. If you are talking in regard to workers, any meeting where male and female workers are present it is the male workers who take the lead. They also sit on the stage. My observation has always been that female workers are under male workers. In the home I agree that women are often above the male. My own mother considered herself the head of the home, her excuse being because dad was not professing.
My analysis of Irvine's book appears on page 1 of this thread dated 2nd July.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 6:56:23 GMT -5
HF is spot on correct on her analysis of "impression." A fundamental element in the organisation and structure is indeed "impressions" given. This covers a huge volume of secrecy from bank accounts, financial transactions, medical bills, conventions finances, etc, etc, etc. "God takes care of it all" was what I grew up with and well into adulthood. The impression given was that there was no funds and that when a need arose, God took care of it. That is just one example of "impressions" given out to mask the truth.
Try and get a worker to speak honestly and openly about the inner workings of the "work" and see how far you get. You just might get the "impression" that you are wrong to ask these type of questions, or the impression that questioning is wrong, or the impression that you have the wrong spirit. It goes on and on and on.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 14, 2013 7:35:00 GMT -5
Irvine has written a far more accurate assessment of the group than you have '2x2 history'. I wonder what qualifications you have got given that this is endorsed and passed by Queens Uni. where your assessment seems to lack intellectual standards. L.C. - Master of Social Science and former 2x2. I happen to have a Masters degree but I don't trumpet that, nor do I think that such a degree automatically gives validity to comments made, as illustrated by comments made by you and by Mr Grey. I have read far more relevant analyses by people who don't happen to have a Masters degree. The number of significant factual errors and unsupported generalisations in Mr Grey's thesis has resulted in me having little confidence in the quality of Queen's University process in reviewing this thesis. If you noticed I said that '2x2 history' actually confirmed what Irvine said so maybe you need to read what I wrote again. I did not confirm what Mr Grey said; As I wrote previously, I "was not actually disagreeing" [or agreeing] "with Irvine Grey's comment; it was adding to and clarifying the matter." In fact a second look shows that '2x2s history' is not correct. There is a formal organisation and hierarchy. Since you are now disagreeing with Mr Grey's claim that "there is no apparent formal organisation" you must be agreeing with my position. If there was not a formal structure and organisation then why would the meetings in different parts of the world all be the same format, conentions the same, special meetings held etc. Perhaps you and Mr Grey could consider the sociological aspects of the fellowship; group dynamics; self organising groups; and other factors that might explain why people around the world are happy to carry out similar [not necessarily exactly the same] activities without requiring formal rules or a formal hierarchy to control such activities. The rules and regulations are made up by the workers, nothing to do with the spirit. You seem to have made the assumption or judgement that workers are not lead by the spirit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 8:21:14 GMT -5
I am well aware of how the group dynamics of the 2x2 system works as I am sure Irvine does too as it does not take long to pick it up. I am not interested in analysing it, I will leave that for you to do if it so interests you. One does not need a degree to do that. The key word which I pointed out that Irvine used was the word 'impression'. They give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation. Of course we know that there is a formal organisation and hierarchy but the workers have long tried to give the impression that all this just happens. They try to make out that it is informal when in fact they are a well organised structure with hierarchy. If you noticed I said that '2x2 history' actually confirmed what Irvine said so maybe you need to read what I wrote again. In fact a second look shows that '2x2s history' is not correct. There is a formal organisation and hierarchy. There are junior workers, senior workers, and head workers/overseers. Nothing informal about it. This is all organised from the top down but they try and give the impression that there is no formal structure or organisation as Irvine stated but it is obvious when one looks at the group that it is formally organised. If there was not a formal structure and organisation then why would the meetings in different parts of the world all be the same format, conentions the same, special meetings held etc. The only thing that is infomal is their name which has also been made formal at times. The statement the hierarchy will activate where it perceives the Spirit to be absent in various circumstances is not correct in the 2x2 system when it is the hierarchy who make the rules. An example of that was when Cooney wanted to continue going where the spirit lead, but the other workers told him he had to go where he was told and all the other rules that the workers have made in the group. They are told what fields to go to, individual workers are not allowed to go where the spirit leads, they have to go where they are told. The rules and regulations are made up by the workers, nothing to do with the spirit. As for women being under males. If you are talking in regard to workers, any meeting where male and female workers are present it is the male workers who take the lead. They also sit on the stage. My observation has always been that female workers are under male workers. In the home I agree that women are often above the male. My own mother considered herself the head of the home, her excuse being because dad was not professing. My analysis of Irvine's book appears on page 1 of this thread dated 2nd July. In order for an organization to be formally organized, the structure, relationships and functions must be explicitly stated. At least that's what I was taught 30 years ago, but maybe sociological developments have changed and have redefined formal vs informal organizations since then. Your observations are all those of the informal organization. You argue that the rules are the same all over the world and that proves a formal organization. Not so fast there. A lot of threads have been devoted here to the variations in rules all over the world which would argue directly against you. The system is similar all over the world, and it doesn't take a formal organization to do that. I was in a Sunday am meeting away from home just this week which did something clearly different with the bread and wine than what is done in our area. Why? Because there are no formal rules for it. Even if it was the same all over the world, that still doesn't establish a formal organization, as people do things the same all over the world in general society and there is no one telling them to do it. There is no formal organization. There is no rulebook, no headquarters, no manuals, no organizational chart, no written doctrine other than the bible, no guarantee that things are done the same everywhere whether it is in how conventions are set up, money is handled, or church discipline is handled. The people who make things happen may not even be visible on the perceived organizational structure.....some sister workers for instance can be far more powerful than some brother workers. That's why there is always such a strong push for "unity" and "same spirit". It is an informal organization trying to be organized without formally doing so. This shouldn't be a mystery to anyone who has properly studied the 2x2 system. This group set out to shun formal organization over a century ago, and still does. The informal organization rules the group.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 14, 2013 15:54:59 GMT -5
The group is as organised as any other group. The proof of formal organisation is there. The structure, relationships and functions are explicitly stated. You hear them in meetings every week, we are told the rules, we are told the structure i.e. we are told who the workers are, we given a list, we are told who the elders are, we are told what meeting to go to by the leaders, the function is explicitly stated when you join the group. Sunday morning is attended by those who join the group. The group set out to shun formal organisation but it became one. The group has a joining process. You join the organisation when you profess. Again the issue is the word impression. They try and give the impression that they are not organised especially to outsiders but the truth is they are. They try to give the impression regarding the things you have stated in your last paragraph but the truth is there are rules, headworkers, notes, a hierarchical structure, written doctrine other than the bible. People are put out for not preaching the groups doctrine. People are put out for not adhering to the rules. It is as organised as any church. Many churches are organised at a local level, the 2x2s are organised at an international level. They take pride in saying they are the same the world over. If the group worked and unity was there then their would not be so many leaving. People realise that what they say and what they actually do are two different things. Again the word impression is correct. They say one thing to try and give the impression that they are not formally organised but in reality they are. Would you or I be able to start our own meeting and start preaching and still be a part of Sunday morning meeting? - No. we have to belong to the organisation. There is form, there is order that one has to go through. We have to abide by the rules, we have to do it their way, we have to join the group and come in through their hierarchy and abide by the rules of their system. If anyone does not abide by the system's rules they are not accepted as part of the organisation. The organisation's structure is the same the world over. Rules for joining, belonging, organising etc. are the same everywhere. What you state in the last paragraph is what they try and give the impression of but in reality they are not true. Doctrine is spoken in every meeting and has been recorded for as long as I remember. Doctrine is passed around between members, notes are passed around. Convention lists are written. Money is given to the organisation and used for the organisation's purpose. Many of these things are hidden and they try and give the impression that these do not occur. The word impression is the word I am referring, which Irvine used.
p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 18:07:23 GMT -5
The group is as organised as any other group. The proof of formal organisation is there. The structure, relationships and functions are explicitly stated. You hear them in meetings every week, we are told the rules, we are told the structure i.e. we are told who the workers are, we given a list, we are told who the elders are, we are told what meeting to go to by the leaders, the function is explicitly stated when you join the group. Sunday morning is attended by those who join the group. The group set out to shun formal organisation but it became one. The group has a joining process. You join the organisation when you profess. Again the issue is the word impression. They try and give the impression that they are not organised especially to outsiders but the truth is they are. They try to give the impression regarding the things you have stated in your last paragraph but the truth is there are rules, headworkers, notes, a hierarchical structure, written doctrine other than the bible. People are put out for not preaching the groups doctrine. People are put out for not adhering to the rules. It is as organised as any church. Many churches are organised at a local level, the 2x2s are organised at an international level. They take pride in saying they are the same the world over. If the group worked and unity was there then their would not be so many leaving. People realise that what they say and what they actually do are two different things. Again the word impression is correct. They say one thing to try and give the impression that they are not formally organised but in reality they are. Would you or I be able to start our own meeting and start preaching and still be a part of Sunday morning meeting? - No. we have to belong to the organisation. There is form, there is order that one has to go through. We have to abide by the rules, we have to do it their way, we have to join the group and come in through their hierarchy and abide by the rules of their system. If anyone does not abide by the system's rules they are not accepted as part of the organisation. The organisation's structure is the same the world over. Rules for joining, belonging, organising etc. are the same everywhere. What you state in the last paragraph is what they try and give the impression of but in reality they are not true. Doctrine is spoken in every meeting and has been recorded for as long as I remember. Doctrine is passed around between members, notes are passed around. Convention lists are written. Money is given to the organisation and used for the organisation's purpose. Many of these things are hidden and they try and give the impression that these do not occur. The word impression is the word I am referring, which Irvine used. p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. There is no formal organization. Show me: Current incorporation documents Written rules of conduct Written doctrine or statement of beliefs Organization chart of hierarchy Location of office of headquarters or regional offices Tax number for tax deductible receipts List of the organization's salaried employees Organizational Charter These are the trappings of a formal organization. That does not mean they are not organized, but they are not formally organized. They aren't giving an "impression" that they aren't formally organized because they are not. They are informally organized. That is why change is so difficult because there is no formal charter and therefore no means to alter that charter because it does not exist. All change must be done informally as in any movement.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 15, 2013 2:56:43 GMT -5
I do not have the time to keep going round and round. I have a very busy life. This was what I wrote.
I repeat that I fully agree with Irvine when he said "The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. "
I fail to see where Irvine referred to a formal or informal organisation but instead he said they give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation. They are organised into an organisation. Most of the things you asked are there. Written and spoken rules, bank accounts held by people in the organisation for the organisation. Head workers in each country, money paid to workers, organised hierarchy structure, it is all there.
p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
2x2 history wrote: The movement does not promote its organisation but clearly has a structure. It is openly acknowledged that junior workers are led by senior workers and overseers coordinate workers within a territory as well as liaising with other overseers.
All members, both workers and friends, try to be led by the Holy Spirit in all their thoughts and actions but recognise their human weakness.
(Irvine is correct when he said the movement 'seeks to give the impression', which although trying to disagree with his statement you have actually confirmed what Irvine stated. I have just used this as an example as your assessment is full of statements trying to say Irvine was incorrect when you have in fact confirmed what Irvine said was correct. All you have done is reword what he has written.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 15, 2013 3:21:21 GMT -5
From another thread, Organised into a trust and a bank account, controlled by the head worker. They have members, organised weekly meetings and conventions which are held world wide, ministers are nominated. Official documentation, letter head. etc.
Our organisation is financially well off. The funds are controlled by a Trust Fund with the Trustees being Arthur ROBINSON, Alan BIRD and Ian GUNST, who are elders of the Church. I am in charge of the Trustees and have the final say as to where the funds will be sent or spent. Once I make that decision, the Trustees withdraw the funds and give me a bank draft for the amount required in various areas as requested by me.
The Senior Minister is usually appointed on the death or mental impairment of the outgoing overseer. He is usually nominated by the outgoing Minister to the other Senior Ministers in Australia and New Zealand and approached by them to take over.
In addition to our weekly meetings, we have been gathering on the property of Mr. Fred LOWE, for one of our annual Convention for the past 20 years. We hold 5 conventions in Victoria each year. These conventions are held World wide and all run along the same lines. The purpose of these conventions is to strengthen the faith of all who believe in the teachings of Jesus. All members are there by invitation......................
Our organisation has no restrictions on music, dancing, television, sport, food or anything else for that matter...... When sending a person overseas and they require an official document we use the letterhead of "CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS" underlined by "REPRESENTING ASSEMBLIES OF CHRISTIANS ASSUMING THIS NAME ONLY" .................
Signed_______________ John Evan Jones
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 8:17:18 GMT -5
I do not have the time to keep going round and round. I have a very busy life. This was what I wrote. I repeat that I fully agree with Irvine when he said "The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. " I fail to see where Irvine referred to a formal or informal organisation but instead he said they give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation. They are organised into an organisation. Most of the things you asked are there. Written and spoken rules, bank accounts held by people in the organisation for the organisation. Head workers in each country, money paid to workers, organised hierarchy structure, it is all there. p53 Irvine wrote: The movement seeks to give the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation and that their entire modus operandi is by the leading of the Holy Spirit. 2x2 history wrote: The movement does not promote its organisation but clearly has a structure. It is openly acknowledged that junior workers are led by senior workers and overseers coordinate workers within a territory as well as liaising with other overseers. All members, both workers and friends, try to be led by the Holy Spirit in all their thoughts and actions but recognise their human weakness. (Irvine is correct when he said the movement 'seeks to give the impression', which although trying to disagree with his statement you have actually confirmed what Irvine stated. I have just used this as an example as your assessment is full of statements trying to say Irvine was incorrect when you have in fact confirmed what Irvine said was correct. All you have done is reword what he has written. I think you are going around in circles because you are assuming that I have directly addressed Grey's statement. My comments have addressed only the formal vs informal organization aspect of groups in general and of the 2x2 system. I haven't addressed his statement directly but here is where it fits in. When the movement "gives the impression that they are without hierarchy or organisation", I would suggest that they are referring to a formal organization. I suppose there may be a few naive souls who think that conventions just happen all by themselves and have no clue what preps are all about. They may think that a Sunday morning elder just happened to open up his home and this same group of people just happen to show up there every Sunday, and they all just happen to sing, pray, sing, testify, do emblems, sing.....all because of the Holy Spirit. However, I would say those naive people are few in number. Practically everyone knows things are organized in some fashion or another but they do believe that it was organized by the Holy Spirit. The bottom line is this: Grey statement simply lacks understanding of the movement and how it works. When people say "there is no organization", they aren't trying to "give an impression". He is intimating that they are lying which isn't true. They really believe it, and their beliefs are supported by the fact that there is no formal organization and that is what they are pointing to. This is where Grey's lack of understanding of the 2x2 becomes obvious but I don't really blame him because it is a fine point which requires an understanding of the 2x2 perspective and that can't be easily understood from the outside. What becomes more difficult to understand is why some B&R exes don't understand this except that they must have been part of the group who really believed that there was no formal or informal organization and when they came to realize that it did exist, then made the conclusion that they were lied to all their lives. Grey is clearly getting his views from that perspective rather than probing the mind of an insider to come to an understanding of how they see it. They really aren't "giving an impression", they really believe what they are saying and they aren't trying to say quite what Grey suggests. What would be more accurate for Grey to say would be that some people are "getting an impression that there was no organization, formal or informal" or "they state that there is no formal organization". Both would be accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 10:40:47 GMT -5
Personally I see this issue as simply another example of the double-speak which hallmarks the movement.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 15, 2013 13:28:57 GMT -5
Yes it is double speak as they do try and give the impression there is no organisation when in fact a lot of organisation goes into it. They try and give the impression that it just happens - the spirit/God does it all - when in fact it is organised by man. Yes we were naïve to think it just happened in spite of the evidence otherwise but we were programmed from birth to believe that, just the same as we were programmed to believe that the group was started by Jesus. Many outside would straight away see through this as Irvine appears to have by saying they give the impression rather than him agreeing with the fact that there is no organisation. But for us who were B&R when you were taught that from birth that it all just happens miraculously by the spirit, until you have exposure to outside influences you do not question as we were taught not to question. For some of us questioning happens sooner than others. If Irvine had used the words 'they state' rather than they give the impression, that would have caused more debate as the evidence that it is organised is clear.
I wonder if there has been some confusion using the word organisation as I took it when Irvine said they give the impression there is no organisation that he was referring to the act of organising where as the conversation appears to have evolved into an organisation/company/incorporation. The act of organising (verb) as opposed to it just happening by the spirit versus organisation as in An organisation (noun). My understanding was that it was the act of organising not that it was an organisation re: company. However, there is plenty of proof of this having evolved into an organisation with trusts and bank accounts, meetings, hierarchy etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 14:42:16 GMT -5
Personally I see this issue as simply another example of the double-speak which hallmarks the movement. Did you always see it as double-speak? Surely this was always obvious to you since it is "double-speak which hallmarks the movement"?
|
|