|
Post by What Hat on Jan 12, 2015 11:37:14 GMT -5
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. If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 12, 2015 11:49:42 GMT -5
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. Jim Jones is an example of a cult. So far the workers haven't asked it's members to drink the koolaide! As far as Irvine thinking he knows what God wants better than any other group of people in this world, that is a delusion.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 12, 2015 22:16:19 GMT -5
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. If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws. Why does the diversification of God's vehicle Christianity, or Christ-attentiveness as I would consider Christianity, make it any harder or impossible for humankind to improve? And how is that necessarily the objective anyway? Perhaps we're in a pseudo or temporary reality charged and characterized by a battle between good and evil, wherein the created, having been given the liberty to do so might reject him. In that case the general improving of humankind would not be an immediate objective whatsoever, but loyalty to the concerns, prerogatives and qualities of the creator. Did not Jesus come to a hostile world? Did he come to die just for his own stupidity, self-importance and fanaticalism? How about that vehicle Christianity? Are they just a special-interest group who's political-worldly ambitions trump the transcendent telos in Christ? Have Christians, most notably the evangelicals you mention, been wholly co-opted/conformed to the creation, as the creation would rebel against God? Is their confession of Christianity really that profane and simple? Evangelicals comprise a pretty large group. I just don't see that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 12, 2015 22:56:00 GMT -5
If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws. Why does the diversification of God's vehicle Christianity, or Christ-attentiveness as I would consider Christianity, make it any harder or impossible for humankind to improve? And how is that necessarily the objective anyway? Perhaps we're in a pseudo or temporary reality charged and characterized by a battle between good and evil, wherein the created, having been given the liberty to do so might reject him. In that case the general improving of humankind would not be an immediate objective whatsoever, but loyalty to the concerns, prerogatives and qualities of the creator. Did not Jesus come to a hostile world? Did he come to die just for his own stupidity, self-importance and fanaticalism? How about that vehicle Christianity? Are they just a special-interest group who's political-worldly ambitions trump the transcendent telos in Christ? Have Christians, most notably the evangelicals you mention, been wholly co-opted/conformed to the creation, as the creation would rebel against God? Is their confession of Christianity really that profane and simple? Evangelicals comprise a pretty large group. I just don't see that. Salvation, even in a universalist context which is how I appreciate it, is always an individual matter. Sure, why not an evangelical, but there is nothing in particular about what evangelicals believe which helps them in the cause. But they might do well in spite of it. In spite of their ethno-centrism and sometimes overweaning ignorance on matters of science and politics. That doesn't mean they can't be good people or that they miss the Christ. I can't think of a class of people though that demonizes more things outside their typically small orbits. The things they are against constitutes a very long list: homosexuality, science, evolution, Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Muslims, multi-culturalism, humanism, a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy, or a suffering person's decision to end their life, measures to reduce global warming, gun control, just to name a few things off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2015 9:59:24 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... Precisely! This fits into "charity", no greater love then this!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2015 10:10:07 GMT -5
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. If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws. Uhh, What hat, you need to back up and realize something here! Dr. Grey is not Catholic, though he believes in the Trinity concept, doctrine. He is Baptist in faith if I'm not mistaken....however, Baptists generally believe what is written in the scriptures in regards to who Jesus is and was and always will be...though perhaps the Catholic believers or leaders, I should say, came up with this understanding of the scriptures "first". Many of the well-established Christian churches of the world do believe in the Trinity concept and they teach the Trinity concept. This is where the workers failed their followers, though the beginning workers believed solidly in the Trinity doctrine....they did not understand it well enough to preach it in their gospel missions....or the point may well be said, they were after "converts" that they could claim, whether those converts were taught according to what these beginning workers were taught or not. Their first convs. may have been 2-3 weeks long, but it appears that their revival, gospel missions were but a few days though admittedly there were times that they went nearly the whole night long. A nd what was WI's and followers' main message? "The 2x2 itinerant ministry"! This of course, does not even begin to touch the Trinity concept...it only addresses the earthly components of some kind of religious hierarchy! Thus leaving out the most important part of "salvation" and that being Jesus Christ....and if we are to know about our Saviour then we must understand just who he was before he came to the earth and who he is today! But that is not addressed very well amongst the workers and few friends understand that either! They'll confess to knowing "Jesus" as being an important person in the NT gospel books, but to actually know him I don't think many really do!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 13, 2015 13:10:00 GMT -5
Uhh, What hat, you need to back up and realize something here! Dr. Grey is not Catholic, though he believes in the Trinity concept, doctrine. He is Baptist in faith if I'm not mistaken....however, Baptists generally believe what is written in the scriptures in regards to who Jesus is and was and always will be...though perhaps the Catholic believers or leaders, I should say, came up with this understanding of the scriptures "first". Many of the well-established Christian churches of the world do believe in the Trinity concept and they teach the Trinity concept. This is where the workers failed their followers, though the beginning workers believed solidly in the Trinity doctrine....they did not understand it well enough to preach it in their gospel missions....or the point may well be said, they were after "converts" that they could claim, whether those converts were taught according to what these beginning workers were taught or not. Their first convs. may have been 2-3 weeks long, but it appears that their revival, gospel missions were but a few days though admittedly there were times that they went nearly the whole night long. A nd what was WI's and followers' main message? "The 2x2 itinerant ministry"! This of course, does not even begin to touch the Trinity concept...it only addresses the earthly components of some kind of religious hierarchy! Thus leaving out the most important part of "salvation" and that being Jesus Christ....and if we are to know about our Saviour then we must understand just who he was before he came to the earth and who he is today! But that is not addressed very well amongst the workers and few friends understand that either! They'll confess to knowing "Jesus" as being an important person in the NT gospel books, but to actually know him I don't think many really do! With all due respects Sharon, you are wide of the mark in your report of William Irvine and his friends. Have you read the Goodhand Pattison account?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 13, 2015 13:14:09 GMT -5
If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws. Uhh, What hat, you need to back up and realize something here! Dr. Grey is not Catholic, though he believes in the Trinity concept, doctrine. He is Baptist in faith if I'm not mistaken....however, Baptists generally believe what is written in the scriptures in regards to who Jesus is and was and always will be...though perhaps the Catholic believers or leaders, I should say, came up with this understanding of the scriptures "first". Many of the well-established Christian churches of the world do believe in the Trinity concept and they teach the Trinity concept. This is where the workers failed their followers, though the beginning workers believed solidly in the Trinity doctrine....they did not understand it well enough to preach it in their gospel missions....or the point may well be said, they were after "converts" that they could claim, whether those converts were taught according to what these beginning workers were taught or not. Their first convs. may have been 2-3 weeks long, but it appears that their revival, gospel missions were but a few days though admittedly there were times that they went nearly the whole night long. A nd what was WI's and followers' main message? "The 2x2 itinerant ministry"! This of course, does not even begin to touch the Trinity concept...it only addresses the earthly components of some kind of religious hierarchy! Thus leaving out the most important part of "salvation" and that being Jesus Christ....and if we are to know about our Saviour then we must understand just who he was before he came to the earth and who he is today! But that is not addressed very well amongst the workers and few friends understand that either! They'll confess to knowing "Jesus" as being an important person in the NT gospel books, but to actually know him I don't think many really do! I'm not sure where you get that I think Grey a Catholic?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 13, 2015 15:57:33 GMT -5
It seemed like the more the workers increased (in importance) the more Christ decreased until the workers and Jesus became necessary for salvation.
Followers started exalting workers to a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus only.
The sacrifice of the workers became important and equated to the sacrifice of Jesus with no other message from any other preacher outside of them being acceptable.
Christ alone is our hope of glory, not the workers.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2015 16:48:42 GMT -5
Fixit, true according to Goodhand Patterson's description of WI in the "early days" of the 2x2 ministry and probably even during his Faith Mission days....however as Mary so puts it....it all changed and mighty quick when they decided to keep their own converts and make their own following. Now as to what Goodhand Patterson might have said about William Irvine's most taking religiosities in 1914 might reveal the thing that I was trying to say perhaps in a too shortened version of things.
It is amazing to me that William Irvine could have been so loudly proclaimed by any of his workers or peers at the beginning years and then years later they'd have the gaul to demean him and do their best to get rid of him pronto! That's what comes from not knowing really what employees are really like....they suffered things almost within the first years from such things and still never learned to be more discretionary in their allowing "workers' starting" here and there.....thus here the 2x2 religion is at present day with some pretty unsavory characters...much like WI thought of John Long and then what Jack Carroll and other leading workers thought of William Irvine and then thought of Eddie Cooney because he would not come under working in a designated "field".....
Just some pretty misdirected and misguided young men and women, so it seems...they seem to think they'd found something that had never been found before or at least since the days of the shores of Galilee....but of course, they had no way of knowing that nor did they seem intent on trying to know that!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2015 17:17:24 GMT -5
It seemed like the more the workers increased (in importance) the more Christ decreased until the workers and Jesus became necessary for salvation. Followers started exalting workers to a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus only. The s acrifice of the workers became important and equated to the sacrifice of Jesus with no other message from any other preacher outside of them being acceptable. Christ alone is our hope of glory, not the workers. You know, I really don't think that is what happened, -that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus."
I don't think that they did that then nor do they do that now.
I know it is a kind of rationalization that some ex- 2x2's would like to believe. However, I don't think that was the problem.
The workers preached that they were going back to the teachings of the apostles. They weren't alone.
There were many of the "back to the bible" movements of the time. It was a revolt against the organized wealthy religions of the period who ignored the poor & other citizens.
Of course each movement tried to distinguish themselves from the others.
With the workers came the belief that only they had the "correct interpretation of the gospels." It was their interpretation of the gospels that they exalted.
That led to the belief that since they were the only ones that had the correct interpretation, it was only through them that one could receive salvation.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 13, 2015 17:47:40 GMT -5
It is amazing to me that William Irvine could have been so loudly proclaimed by any of his workers or peers at the beginning years and then years later they'd have the gaul to demean him and do their best to get rid of him pronto! I think it was with sadness and reluctance that the workers parted ways with William Irvine. Where do you get the accusation that early workers demeaned William Irvine?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 13, 2015 17:48:03 GMT -5
I did not say "that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus."
I did not say rather than Jesus I said rather than Jesus only, meaning that Jesus alone was not enough, it became Jesus and the workers.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2015 18:06:00 GMT -5
I did not say "that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus." I did not say rather than Jesus I said rather than Jesus only, meaning that Jesus alone was not enough, it became Jesus and the workers. Mary, I'm Sorry that I didn't quote you correctly.
However, I still think it was the workers interpretation of the gospels that they meant to exalt and not themselves.
However, as is often true, when some people think that there is only one way to explains something & only they have that key, many undesired issues soon come into play.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 13, 2015 21:24:29 GMT -5
It seemed like the more the workers increased (in importance) the more Christ decreased until the workers and Jesus became necessary for salvation. Followers started exalting workers to a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus only. The s acrifice of the workers became important and equated to the sacrifice of Jesus with no other message from any other preacher outside of them being acceptable. Christ alone is our hope of glory, not the workers. You know, I really don't think that is what happened, -that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus."
I don't think that they did that then nor do they do that now.
I know it is a kind of rationalization that some ex- 2x2's would like to believe. However, I don't think that was the problem.
The workers preached that they were going back to the teachings of the apostles. They weren't alone.
There were many of the "back to the bible" movements of the time. It was a revolt against the organized wealthy religions of the period who ignored the poor & other citizens.
Of course each movement tried to distinguish themselves from the others.
With the workers came the belief that only they had the "correct interpretation of the gospels." It was their interpretation of the gospels that they exalted.
That led to the belief that since they were the only ones that had the correct interpretation, it was only through them that one could receive salvation.
Bang on. But isn't it odd how deeply religious people exalt their interpretation, as you put it. No one ever says, I think it is like this or like that but I can't be 100% sure. No, they're 100% positive about 100% of what they believe. In my own case, I'm 99% positive on about 10% of it, and 80% positive on the next 20%, and then it kinda keeps dropping off from there. But I'm quite certain about which things I'm unsure about.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 13, 2015 22:42:53 GMT -5
I'm 100 percent positive that Jesus put law and morality into perspective, by subjecting these to the imperative of life, as well as the salvation of the saints. But from your posts one might think humankind could do away with both mores and law and improve themselves. This alone appears to be the reason you reject evangelicals and their cruci-centrism.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 13, 2015 22:45:45 GMT -5
If you read my response I did not say that their followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus I said that they exalted them as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus only, meaning that it is Jesus and the workers, not just Jesus.
AS most of us who sat in meetings from birth know that the workers do not accept those who professed or were baptised in another denomination. One must profess in their meetings through the preaching of a worker and get baptised again. They do not accept those who came to the Lord and were baptised in other churches as saved. Read some of the threads you will know that. To show I am not dreaming it up, the incident of where some were dis fellowshipped for believing people could be saved through the ministry of other preachers was put on the board again this week. How many people have you heard of who were baptised in other churches were accepted into 'membership' in meetings?
What Hat, Were you a Christian and baptised before going to meetings? Did you have to reprofess and get baptised again?>
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 13, 2015 23:13:54 GMT -5
Why does the diversification of God's vehicle Christianity, or Christ-attentiveness as I would consider Christianity, make it any harder or impossible for humankind to improve? And how is that necessarily the objective anyway? Perhaps we're in a pseudo or temporary reality charged and characterized by a battle between good and evil, wherein the created, having been given the liberty to do so might reject him. In that case the general improving of humankind would not be an immediate objective whatsoever, but loyalty to the concerns, prerogatives and qualities of the creator. Did not Jesus come to a hostile world? Did he come to die just for his own stupidity, self-importance and fanaticalism? How about that vehicle Christianity? Are they just a special-interest group who's political-worldly ambitions trump the transcendent telos in Christ? Have Christians, most notably the evangelicals you mention, been wholly co-opted/conformed to the creation, as the creation would rebel against God? Is their confession of Christianity really that profane and simple? Evangelicals comprise a pretty large group. I just don't see that. Salvation, even in a universalist context which is how I appreciate it, is always an individual matter. Sure, why not an evangelical, but there is nothing in particular about what evangelicals believe which helps them in the cause. But they might do well in spite of it. In spite of their ethno-centrism and sometimes overweaning ignorance on matters of science and politics. That doesn't mean they can't be good people or that they miss the Christ. I can't think of a class of people though that demonizes more things outside their typically small orbits. The things they are against constitutes a very long list: homosexuality, science, evolution, Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Muslims, multi-culturalism, humanism, a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy, or a suffering person's decision to end their life, measures to reduce global warming, gun control, just to name a few things off the top of my head. Homosexuality: It is a sin. Anatomically, aesthetically, and biologically, heterosexuality should be preferred. Society will not prosper where there is no distinctive celebration of the heterosexual union. Science: Evangelicals have good reason to reject "naturalistic" theories of reality. There are hostile to God by their very nature. Evolution: Evolution as a naturalistic theory of origins is a fraud. Evolution does not account for how life came from non-life. Evolution does not offer a satisfactory explanation of the "change-mechanism" by which all of the species evolved. Evolution has not been empirically substantiated by a complete fossil record of all the little changes between species the theory of evolution predicts and requires. Mormons: Mormons more or less reject historic Christianity. Why should their contentiousness and their beliefs not be regarded with suspicion? JW's: JW's put 2x2's to shame when it comes to disfellowshipping people they wish to cast out into outer darkness. Do you truly believe JW's are deserving of our sympathies? Catholics: In a ecumenical spirit, my evangelical therapist told me Catholicism wasn't a cult. Even so, given the illegal management of monies by the Vatican, the partiality shown to criminal offenders, and the way familial piety trumps other higher considerations ... is Catholicism immune from the descriptor "cult"? Muslims: As Islam is void of a Savior, it is void of salvation. Their incoherent culture reflects this. Multi-culturalism: Multi-culturalism means Babylon if it not founded upon God but upon humanism. Humanism: Humanism is Satanism as it would identify apart from its creator. A woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy: If its a crime to murder a child outside of a womb, why is okay to murder one inside? A suffering person's decision to end their life: So long as its their decision. Measures to reduce global warming: If its truly warming from man. Gun control: You means assault weapons? OK
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 13, 2015 23:35:59 GMT -5
Salvation, even in a universalist context which is how I appreciate it, is always an individual matter. Sure, why not an evangelical, but there is nothing in particular about what evangelicals believe which helps them in the cause. But they might do well in spite of it. In spite of their ethno-centrism and sometimes overweaning ignorance on matters of science and politics. That doesn't mean they can't be good people or that they miss the Christ. I can't think of a class of people though that demonizes more things outside their typically small orbits. The things they are against constitutes a very long list: homosexuality, science, evolution, Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Muslims, multi-culturalism, humanism, a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy, or a suffering person's decision to end their life, measures to reduce global warming, gun control, just to name a few things off the top of my head. Homosexuality: It is a sin. Anatomically, aesthetically, and biologically, heterosexuality should be preferred. Society will not prosper where there is no distinctive celebration of the heterosexual union. Science: Evangelicals have good reason to reject "naturalistic" theories of reality. There are hostile to God by their very nature. Evolution: Evolution as a naturalistic theory of origins is a fraud. Evolution does not account for how life came from non-life. Evolution does not offer a satisfactory explanation of the "change-mechanism" by which all of the species evolved. Evolution has not been empirically substantiated by a complete fossil record of all the little changes between species the theory of evolution predicts and requires. Mormons: Mormons more or less reject historic Christianity. Why should their contentiousness and their beliefs not be regarded with suspicion? JW's: JW's put 2x2's to shame when it comes to disfellowshipping people they wish to cast out into outer darkness. Do you truly believe JW's are deserving of our sympathies? Catholics: In a ecumenical spirit, my evangelical therapist told me Catholicism wasn't a cult. Even so, given the illegal management of monies by the Vatican, the partiality shown to criminal offenders, and the way familial piety trumps other higher considerations ... is Catholicism immune from the descriptor "cult"? Muslims: As Islam is void of a Savior, it is void of salvation. Their incoherent culture reflects this. Multi-culturalism: Multi-culturalism means Babylon if it not founded upon God but upon humanism. Humanism: Humanism is Satanism as it would identify apart from its creator. A woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy: If its a crime to murder a child outside of a womb, why is okay to murder one inside? A suffering person's decision to end their life: So long as its their decision. Measures to reduce global warming: If its truly warming from man. Gun control: You means assault weapons? OK Well that was a pretty depressing read.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 13, 2015 23:56:21 GMT -5
If that statement was true, it would simply be impossible for humankind to improve. You make a giant presumption that the main community is always correct, and any dissent will be cult-like. I look at the mainstream of Christianity as being very similar to Communist Russia in the 1980s - entrenched hierarchy, self-serving, not good for its members or for society at large. So what is required is a shaking at the roots. The unfortunate thing is that often those who have the motivation to stir things up have an enormous sense of mission, some would say 'ego', in order to overcome the inertia and ennui that afflicts most people who just muddle along. Think of William Irvine as the Gorbachev of the Christian world. In any case, change makers in the church world aren't necessarily cults or cult-like, as much as the evangelicals would have you think. They certainly can be imperfect and it might take a few iterations for change to come. As far as "redemption" is concerned I don't see Grey's or the evangelical model as particularly better than the friends' model. In fact, it is worse. Perhaps if he would have written from a Catholic perspective which is a much more comprehensive view than the narrow cruci-centrism of evangelicals. I think that is a major problem going forward for young Christians as I perceive their search. Many of the young people I encounter don't want to sit in church every Sunday bathed in cruci-centrism. They want to do stuff and make a difference. But regardless I don't think you can be taken seriously as an academic and try to say that this or that model of redemption is "better" in some way. There is no falsifiable test for making those kinds of value judgements. If Grey's work had merely compared and stated differences using Bebbington's quadrilateral that would be fine as an objective, although as a comparison there are certainly flaws. Uhh, What hat, you need to back up and realize something here! Dr. Grey is not Catholic, though he believes in the Trinity concept, doctrine. He is Baptist in faith if I'm not mistaken....however, Baptists generally believe what is written in the scriptures in regards to who Jesus is and was and always will be...though perhaps the Catholic believers or leaders, I should say, came up with this understanding of the scriptures "first". Many of the well-established Christian churches of the world do believe in the Trinity concept and they teach the Trinity concept. This is where the workers failed their followers, though the beginning workers believed solidly in the Trinity doctrine....they did not understand it well enough to preach it in their gospel missions....or the point may well be said, they were after "converts" that they could claim, whether those converts were taught according to what these beginning workers were taught or not. Their first convs. may have been 2-3 weeks long, but it appears that their revival, gospel missions were but a few days though admittedly there were times that they went nearly the whole night long. A nd what was WI's and followers' main message? "The 2x2 itinerant ministry"! This of course, does not even begin to touch the Trinity concept...it only addresses the earthly components of some kind of religious hierarchy! Thus leaving out the most important part of "salvation" and that being Jesus Christ....and if we are to know about our Saviour then we must understand just who he was before he came to the earth and who he is today! But that is not addressed very well amongst the workers and few friends understand that either! They'll confess to knowing "Jesus" as being an important person in the NT gospel books, but to actually know him I don't think many really do! STR ~ In fact, many of the long term friends leaving in recent years have cited workers doctrine and traditional teachings along with their exclusivity as being the primarily reasons for leaving along with their desire for a closer relationship with God, which they felt was being hindered within the 2x2's. However, others have suffered such terrible burn-out from the 2x2's, that they want nothing to do with any belief in God or church afterwards. So, I would gather from the consensus that the workers are not getting through very well with their constituents due to their lack of knowledge regarding basic Christian teaching? To back up my statement, here's a recent Exit Letter (after 2000) from Cherie's public TLC site of a family in Iowa who left the 2x2's after 30 years invested, along with two other families, due to the workers' doctrine among other things covered in this letter.
thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11%3Aprottsma-steve-martha-a-kayla&catid=6%3Aafter-2000&Itemid=7
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2015 10:33:33 GMT -5
It is amazing to me that William Irvine could have been so loudly proclaimed by any of his workers or peers at the beginning years and then years later they'd have the gaul to demean him and do their best to get rid of him pronto! I think it was with sadness and reluctance that the workers parted ways with William Irvine. Where do you get the accusation that early workers demeaned William Irvine? I suppose someone speaking about immoral acts plus being quite out of one's mind is not being demeaning? If you remember back in those days any reference to someone not being mentally sound would be an insult at the very least and at the most a way of dispensing with that person's presence in the running of something so important to others as the 2x2 itinerant ministry and meetings in the home had become to the beginning workers!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2015 10:40:28 GMT -5
Faune, thank you for a well timed recitation...this quote from those dear folks really cinches the whole thing. IMO
"our own salvation and discussed it with our friends and the workers, we found a general state of confusion and vagueness amongst the fellowship regarding one’s personal salvation - which we find interesting when considering that the way is held out as the only path to salvation."
It just explains to me why my Mom felt so confused about whether she had any hopes of salvation or not and that a senior sister worker could not help her to understand it comes from "faith" and "grace". Both actually being a gift from heaven!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2015 11:02:24 GMT -5
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. Jim Jones is an example of a cult. So far the workers haven't asked it's members to drink the koolaide! As far as Irvine thinking he knows what God wants better than any other group of people in this world, that is a delusion. Throughout the past years, there have been people who also have called the 2x2 religion a "cult"....however, there was a designation between harmful cults and benign cults. At the time, it was considered the 2x2 religion was one of the "benign cults". "Generally, if a religious organization follows Jesus Christ, but denies or distorts essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, or salvation by grace alone, that organization is considered a cult. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" This is a "general" observation made from the auspices of a more organized, established church or denomination. I feel perhaps this is why Dr. Grey came to the conclusion that the 2x2 religion is a dangerous cult for it preaches a gospel of Jesus Christ plus. "Actually, contrary to their historical foundations of deeming Christendom to be misguided, evil or apostate, most of the aforementioned cults are now claiming to be Christian themselves. They declare the Divine authority of the Bible, but they manipulate the scriptures to suit their own purposes. Although they claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may use Christian terminology, their doctrines are dangerously different. Why is this an issue? Why can't we all just get along? Because these organizations don't lead to the Jesus Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel message altogether. If these religious groups are based on bad history, or bad doctrine, or bad motives, then we must respectfully expose these shortcomings. If these religious cults are presenting false teachings, then multitudes of people are being led astray. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" There was a study of different cults and I'm not able to find that now, but in the long run, the researches did come to the conclusion that the 2x2 cult was a benign cult. Though many have made a point of telling of the pain of the fierceness of the demands of being someone raised and expected to profess and/or be a worker. One elderly man spoke about how it had changed his father's way of dealing out discipline. Before he had professed this father had been pretty much like any loving father with a large family....strict but loving, never physically or emotionally abusing any of his children. But after professing this man began to beating his children, trying to make them do and be as he thought they should...It became so bad that when their mother tried to intervene one day, the young adult son stepped between his mother and father...and whatever ensued after that was the beginning of the end for this young man to stay and live at home. Being almost too young to get a job to keep himself, he still do whatever he could find to do so. He never went back to any of the mtgs. until he was retirement age...and since that time I understand he is out again due to the horrible secrets and the way the overseers have handled the CSA issues!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2015 11:09:18 GMT -5
I did not say "that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus." I did not say rather than Jesus I said rather than Jesus only, meaning that Jesus alone was not enough, it became Jesus and the workers. As far back as I can remember, when the workers were working a gospel mission we often would read in their letters that a hoped-for convert just didn't "get it" yet! Well, to me if they read the bible surely they can understand that Jesus died for all sinner's sins...so what was there to "get it" yet about? And recently we've been told right here on TMB that some who've gone to gospel meetings that workers spend their preaching time preaching themselves, the 2x2 itinerant ministry. Also after reading what LS sent to BM about BM not understanding what was important to the fellowship and that was the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home....tells me that yes, the workers have stepped into a position between Jesus and any hopeful convert or follower! Thus it becomes a Jesus plus gospel....which is adding to the scriptures in part and subtracting of the scriptures in another. Also it is giving the impression that Jesus' death on the cross is NOT enough for salvation of sins to any who would be of the faith that it is enough!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2015 11:14:16 GMT -5
You know, I really don't think that is what happened, -that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus."
I don't think that they did that then nor do they do that now.
I know it is a kind of rationalization that some ex- 2x2's would like to believe. However, I don't think that was the problem.
The workers preached that they were going back to the teachings of the apostles. They weren't alone.
There were many of the "back to the bible" movements of the time. It was a revolt against the organized wealthy religions of the period who ignored the poor & other citizens.
Of course each movement tried to distinguish themselves from the others.
With the workers came the belief that only they had the "correct interpretation of the gospels." It was their interpretation of the gospels that they exalted.
That led to the belief that since they were the only ones that had the correct interpretation, it was only through them that one could receive salvation.
Bang on. But isn't it odd how deeply religious people exalt their interpretation, as you put it. No one ever says, I think it is like this or like that but I can't be 100% sure. No, they're 100% positive about 100% of what they believe. In my own case, I'm 99% positive on about 10% of it, and 80% positive on the next 20%, and then it kinda keeps dropping off from there. But I'm quite certain about which things I'm unsure about. Do the workers not all say that anyone wanting salvation will have to come through the workers, themselves? I've been told that by several different workers. One having given over graciously that reading the bible might bring someone to God, but for understanding they'd have to come to the workers and/or the meetings of the friends! That to me is saying that they are almost 100% positive that their way is right, that only their preaching will warrant salvation for anyone....that it all comes through the workers. That's putting the workers pretty high on the totem pole.....then the friends just help them along with all the preferences and the bowing down and running to workers....adoration of them, etc.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 14, 2015 12:32:34 GMT -5
Jim Jones is an example of a cult. So far the workers haven't asked it's members to drink the koolaide! As far as Irvine thinking he knows what God wants better than any other group of people in this world, that is a delusion. Throughout the past years, there have been people who also have called the 2x2 religion a "cult"....however, there was a designation between harmful cults and benign cults. At the time, it was considered the 2x2 religion was one of the "benign cults". "Generally, if a religious organization follows Jesus Christ, but denies or distorts essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, or salvation by grace alone, that organization is considered a cult. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" This is a "general" observation made from the auspices of a more organized, established church or denomination. I feel perhaps this is why Dr. Grey came to the conclusion that the 2x2 religion is a dangerous cult for it preaches a gospel of Jesus Christ plus. "Actually, contrary to their historical foundations of deeming Christendom to be misguided, evil or apostate, most of the aforementioned cults are now claiming to be Christian themselves. They declare the Divine authority of the Bible, but they manipulate the scriptures to suit their own purposes. Although they claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may use Christian terminology, their doctrines are dangerously different. Why is this an issue? Why can't we all just get along? Because these organizations don't lead to the Jesus Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel message altogether. If these religious groups are based on bad history, or bad doctrine, or bad motives, then we must respectfully expose these shortcomings. If these religious cults are presenting false teachings, then multitudes of people are being led astray. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" There was a study of different cults and I'm not able to find that now, but in the long run, the researches did come to the conclusion that the 2x2 cult was a benign cult. Though many have made a point of telling of the pain of the fierceness of the demands of being someone raised and expected to profess and/or be a worker. One elderly man spoke about how it had changed his father's way of dealing out discipline. Before he had professed this father had been pretty much like any loving father with a large family....strict but loving, never physically or emotionally abusing any of his children. But after professing this man began to beating his children, trying to make them do and be as he thought they should...It became so bad that when their mother tried to intervene one day, the young adult son stepped between his mother and father...and whatever ensued after that was the beginning of the end for this young man to stay and live at home. Being almost too young to get a job to keep himself, he still do whatever he could find to do so. He never went back to any of the mtgs. until he was retirement age...and since that time I understand he is out again due to the horrible secrets and the way the overseers have handled the CSA issues! If cults can be dangerous and benign, then I would have to say all religions are cults to one degree or another. Some more benign than others, but all of them dangerous to a certain degree because they ask you to believe in things that cannot be seen and have to believed through faith alone. Most religions also promote shame and guilt and the Christian religion even promotes that all are sinners at birth because someone else sinned, which is really a horrible concept for self esteem or self worth. In fact, self worth is not something anyone wants to admit to in that religion because it's only by the grace one has any worth. Dependence on a being no one can prove exists for our self worth does not seem healthy to me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 14, 2015 14:25:11 GMT -5
I'm 100 percent positive that Jesus put law and morality into perspective, by subjecting these to the imperative of life, as well as the salvation of the saints. But from your posts one might think humankind could do away with both mores and law and improve themselves. This alone appears to be the reason you reject evangelicals and their cruci-centrism. There is a huge gap between basic mores and common law versus evangelicals and their crucicentrism. I would venture to say that where the two overlap is almost entirely a co-incidence. Where is the morality in supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example? Sometime after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, I made a remarkable discovery. I had gone to one of my local Christian bookstores to find a Bible for my goddaughter. On a whim, I also decided to look for a Holy Spirit lapel pin, in the symbolic shape of a dove, the kind that had always been easy to find in the display case in the front. Many people in my church and in the places where I traveled had been wearing the American flag on their lapel for months now. It seemed like a pretty good time for Christians to put the Spirit back on.
But the doves were nowhere in sight. In the place near the front where I once would have found them, I was greeted instead by a full assortment of patriotic accessories -- red-white-and-blue ties, bandanas, buttons, handkerchiefs, "I support our troops" ribbons, "God Bless America" gear, and an extraordinary cross and flag button with the two images interlocked. I felt slightly panicked by the new arrangement. I asked the clerk behind the counter where the doves had gone. The man's response was jarring, although the remark might well be remembered as an apt theological summation of our present religious age. "They're in the back with the other discounted items," he said, nodding in that direction. See - www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/08/god_and_country/?page=full
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 14, 2015 14:34:12 GMT -5
If you read my response I did not say that their followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus I said that they exalted them as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus only, meaning that it is Jesus and the workers, not just Jesus. AS most of us who sat in meetings from birth know that the workers do not accept those who professed or were baptised in another denomination. One must profess in their meetings through the preaching of a worker and get baptised again. They do not accept those who came to the Lord and were baptised in other churches as saved. Read some of the threads you will know that. To show I am not dreaming it up, the incident of where some were dis fellowshipped for believing people could be saved through the ministry of other preachers was put on the board again this week. How many people have you heard of who were baptised in other churches were accepted into 'membership' in meetings? What Hat, Were you a Christian and baptised before going to meetings? Did you have to reprofess and get baptised again?> I was baptised as an infant, and again when we began to join the meetings. The second occasion was much more profound and memorable than the first, at least for me. I think your wording in the first paragraph is awkward. It might be correct to say they don't preach "Jesus only" but "Jesus plus" a specific form of worship, the meeting in the home and the ministry without a home. The meeting/ministry requirement is posited as a later revelation. Remember, that once you accept Jesus and you're baptised, you are not guaranteed salvation. Two years after we professed I asked a group of men at a bar-b-que how I would know if I was saved. The unanimous and unequivocal answer was that there was no way of knowing for certain until we met God. I found that answer actually quite satisfying, as the "saved by the Cross" had always seemed suspect to me, on a couple of grounds. First, it didn't seem quite right that I should be saved by accident of birth. Second, so many Christians who considered themselves "saved by the Cross" seemed indistinguishable to me on other than superficial grounds from many other good people that I knew. But, to continue, since you're never actually certain of your salvation, then it can't be correct to say that you're saved by or through the ministry. The way it is put is a bit like this. You are saved by Jesus, but you can't know Jesus, or more importantly, he doesn't know you, unless you follow the right "Way", the pattern set out in the New Testament. Anyone else who doesn't follow the pattern, is probably deceived about being right with Jesus, but of course, we do not judge, and we know God is merciful. So don't worry about that too much. The important thing is what you've found and what you know so that you get right with God. In my own case, I really didn't worry too much about it, and in fact, in the course of time came to think that all other Christians were saved as much as I was. You'd think that wouldn't present a problem given that the friends "do not judge" and just don't worry about this kind of issue, but in fact, my idea on this got me in a lot of hot water. So it appears that they "do worry" while I was not supposed to worry.
|
|