|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2015 15:36:53 GMT -5
You were shown hospitality and kindness at convention and various discussions with workers and friends. Your response was to publish a book condemning the fellowship as "a particularly dangerous cult". Even after that a very senior worker and his young companion met you in a coffee shop. And you think there's anything more to talk about? Of course there is plenty to talk about. For example if they disagree with my conclusion then it would be good to hear the reasons. As to meeting in the coffee shop we did not arrange to meet or have coffee together. We simply spoke briefly. Because a researcher meets friends and workers in the course of the research, why should this prevent a conclusion that does not meet there approval? Fixit's not taking exception with your right to draw your own conclusions, it's with your apparent surprise at peoples' reaction to that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 10, 2015 16:23:22 GMT -5
Of course there is plenty to talk about. For example if they disagree with my conclusion then it would be good to hear the reasons. As to meeting in the coffee shop we did not arrange to meet or have coffee together. We simply spoke briefly. Because a researcher meets friends and workers in the course of the research, why should this prevent a conclusion that does not meet there approval? Fixit's not taking exception with your right to draw your own conclusions, it's with your apparent surprise at peoples' reaction to that conclusion. That's hardly a legitimate reason to not engage and point out where the worker in question thinks I am wrong. I would just have to assume that he was no too sure of ground, otherwise he would have been only too happy to defend the movement against my conclusion
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 10, 2015 16:38:17 GMT -5
Fixit's not taking exception with your right to draw your own conclusions, it's with your apparent surprise at peoples' reaction to that conclusion. That's hardly a legitimate reason to not engage and point out where the worker in question thinks I am wrong. I would just have to assume that he was no too sure of ground, otherwise he would have been only too happy to defend the movement against my conclusion Or he thinks you're so far gone, you're not worth the effort. Looking at it strictly from his point of view,that is. I did feel it worth the effort, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 10, 2015 17:34:02 GMT -5
The workers are known not to answer questions. Those in the group who ask questions are seen as doubting. The most obvious reason being because they do not have a valid answer. They lack people skills if they don't think someone is worth it. Most pastors I have been to encourage questions.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 10, 2015 19:56:38 GMT -5
The charitable gift of dignity to one another. while "trading " stuff with others is a tricky one. Is it even "giving," when I expect something in return? Isn't that "trading "? Talking out loud, no answer required. Alvin Do we do anything that is not, ultimately, in our own self-interest?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 10, 2015 20:09:42 GMT -5
hmmmmmmmmmmm, I could lie and say , yes, I do it out of unconditional love, blah blah blah , but then lying is not in my own self-interest, so in my own self-interest , I think I will have to answer a feeble , no. Charity seeketh not her own, but who, honestly, has that one nailed down.
Alvin edit- Trying to learn - I would suggest that going into the work would not necessarily be a selfish decision, or was it selfish in that the "final reward" would be great, if I sacrifice now, I have it better later or ? Interested in what motivates people to go into the work, or other "sacrificial" appearing careers or callings, if not ultimately self interest?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 10, 2015 21:05:53 GMT -5
hmmmmmmmmmmm, I could lie and say , yes, I do it out of unconditional love, blah blah blah , but then lying is not in my own self-interest, so in my own self-interest , I think I will have to answer a feeble , no. Charity seeketh not her own, but who, honestly, has that one nailed down. Alvin edit- Trying to learn - I would suggest that going into the work would not necessarily be a selfish decision, or was it selfish in that the "final reward" would be great, if I sacrifice now, I have it better later or ? Interested in what motivates people to go into the work, or other "sacrificial" appearing careers or callings, if not ultimately self interest? Few if any of the young folks in the 2x2 religion that might consider going into the work have any true idea of what the work is really like or all about. The most they see is how they've been taught themselves by example and word of mouth to treat the workers and thus it looks like a wonderful job where you can be thought very well of and your every need is supplied without you having to break your back for it. I've known of several young adults that go into the work and are out in under 10 yrs. simply because the work is not what they've seen it to be while growing up as a child and young adult. Truth is hard to bring out apparently for the workership in regards to letting the young folks know that it really isn't a job to be really desired! JME
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2015 22:37:15 GMT -5
Fixit's not taking exception with your right to draw your own conclusions, it's with your apparent surprise at peoples' reaction to that conclusion. That's hardly a legitimate reason to not engage and point out where the worker in question thinks I am wrong. I would just have to assume that he was no too sure of ground, otherwise he would have been only too happy to defend the movement against my conclusion I doubt that workers would want to debate your theological reasons for labelling the fellowship "a particularly dangerous cult". Your theological opinion is not necessarily any more right or wrong than someone else's differing opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2015 22:47:03 GMT -5
If JC really is God's centerpiece in terms of revelation, it behooves every sect, every religious community to renounce every condition for salvation that adds or subtracts from attention to this man and his values and vision.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 10, 2015 23:38:49 GMT -5
If JC really is God's centerpiece in terms of revelation, it behooves every sect, every religious community to renounce every condition for salvation that adds or subtracts from attention to this man and his values and vision. Theology tends lead folks away from the simplicity that is in Christ. I agree with you - his values and vision tend to be under appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 11, 2015 0:23:16 GMT -5
What simplicity in Christ? Put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself, how you would have acted and behaved? By all conventional accounts, the guy was an enigma.
....that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.…
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 11, 2015 1:47:10 GMT -5
..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think what has happened is the nouveau rich seem to feel that it is all their due! Perhaps they have been down to the bottom also, but one would think if that were the case they'd be more understanding to "serve" now would be better then just sitting down and taking it all to themselves.......and I'm not the one who really is complaining, it is a hard row to handle for some of the managers of the charitable places. Even the churches get fed up with people that can afford whatever foodstuffs they need, that drop by and want a sack or two of their charity grocery bags! One church has it though now, IF you want charity grocery, you will sit through one church service that day before you are given your groceries...this has helped eliminate quite a few of their freeloaders since those who don't really need those groceries have NO desire to sit through the church's Sun. service! A lot of "missions" in cities used to do that, -make the poor men sit through a sermon before they got a meal.
Might have listened better if they had had a full stomach first.
Makes you wonder what really was the mission of the "missions."
Did they really care of people as Jesus taught or were they only doing so to reap the "reward" in an after life.
It doesn't mention that the "Good Samaritan" made the man listen to his view of Judaism before he took care of him.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 11, 2015 3:04:24 GMT -5
If someone called the church I went to a dangerous cult, I would be wanting to know why the person called it. I would certainly be listening to what they have to say and search the scriptures earnestly in prayer. As we know there is a lot that the workers need to change. I know pastors would definitely listen to the person.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 11, 2015 3:23:48 GMT -5
If someone called the church I went to a dangerous cult, I would be wanting to know why the person called it. I would certainly be listening to what they have to say and search the scriptures earnestly in prayer. As we know there is a lot that the workers need to change. I know pastors would definitely listen to the person. If I wrote a book about your church and labelled it a dangerous cult because it teaches Trinitarian dogma, do you think they would listen to me?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 11, 2015 3:36:12 GMT -5
Yes, they would listen to you. Most pastors are very gracious and would be happy to talk about what they believe and why. Most churches put their beliefs on the internet with scripture to support their beliefs. They have nothing to hide so why would they not want to talk about their beliefs. Seems as if Grey was not afraid to state his position and how he has reached that conclusion but the workers are too afraid to state why they believe what they do. Jesus hid nothing from the world. The workers mostly just preach to their own converts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 4:51:08 GMT -5
I Perhaps one disappointment to me is that no workers at a senior level have been prepared to engage in any correspondence or discussion on the book. One day in a coffee shop in Northern Ireland I met a very senior worker and his young companion. Since we had met at a convention he knew me and we talked for a few minutes. I asked had he read the book to which he replied that he had leafed through it. I suggested that we meet and talk over a coffee any areas of the book that with which he disagreed but he declined my offer. However, I did leave him my card with contact details but so far nothing. Irvine, I have to confess to being a little surprised at your surprise that the workers you met did not wish to engage with you on your conclusion. This is not meant to be a criticism but I can't help but wonder whether a focus on doctrinal issues during your research resulted in you failing to grasp a more important and interesting aspect of 2x2ism, i.e. that of the mindset. A case of the wood and the trees and all that, perhaps. As I have pointed out previously, beyond the non-negotiable fundamentals of the church in the home and the preacher without a home, for the great majority of 2x2 adherents doctrine is not actually that important. Most professing people wouldn't have the foggiest idea what it is they believe (or are supposed to believe) in terms of what you refer to as "the central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ". And that includes workers. For the 2x2 sect, scripture is primarily a tool used to reinforce the beliefs of the group rather than as a basis for determining them. So long as one has a basic grasp of the do's and the dont's and is generally seen to adhere to them (at least publicly) I'm afraid that's pretty much it. Strange as it may seem to the theologian in you, but no standard issue 2x2 really gives a stuff about the theological aspects of the Holy Ghost or the Cross or the Blood. What the 2x2s do give a stuff about is outsiders. Primarily they give a stuff about getting outsiders to take sufficient interest to get them inside, at least enough outsiders to justify the ministry's existence but not so many as to risk status quo disturbing. Woe betide another spiritual awakening. What they also give a stuff about is outsiders taking an unhealthy interest in what goes on inside. While Christian preachers chatting to theologians about doctrinal tenets might seem like a normal and logical thing to do, for them it is nothing of the sort. Despite any warm words of welcome bestowed upon you in the course of your research, rest assured you will be viewed by the 2x2 hierarchy with deep suspicion, as a potential Trojan horse. Even had you the good fortune to stumble upon a senior worker who had an interest in the details of doctrine, in his mind there will be nothing whatsoever to be gained by as a result of discussing them. Knowing that anything he says is likely to be taken down and used as evidence in a book or discussion thread against him, is a factor that may have weighed heavily on his mind .... as is the very real risk of him looking like a fool in front of his junior partner should he dare to offer an unscholarly opinion on doctrinal matters to a theologian. These are some of the more obvious explanations. However there are more fundamental reasons. Not for nothing were the 2x2s bestowed with the 'secret sect' label. There is an institutional reluctance to engage openly with outsiders. Remember the need to cover up any link to the embarrassing antics of the early days burned bright for a long time. The line on engagement with workers is a very very clear one, and it is that the only place for learning and for being taught all that you need to know is a gospel mission where the Lord can work on your heart and bring you to a place where you are willing to walk in the right way. And while somewhere deep inside he may have an urge to engage with you for the purposes of trying to save you (it's his job .... apparently) let's face it, you are unlikely now to be viewed as the 'saveable kind'. I hope this doesn't come as a great disappointment. I'm sure it's scant consolation, but neither am I. Matt10.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 11, 2015 11:29:16 GMT -5
..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think what has happened is the nouveau rich seem to feel that it is all their due! Perhaps they have been down to the bottom also, but one would think if that were the case they'd be more understanding to "serve" now would be better then just sitting down and taking it all to themselves.......and I'm not the one who really is complaining, it is a hard row to handle for some of the managers of the charitable places. Even the churches get fed up with people that can afford whatever foodstuffs they need, that drop by and want a sack or two of their charity grocery bags! One church has it though now, IF you want charity grocery, you will sit through one church service that day before you are given your groceries...this has helped eliminate quite a few of their freeloaders since those who don't really need those groceries have NO desire to sit through the church's Sun. service! A lot of "missions" in cities used to do that, -make the poor men sit through a sermon before they got a meal.
Might have listened better if they had had a full stomach first.
Makes you wonder what really was the mission of the "missions."
Did they really care of people as Jesus taught or were they only doing so to reap the "reward" in an after life.
It doesn't mention that the "Good Samaritan" made the man listen to his view of Judaism before he took care of him.
As to what the Good Samaritan made the wounded man do or not do....he definitely made him put up with the way he treated his wounds plus dragging him off to the hotelier and leaving him there! But then most wounded people in those days would have been very glad for a touch of that compassion! As to the churches who require the "free grocery recipients" to sit through a church service...most the time it is a brief service and IF the recipients are that hungry there usually are "coffee bars" in the churches that are put there by the teen groups, even though most people give donations for their free coffee and rolls, the grocery recipients are told to make themselves to home and not one thing is expected from them...other then going into the short church service. This short service does serve several purposes. It does eliminate those people who go wherever they can for the freebies whether they really need them or not, also it gives the church time to get some kind of idea the condition of some of the homeless and very poor....mostly how many children are involved in those categories....thus when cold weather comes along, not only are groceries given by the large bagfuls, the homeless receive warm blankets and insulated sockings...children get coats and stockings and caps or beanies whatever they choose from the bin.....so I can't say going to a short church service is all give on their part....it does serve several purposes! Fact is, it also finds those who are ill and need some kind of medical attention!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 11, 2015 11:34:08 GMT -5
The workers are known not to answer questions. Those in the group who ask questions are seen as doubting. The most obvious reason being because they do not have a valid answer. They lack people skills if they don't think someone is worth it. Most pastors I have been to encourage questions. I've heard workers advise other workers to not ask questions less then appear to be quarrelsome! Also when a soft answer isn't going to fit in and whoever is expecting an answer is not wanting a soft answer, it is better to give NO answer. Then whatever impression anyone takes then is the fault of the person who takes it! Again, no taking responsibility or so it seems!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 11, 2015 13:18:41 GMT -5
The workers are known not to answer questions. Those in the group who ask questions are seen as doubting. The most obvious reason being because they do not have a valid answer. They lack people skills if they don't think someone is worth it. Most pastors I have been to encourage questions. It depends very much on the pastor and what you ask them. In general, people in a position of authority can sense antagonism, and ignoring the antagonist is a legitimate strategy whether they have an answer or not. Ignoring the antagonist just makes it look like they are taking the high road to their charges. I haven't noticed pastors being very much different in that regard. Repeated questions about the existence of Hell, challenging the Trinity, or the inerrancy of the Bible will make most conservative pastors question whether they are making good use of their time in talking to you.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 11, 2015 13:32:40 GMT -5
Yes, they would listen to you. Most pastors are very gracious and would be happy to talk about what they believe and why. Most churches put their beliefs on the internet with scripture to support their beliefs. They have nothing to hide so why would they not want to talk about their beliefs. Seems as if Grey was not afraid to state his position and how he has reached that conclusion but the workers are too afraid to state why they believe what they do. Jesus hid nothing from the world. The workers mostly just preach to their own converts. You're comparing Grey's thesis to someone with an independent opinion. Grey's line of thinking is as old as the hills and in the line of one religion marginalizing and downgrading another. You'll find the same on web site carm.org who label Mormons a cult. You should better ask this ... if a Mormon was told his church was a "cult" by a graduate student at an evangelical university would he talk to that person? Likely not. He already knows the argument and knows the conversation will go nowhere. Any worker should understand the same. The evangelical Christian churches look down on rival religions and denominations, and they have a centuries-old apparatus/ ideology which exercises what power it can against others, while also disguising and justifying their animosity. The early workers certainly understood this. In our present day, we forget this history because we live in secular countries within which the old religious powers have less influence. However, they still do try. All Grey did is dust off the old formula, plug in the numbers, and out comes the expected result: "dangerous cult". It is surprising that those kinds of results are sanctioned by a state university but they don't know what happens at their church colleges, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 11, 2015 13:44:41 GMT -5
I Perhaps one disappointment to me is that no workers at a senior level have been prepared to engage in any correspondence or discussion on the book. One day in a coffee shop in Northern Ireland I met a very senior worker and his young companion. Since we had met at a convention he knew me and we talked for a few minutes. I asked had he read the book to which he replied that he had leafed through it. I suggested that we meet and talk over a coffee any areas of the book that with which he disagreed but he declined my offer. However, I did leave him my card with contact details but so far nothing. Irvine, I have to confess to being a little surprised at your surprise that the workers you met did not wish to engage with you on your conclusion. This is not meant to be a criticism but I can't help but wonder whether a focus on doctrinal issues during your research resulted in you failing to grasp a more important and interesting aspect of 2x2ism, i.e. that of the mindset. A case of the wood and the trees and all that, perhaps. As I have pointed out previously, beyond the non-negotiable fundamentals of the church in the home and the preacher without a home, for the great majority of 2x2 adherents doctrine is not actually that important. Most professing people wouldn't have the foggiest idea what it is they believe (or are supposed to believe) in terms of what you refer to as "the central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ". And that includes workers. For the 2x2 sect, scripture is primarily a tool used to reinforce the beliefs of the group rather than as a basis for determining them. So long as one has a basic grasp of the do's and the dont's and is generally seen to adhere to them (at least publicly) I'm afraid that's pretty much it. Strange as it may seem to the theologian in you, but no standard issue 2x2 really gives a stuff about the theological aspects of the Holy Ghost or the Cross or the Blood. What the 2x2s do give a stuff about is outsiders. Primarily they give a stuff about getting outsiders to take sufficient interest to get them inside, at least enough outsiders to justify the ministry's existence but not so many as to risk status quo disturbing. Woe betide another spiritual awakening. What they also give a stuff about is outsiders taking an unhealthy interest in what goes on inside. While Christian preachers chatting to theologians about doctrinal tenets might seem like a normal and logical thing to do, for them it is nothing of the sort. Despite any warm words of welcome bestowed upon you in the course of your research, rest assured you will be viewed by the 2x2 hierarchy with deep suspicion, as a potential Trojan horse. Even had you the good fortune to stumble upon a senior worker who had an interest in the details of doctrine, in his mind there will be nothing whatsoever to be gained by as a result of discussing them. Knowing that anything he says is likely to be taken down and used as evidence in a book or discussion thread against him, is a factor that may have weighed heavily on his mind .... as is the very real risk of him looking like a fool in front of his junior partner should he dare to offer an unscholarly opinion on doctrinal matters to a theologian. These are some of the more obvious explanations. However there are more fundamental reasons. Not for nothing were the 2x2s bestowed with the 'secret sect' label. There is an institutional reluctance to engage openly with outsiders. Remember the need to cover up any link to the embarrassing antics of the early days burned bright for a long time. The line on engagement with workers is a very very clear one, and it is that the only place for learning and for being taught all that you need to know is a gospel mission where the Lord can work on your heart and bring you to a place where you are willing to walk in the right way. And while somewhere deep inside he may have an urge to engage with you for the purposes of trying to save you (it's his job .... apparently) let's face it, you are unlikely now to be viewed as the 'saveable kind'. I hope this doesn't come as a great disappointment. I'm sure it's scant consolation, but neither am I. Matt10. I think your analysis is fairly accurate, but I don't necessarily see all of it as bad. You are probably not in a position or have an interest in engaging my question, but I did wonder if Irvine Grey had engaged a first century church father or early apostle with his ideas, if the encounter would have been much different. Of course, we couldn't expect someone like Barnabas or Origen to have any knowledge of Beggington's quadrilateral but if it was explained to him, I suspect he'd harumph it in the same way the workers would. To be fair, if the workers themselves explained the "worker without a home and meeting in the home" as the unalterable representation of what Jesus called truth, and as what Luke called "the apostles doctrine" I suspect the workers might fare even worse.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 11, 2015 16:31:24 GMT -5
A lot of "missions" in cities used to do that, -make the poor men sit through a sermon before they got a meal.
Might have listened better if they had had a full stomach first.
Makes you wonder what really was the mission of the "missions."
Did they really care of people as Jesus taught or were they only doing so to reap the "reward" in an after life.
It doesn't mention that the "Good Samaritan" made the man listen to his view of Judaism before he took care of him.
As to what the Good Samaritan made the wounded man do or not do....he definitely made him put up with the way he treated his wounds plus dragging him off to the hotelier and leaving him there! But then most wounded people in those days would have been very glad for a touch of that compassion! As to the churches who require the "free grocery recipients" to sit through a church service... most the time it is a brief service and IF the recipients are that hungry there usually are "coffee bars" in the churches that are put there by the teen groups, even though most people give donations for their free coffee and rolls, the grocery recipients are told to make themselves to home and not one thing is expected from them...other then going into the short church service. This short service does serve several purposes. It does eliminate those people who go wherever they can for the freebies whether they really need them or not, also it gives the church time to get some kind of idea the condition of some of the homeless and very poor....mostly how many children are involved in those categories....thus when cold weather comes along, not only are groceries given by the large bagfuls, the homeless receive warm blankets and insulated sockings...children get coats and stockings and caps or beanies whatever they choose from the bin.....so I can't say going to a short church service is all give on their part....it does serve several purposes! Fact is, it also finds those who are ill and need some kind of medical attention!
I don't care how short the sermon is.
Fact is, that people in need of the very sustenance of life itself are being forced to listen to a proselytizing sermon of a particular view (Baptist, Methodist, whatever) of a particular religion (Christianity) who are claiming to be following their god (Jesus) and claiming that they are using his example of how to "love others as you love yourself."
You say,
"As to what the Good Samaritan made the wounded man do or not do....he definitely made him put up with the way he treated his wounds plus dragging him off to the hotelier and leaving him there!"
Do you believe that is the lesson that Jesus trying to show people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 16:48:01 GMT -5
the bible doesn't really say whether or not to evangelize when giving to the poor, i would think that would be up to the individual or group doing the giving...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 11, 2015 22:05:16 GMT -5
the bible doesn't really say whether or not to evangelize when giving to the poor, i would think that would be up to the individual or group doing the giving... Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. I would think that "freely give" means "no strings attached".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 22:11:11 GMT -5
the bible doesn't really say whether or not to evangelize when giving to the poor, i would think that would be up to the individual or group doing the giving... Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. I would think that "freely give" means "no strings attached". i guess people have multiple interpretations of that, i look to it to mean do not ask for monetary payment...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 11, 2015 23:01:00 GMT -5
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. I would think that "freely give" means "no strings attached". i guess people have multiple interpretations of that, i look to it to mean do not ask for monetary payment... That too. But here is another verse with the word "freely". I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. I think there is a broader sense than free of monetary charge. But to my knowledge most church charities do not attach any strings regarding sermons or religious beliefs. For one thing they are ineligible for government grants if they do.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 12, 2015 0:41:52 GMT -5
Yes, they would listen to you. Most pastors are very gracious and would be happy to talk about what they believe and why. Most churches put their beliefs on the internet with scripture to support their beliefs. They have nothing to hide so why would they not want to talk about their beliefs. Seems as if Grey was not afraid to state his position and how he has reached that conclusion but the workers are too afraid to state why they believe what they do. Jesus hid nothing from the world. The workers mostly just preach to their own converts. You're comparing Grey's thesis to someone with an independent opinion. Grey's line of thinking is as old as the hills and in the line of one religion marginalizing and downgrading another. You'll find the same on web site carm.org who label Mormons a cult. You should better ask this ... if a Mormon was told his church was a "cult" by a graduate student at an evangelical university would he talk to that person? Likely not. He already knows the argument and knows the conversation will go nowhere. Any worker should understand the same. The evangelical Christian churches look down on rival religions and denominations, and they have a centuries-old apparatus/ ideology which exercises what power it can against others, while also disguising and justifying their animosity. The early workers certainly understood this. In our present day, we forget this history because we live in secular countries within which the old religious powers have less influence. However, they still do try. All Grey did is dust off the old formula, plug in the numbers, and out comes the expected result: "dangerous cult". It is surprising that those kinds of results are sanctioned by a state university but they don't know what happens at their church colleges, I guess. What motivated Grey was his desire for the F&W to have the better grasp of redemption that Christians do or at least, ought to have. The church is God's vehicle for publicizing salvation, for publicizing JC. The fact there are so many Christian communities today speaks to the imperfection of the vehicle. When one of these communities presumes otherwise and becomes exclusive within itself they become unhealthy and cult-like. I don't know what's so very different about saying a community is cult-like versus a cult.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 12, 2015 11:25:57 GMT -5
As to what the Good Samaritan made the wounded man do or not do....he definitely made him put up with the way he treated his wounds plus dragging him off to the hotelier and leaving him there! But then most wounded people in those days would have been very glad for a touch of that compassion! As to the churches who require the "free grocery recipients" to sit through a church service... most the time it is a brief service and IF the recipients are that hungry there usually are "coffee bars" in the churches that are put there by the teen groups, even though most people give donations for their free coffee and rolls, the grocery recipients are told to make themselves to home and not one thing is expected from them...other then going into the short church service. This short service does serve several purposes. It does eliminate those people who go wherever they can for the freebies whether they really need them or not, also it gives the church time to get some kind of idea the condition of some of the homeless and very poor....mostly how many children are involved in those categories....thus when cold weather comes along, not only are groceries given by the large bagfuls, the homeless receive warm blankets and insulated sockings...children get coats and stockings and caps or beanies whatever they choose from the bin.....so I can't say going to a short church service is all give on their part....it does serve several purposes! Fact is, it also finds those who are ill and need some kind of medical attention!
I don't care how short the sermon is.
Fact is, that people in need of the very sustenance of life itself are being forced to listen to a proselytizing sermon of a particular view (Baptist, Methodist, whatever) of a particular religion (Christianity) who are claiming to be following their god (Jesus) and claiming that they are using his example of how to "love others as you love yourself."
You say,
"As to what the Good Samaritan made the wounded man do or not do....he definitely made him put up with the way he treated his wounds plus dragging him off to the hotelier and leaving him there!"
Do you believe that is the lesson that Jesus trying to show people?
Of course not. However sometimes working with deep compassion doesn't always go good......Jesus was pointing out "who were neighbors."
|
|