|
Post by fixit on Jun 17, 2014 19:55:25 GMT -5
People of any view are welcome but there are some things such as the life and death of Christ that we will not budge on. After all they are basic things that make up a Christian. Yes we have a statement of faith. I wouldn't go to a church who is not up front about their beliefs. A statement of Faith is just basic Christian principles only a few things compared to the millions of discussion points in the Bible. The tricky part is deciding what are "basic Christian principles". Can you give us your church statement of faith?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 17, 2014 20:15:43 GMT -5
This hasn't been my experience, although I think it's a little more relaxed in other denominations. Shortly after we left the friends, I attended a local community church, and I'm still friends with folks there although I don't attend. After the service we'd break up into study groups for discussion. At one of them I mentioned that I don't believe in eternal Hell. This came back to me in a round-about way that I had thrown a few people for a loop, not that I cared. We now attend a worship/ study group with a number of couples who are active in other congregations. Most of them comment that they like our group because we can discuss fairly openly, again, as most of us, but not all, are not Bible literalists. Throw out a few ideas that are against the grain in your church and see what reaction you get. But somehow I don't see you doing that, which is why I discount your experience as far as your church's tolerance for dissent.
yes I have tried it and done it. You are making assumptions about me which you know nothing about. Most pastors welcome the views of members. Any church who does not welcome this comes under the criteria of cultism in my view. The 2x2s are the only place I have been where people who have a different view are helped out the door. I don't go to other churches that come under this category. I go to main stream churches. We encourage different opinions in our church and other churches I have been in. Every home group I have been to, different opinions are respected and valued and I have been to many Baptist and Pentecostal churches. We have discussion nights once a month at our church where we discuss different views. We acknowledge that there are many views on the Bible. We had a few discussion nights on creation - was the world made in 7 days, 7 year, 7,000 years or 7 periods of time etc. We all had different views and every one respected and added to the discussion. We acknowledge there is not one fixed answer on many things in the Bible. We are now discussing politics with the elections coming up this year. We will all give our views and no one will be told theirs is right an the others are wrong. We just put it all out there for discussion. We spent a number of session on end times last year, some believed in mid trib, some post trib, some pre or post millennium and some had views I had never heard of. These are all members of our church which is a well known respected mainstream church. I've had this kind of thing in the 30 years I have been attending Churches. Nothing is stifled like in the 2x2s. If people don't like how a church is run they can easily go to another. People of any view are welcome but there are some things such as the life and death of Christ that we will not budge on. After all they are basic things that make up a Christian. Yes we have a statement of faith. I wouldn't go to a church who is not up front about their beliefs. A statement of Faith is just basic Christian principles only a few things compared to the millions of discussion points in the Bible. Various interpretations of Genesis 1 are hardly something which is going to make a Granny's toes curl. And I agree with you that some things are inviolable. However, would you discuss the following with your group? - Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Jonah and the whale is just a story that didn't likely happen exactly as it is told. - The creation story is largely meaningless. - Hell is not eternal, and may be just a figure of speech that Jesus used - There was no flood that covered the Earth above the mountain tops, though there might well have been some kind of apocalyptic flood. - Monogamous homosexual behaviour is not sinful. - God did not tell Saul to smite the Amalekites. - Jesus never said he was God. These are some of the topics we discuss in our group, although there is not universal agreement on any of them. And these topics are taboo in most conventional churches. To be clear, we spend the majority of our time on less controversial and more positive topics, and have been working through the book of Luke. So, based on your posting history I don't believe that you'd bring up any of these points, and I stand by my view that you wouldn't be one to test the boundaries in your church. I did not mean that to be critical either, but just to illustrate that there are boundaries in any church, and sacred cows in any religion.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2014 20:26:28 GMT -5
Any one with any belief is welcome to come to our church. Any one is welcome to accept Jesus as their saviour and attend our church. I would have to wonder why someone would come to our church or many mainstream Churches if they did not believe in the Bible as as been traditional believed. But yes sure, we would have no problem discussing them and hearing peoples views on them. Bringing them into our statement of faith. I would hope not. People go to a church where they feel comfortable. If you are not comfortable with that then don't go there. Again, faith is in Jesus not our interpretation of the Bible
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2014 20:31:12 GMT -5
To answer fixit:
Our Calling We’re called to be a tangible expression of Jesus to the world, empowered by the Spirit to proclaim the Gospel, reconcile lost people back to God, and transform them into fully devoted followers of Christ.
This calling will find expression throughout a range of ministries which will be adapted and refined to meet the changing needs of our world, however, our calling will remain the same - Jesus Christ will always be central in everything we do.
Our Beliefs A. There is one God,1 Creator of all things,2 who is infinitely perfect,3 and existing eternally in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.4
1Isaiah 44:6; 45:5-6, 21-22; 2Genesis 1; Colossians 1:15, 16. 3Matthew 5:48; Deuteronomy 32:4. 4Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14
B. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.5 He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.6 He died upon the cross, the Righteous for the unrighteous, as a substitutionary sacrifice,7 and all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.8 He arose from the dead according to the Scriptures.9 He is now at the right hand of the Majesty on high10 as our great High Priest.11 He will come again to establish His Kingdom of righteousness and peace.12
5Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 1:2, 3; 2:14-18; Colossians 1:15-20; 2:9. 6Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35. 71 Peter 2:24: 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:9, 10. 8Romans 3:22-25. 91 Corinthians 15:3-6. 10 Hebrews 1:3, 8:1 11Hebrews 4:14-15; 9:24-28. 12Matthew 25:31-34.
C. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, sent to indwell, guide, teach, and empower the believer for godly living and service, to bring glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment.13
13John 14:16-17; John 16:7-15.
D. The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, whose words were inspired by God, are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of all people. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.14
14 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21.
E. People were originally created in the image and likeness of God; they fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death.15 Subsequently all people are born with a sinful nature, are separated from the life of God, and can be saved only through faith in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. 16 The destiny of the unrepentant and unbelieving is everlasting separation from God in conscious torment (Hell); but that of the believer is everlasting joy and blessing in the presence of the Lord (Heaven). 17
15Genesis 1:27, 3; 16Romans 3:9-12; 22-25; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 4:17-18. 17 Matthew 25:41-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 14:10-11
F. Salvation has been provided only through Jesus Christ for all people.18 Those who repent and believe in Him are justified freely by His grace, are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.19
18John 3:16; Titus 3:5-7; Acts 2:38. 19Ephesians 1:7; Romans 3:22-25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; John 1:12.
G. It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified thoroughly, thereby being separated from the power of sin and conformity to the world, and being fully dedicated to the will of God, receiving power for holy living and sacrificial and effective service toward the completion of Christ's commission.20 This is both a distinct encounter and a progressive experience in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.21
20 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Acts 1:8; Romans 12:1-2; Galatians 5:16-25; 21 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 6:1-4; 1 John 2:15-17
H. Provision is made in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the healing of the mortal body.22 Prayer for the sick and anointing with oil as taught in the Scriptures are privileges for the Church in this present age.23
22Matthew 8:16-17. 23James 5:14-16.
I. The universal Church consists of all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, are redeemed through His blood, and are born again of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Head of the Body, the Church. He has commissioned the Church to go to all nations as a witness of the Gospel.24
The local church is a body of believers in Christ who are joined together for the worship of God, which includes being built up through the Word of God, prayer, fellowship, the observance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the witness of the Gospel locally and globally. 25
241 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:22-23; 3:6-12; Matthew 16:18; 28:19-20. 25Hebrews 10:25; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29; Acts 1:8
J. There shall be a bodily resurrection of all people.26 For believers a resurrection to life;27 for unbelievers a resurrection to judgement.28
26 John 5:25-29; Acts 24:15-16; 27 1 Corinthians 15:20-23; 28 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
K. The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent, and will be personal and visible.29 As the believer's blessed hope, this vital truth is an incentive to holy living and faithful service toward the completion of Christ’s commission.30
29 Matthew 24:29-31; Acts 1:7-11; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Peter 3:8-9; Revelation 1:7; Revelation 22:7,12; 30 Matthew 28:18-20; Titus 2:11-14; 2 Peter 3:10-13
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 17, 2014 20:48:08 GMT -5
Any one with any belief is welcome to come to our church. Any one is welcome to accept Jesus as their saviour and attend our church. I would have to wonder why someone would come to our church or many mainstream Churches if they did not believe in the Bible as as been traditional believed. But yes sure, we would have no problem discussing them and hearing peoples views on them. Bringing them into our statement of faith. I would hope not. People go to a church where they feel comfortable. If you are not comfortable with that then don't go there. Again, faith is in Jesus not our interpretation of the Bible Sounds a little hollow to me. If your preacher, or one of the elders began preaching on any of the points I cited above, he or she would run into difficulty. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see that one church is a whole lot better than another in handling dissent. However, granted that the f&w church is one of the more conservative in many of their views.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 17, 2014 21:01:20 GMT -5
yes I have tried it and done it. You are making assumptions about me which you know nothing about. Most pastors welcome the views of members. Any church who does not welcome this comes under the criteria of cultism in my view. The 2x2s are the only place I have been where people who have a different view are helped out the door. I don't go to other churches that come under this category. I go to main stream churches. We encourage different opinions in our church and other churches I have been in. Every home group I have been to, different opinions are respected and valued and I have been to many Baptist and Pentecostal churches. We have discussion nights once a month at our church where we discuss different views. We acknowledge that there are many views on the Bible. We had a few discussion nights on creation - was the world made in 7 days, 7 year, 7,000 years or 7 periods of time etc. We all had different views and every one respected and added to the discussion. We acknowledge there is not one fixed answer on many things in the Bible. We are now discussing politics with the elections coming up this year. We will all give our views and no one will be told theirs is right an the others are wrong. We just put it all out there for discussion. We spent a number of session on end times last year, some believed in mid trib, some post trib, some pre or post millennium and some had views I had never heard of. These are all members of our church which is a well known respected mainstream church. I've had this kind of thing in the 30 years I have been attending Churches. Nothing is stifled like in the 2x2s. If people don't like how a church is run they can easily go to another. People of any view are welcome but there are some things such as the life and death of Christ that we will not budge on. After all they are basic things that make up a Christian. Yes we have a statement of faith. I wouldn't go to a church who is not up front about their beliefs. A statement of Faith is just basic Christian principles only a few things compared to the millions of discussion points in the Bible. Various interpretations of Genesis 1 are hardly something which is going to make a Granny's toes curl. And I agree with you that some things are inviolable. However, would you discuss the following with your group? - Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Jonah and the whale is just a story that didn't likely happen exactly as it is told. - The creation story is largely meaningless. - Hell is not eternal, and may be just a figure of speech that Jesus used - There was no flood that covered the Earth above the mountain tops, though there might well have been some kind of apocalyptic flood. - Monogamous homosexual behaviour is not sinful. - God did not tell Saul to smite the Amalekites. - Jesus never said he was God. These are some of the topics we discuss in our group, although there is not universal agreement on any of them. And these topics are taboo in most conventional churches. To be clear, we spend the majority of our time on less controversial and more positive topics, and have been working through the book of Luke. So, based on your posting history I don't believe that you'd bring up any of these points, and I stand by my view that you wouldn't be one to test the boundaries in your church. I did not mean that to be critical either, but just to illustrate that there are boundaries in any church, and sacred cows in any religion. What Hat ~ It sounds like you have found a good church to attend who are open to discussion! That's a real plus in a any fellowship, as Mary brought out in her post. You would never see anything like that within the 2x2's as evidenced by the crazy things that people get excommunicated for by the workers. They definitely cannot take criticism and are not open to debate, regardless how justified it might be. That's one reason why I see the 2x2's as being very cultic myself and agree with Mary on her opinion expressed earlier. The lack of freedom to express yourself or even to have an opinion different from what the workers feel is acceptable is proof in itself, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jun 17, 2014 22:10:12 GMT -5
Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom." I can suggest many mainstream churches that would accept folks who might reject trinitarian theology. They would clearly hope and pray that the individual would come to understand who Jesus is (given that it is really only a number of sects - Mormans, JW's, Christadelphians, 2x2's that reject this theology and in relation to the 2x2's some workers might believe in it as discussed elsewhere but they won't preach it). As Mary mentioned the churches certainly wouldn't change their published beliefs. I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private. However, you will also find theological freedom among individuals in mainstream churches. In our church the theology is clear from a leadership position. But no-one has ever been asked to join, sign a statement of beliefs etc. There are about 1,000 people who attend on Sundays - I imagine you would get some theological diversity among a group like this but agree it would be very uncommon to reject the Trinity and divine election. There will no doubt be some differences around the edges of doctrines like divine election but if we ended up arguing around the academics we would probably have missed the bigger picture. In the 2x2 system there tends to be very limited interaction on doctrine with workers or even across a meeting group. You can believe largely what you want and provided you don't challenge the workers or speak too openly about things you can exist quite well. I have seen one example recently of a person who by their own admission has been an atheist for years but has also spoken in meetings for years. Of course, the atheist position wasn't revealed until they left. Where it is a little different in mainstream churches (generally evangelical) is the Bible study groups are an open discussion format generally about chapters (and themes/concepts in these chapters) in the Bible - so you might contribute a position which is discussed or you might be asked what you believe etc. In other words, you are more likely to expose a viewpoint earlier because of the interactive nature of the discussion. In my experience, no-one would say to you "stop coming to church", "don't take communion" if you held a non-orthodox position. You might ultimately end up in a discussion with a leader about it if you wanted to take it there. I've had some incredibly good discussions with ministers over the years on doctrinal issues - I've never felt at any stage unable to raise an issue, take an alternate view or feel like I might lose my salvation if I disagreed I have also had some discussions with workers over the years on doctrinal positions - with one exception (John Winter) they were all on their guard immediately, very closed.....and that was way before I ever questioned some of their teaching. I suspect individuals can do that with particular workers and exist okay in the system....but I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. Ross, this is the point I was attempting to get across. Thanks for your input. I think it's rather easy for those who still attend meetings to dismiss the fact that many of us are well aware of exactly what goes on in the fellowship ...especially those of us who were in for decades. Prior to leaving the fellowship I attempted to get some questions answered by several workers. In every case they were immediately on guard and very evasive. I was not in any way attempting to argue but simply asking what their position was on different things. The last one I spoke with (overseer) was anxious to terminate the conversation and his last words were "I think this conversation is at an end". (reminded me a lot of the conversation Brandon had with the elders). He did not clearly answer any question I asked but made it clear that: 1) He believed the workers were the only "true" ministry 2) He believed that the fellowship was the only "true" fellowship. 3) He believed that all other churches and ministries were false. So to attempt to persuade me that workers do not still peddle this line of thought is pointless. It's alive and well. I believe the ministry is a very key part of any group and you can rest assured that they train the younger ones in the ministry to push this same line of belief. Individuals can hear this type of thing so long they can actually be afraid to question it. I was in the position of CD and others like him for several years before feeling that I had no option but to leave a system and a ministry that had deceived the members (whether intentionally or not) far too long.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 17, 2014 22:23:05 GMT -5
Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom." fixit, I am not making any claims that other "organized churches" are not exclusive. But many in the 2x2 system who claim to be non-exclusive seem to deny the fact that most in the 2x2 system HAVE been manipulated into believing in a certain way of fellowship or "truth". Theological freedom? How do you describe theological freedom? Certainly not from workers standpoint. And based on the structure of the system the workers are deemed to have far more understanding of scripture than the members. At least I believe many in the fellowship regard them more highly than they should. I was in the system (by choice) for 35 years, still have an entire family "in" and am regularly in the company or workers through my family on a fairly regular basis. I do have a pretty good idea of what is currently happening in the fellowship and hear plenty of the same conversation I've heard for almost 40 years! As far as Trinitarian theology goes, I think it's presumptuous to claim to have any absolute knowledge about this concept. To some degree it appears that this concept is a "fad" whether it's right or wrong. There are many who intimidate others who do not believe in the Trinitarian theory and imply that they are void of scriptural understanding. Same behavior that has been predominant in the 2x2 and other religions for ages. And I think this so called "understanding" is a result of the influence of someone who is persuasive enough to present enough scripture to prove their point of view. This is my perspective on things. Maybe things are different in Canada but certainly not in the U.S. "Is is possible that those still inside the group by choice do NOT see the harm that has actually been unknowingly inflicted on them. They have been convinced as a result of shallow outward changes of group members including clothing choices that there is no cultish harm that has brainwashed them to some degree." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The system I left just 4 years ago is loaded with judgment of others who are out of sync with the "expectations" of the group. I've heard entirely TOO much small talk (I listen to conversations) and had very pointed comments from workers made to me to know that what you suggest is not true."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The typical belief, though often unvoiced, is that others who are genuinely interested in abiding inside the true fellowship of Christ will find their way to the 2x2 system and this concept has been hammered into their minds since the group was started. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -"there is a lot of talk of "concern" among members about those who lack understanding." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I've heard more that I care to of this type of talk. It's disgusting and YES - this talk is still alive and well in the system. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I see a lot of denial of members who are doing their level best to climb out of the mire of the system and think they'll "fix" things." Findingtruth, -thank you for your observations. The fact that you left only four years ago gives your observations a lot more credibility .
From what I have observed on this board, I also believe that there are a lot of members in denial & who are modern day apologists for the 2x2 system and think they'll "fix" things from the inside.
As long as the changes are just superficial and the friends are not allowed to make any doctrinal changes (WHICH THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE PAST!) they will only be changes in the facade and have no real impact.
The friends have always been made to feel guilty!
The workers have made the friends to feel inferior, to not question anything because after all they, hadn't they, the workers "given up having a family, home etc. all for the "gospels sake" and therefore "were closer to God" and better knew the "will of GOD?"
I doubt they were aware of that bit of psychology, but they were aware that it worked.
Only if the friends can understand WHY they believed the workers were right, will they be free to change anything.
The whole of the 2X2's was based on such a bedrock belief, I just don't see that change ever happening.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 17, 2014 23:37:10 GMT -5
I can suggest many mainstream churches that would accept folks who might reject trinitarian theology. They would clearly hope and pray that the individual would come to understand who Jesus is (given that it is really only a number of sects - Mormans, JW's, Christadelphians, 2x2's that reject this theology and in relation to the 2x2's some workers might believe in it as discussed elsewhere but they won't preach it). As Mary mentioned the churches certainly wouldn't change their published beliefs. I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private.However, you will also find theological freedom among individuals in mainstream churches. In our church the theology is clear from a leadership position. But no-one has ever been asked to join, sign a statement of beliefs etc. There are about 1,000 people who attend on Sundays - I imagine you would get some theological diversity among a group like this but agree it would be very uncommon to reject the Trinity and divine election. There will no doubt be some differences around the edges of doctrines like divine election but if we ended up arguing around the academics we would probably have missed the bigger picture. In the 2x2 system there tends to be very limited interaction on doctrine with workers or even across a meeting group. You can believe largely what you want and provided you don't challenge the workers or speak too openly about things you can exist quite well. I have seen one example recently of a person who by their own admission has been an atheist for years but has also spoken in meetings for years. Of course, the atheist position wasn't revealed until they left. Where it is a little different in mainstream churches (generally evangelical) is the Bible study groups are an open discussion format generally about chapters (and themes/concepts in these chapters) in the Bible - so you might contribute a position which is discussed or you might be asked what you believe etc. In other words, you are more likely to expose a viewpoint earlier because of the interactive nature of the discussion. In my experience, no-one would say to you "stop coming to church", "don't take communion" if you held a non-orthodox position. You might ultimately end up in a discussion with a leader about it if you wanted to take it there. I've had some incredibly good discussions with ministers over the years on doctrinal issues - I've never felt at any stage unable to raise an issue, take an alternate view or feel like I might lose my salvation if I disagreed I have also had some discussions with workers over the years on doctrinal positions - with one exception (John Winter) they were all on their guard immediately, very closed.....and that was way before I ever questioned some of their teaching. I suspect individuals can do that with particular workers and exist okay in the system....b ut I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. "I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private."
....but I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. Ross, will you please just listen to your own words?
And then write on the blackboard one hundred times
"in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom" "in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom"
Even in dictatorships "People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private."
In dictatorships people find " it is relatively hard to continue to exist if (they)don't adopt worker (dictator's) positions on the major things and choose to make these differences known."
It is getting late,-going towards mid-night here in the mid-west USA.
After you write the hundred times, "in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom," I hope to see your answer tomorrow, as to whether that you still believe that it is true.
(PS: better keep it relatively private though, and not let your positions be known or you might not continue to exist)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 18, 2014 9:30:34 GMT -5
Various interpretations of Genesis 1 are hardly something which is going to make a Granny's toes curl. And I agree with you that some things are inviolable. However, would you discuss the following with your group? - Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Jonah and the whale is just a story that didn't likely happen exactly as it is told. - The creation story is largely meaningless. - Hell is not eternal, and may be just a figure of speech that Jesus used - There was no flood that covered the Earth above the mountain tops, though there might well have been some kind of apocalyptic flood. - Monogamous homosexual behaviour is not sinful. - God did not tell Saul to smite the Amalekites. - Jesus never said he was God. These are some of the topics we discuss in our group, although there is not universal agreement on any of them. And these topics are taboo in most conventional churches. To be clear, we spend the majority of our time on less controversial and more positive topics, and have been working through the book of Luke. So, based on your posting history I don't believe that you'd bring up any of these points, and I stand by my view that you wouldn't be one to test the boundaries in your church. I did not mean that to be critical either, but just to illustrate that there are boundaries in any church, and sacred cows in any religion. What Hat ~ It sounds like you have found a good church to attend who are open to discussion! That's a real plus in a any fellowship, as Mary brought out in her post. You would never see anything like that within the 2x2's as evidenced by the crazy things that people get excommunicated for by the workers. They definitely cannot take criticism and are not open to debate, regardless how justified it might be. That's one reason why I see the 2x2's as being very cultic myself and agree with Mary on her opinion expressed earlier. The lack of freedom to express yourself or even to have an opinion different from what the workers feel is acceptable is proof in itself, IMHO. I am a bit more philosophical about it than that. In our own case, we were "demoted" because of doctrinal issues, and that is why I left the friends. And that was before I even got involved with 'universalism'. I do think it was the best for us to leave all things considered. In retrospect, the major fault I do find is that there are inconsistencies in practice and doctrine (accepted ways) to their own principles. So much of analysis of the friends is useless because it's based on different core principles and values. You can't analyse a home church movement using establishment church principles. But using their own principles much is lacking, and it's because of a reticence or immaturity to admit they ever do anything wrong. I think they should preserve their worker movement as an unorganized, spiritually led movement, and then let the friends formally organize in accordance with a country's law, as "Friends of the workers". The problem is they have the wrong view of 'world'. 'World' isn't everything in the world. It is the influence of Satan and evil in the world. And it's in everything. But God is also in everything and his Will will be done. The friends don't understand that, so they leave things to God, which actually need a bit of proper organization and management. Acts 6 provides the answer on how to do this, and I don't know how they have missed that. The reason this wrong view of 'world' is such a deep problem is that they can't admit mistakes, because the wrong thing is thought to be of God's Will. Well, it isn't. It's wrong because you're doing it wrong. Here I refer to nothing in particular. But back to the topic. The friends, or any church, are within their rights to only 'accept' those who share core beliefs and values. If you go into a meeting and preach something off course, 'grace only' or any theology, you rightfully should get the bum's rush, as a few people on this board have experienced. (Incidentally, I never did this, if I knew my thoughts were out of line I reserved those thoughts for conversation with the workers only). But I will grant you that the workers are easily threatened by questions. The worst is for young people, especially intelligent young people. IMO, someone who finds themselves in this predicament, an inquiring, questioning mind, needs a forum outside the worship and fellowship context. This is what we have in our church study group. Most of the members in our group are quite active in other church settings, and our group fills one need within the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 18, 2014 9:43:42 GMT -5
Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom." I can suggest many mainstream churches that would accept folks who might reject trinitarian theology. They would clearly hope and pray that the individual would come to understand who Jesus is (given that it is really only a number of sects - Mormans, JW's, Christadelphians, 2x2's that reject this theology and in relation to the 2x2's some workers might believe in it as discussed elsewhere but they won't preach it). As Mary mentioned the churches certainly wouldn't change their published beliefs. I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private. However, you will also find theological freedom among individuals in mainstream churches. In our church the theology is clear from a leadership position. But no-one has ever been asked to join, sign a statement of beliefs etc. There are about 1,000 people who attend on Sundays - I imagine you would get some theological diversity among a group like this but agree it would be very uncommon to reject the Trinity and divine election. There will no doubt be some differences around the edges of doctrines like divine election but if we ended up arguing around the academics we would probably have missed the bigger picture. In the 2x2 system there tends to be very limited interaction on doctrine with workers or even across a meeting group. You can believe largely what you want and provided you don't challenge the workers or speak too openly about things you can exist quite well. I have seen one example recently of a person who by their own admission has been an atheist for years but has also spoken in meetings for years. Of course, the atheist position wasn't revealed until they left. Where it is a little different in mainstream churches (generally evangelical) is the Bible study groups are an open discussion format generally about chapters (and themes/concepts in these chapters) in the Bible - so you might contribute a position which is discussed or you might be asked what you believe etc. In other words, you are more likely to expose a viewpoint earlier because of the interactive nature of the discussion. In my experience, no-one would say to you "stop coming to church", "don't take communion" if you held a non-orthodox position. You might ultimately end up in a discussion with a leader about it if you wanted to take it there. I've had some incredibly good discussions with ministers over the years on doctrinal issues - I've never felt at any stage unable to raise an issue, take an alternate view or feel like I might lose my salvation if I disagreed I have also had some discussions with workers over the years on doctrinal positions - with one exception (John Winter) they were all on their guard immediately, very closed.....and that was way before I ever questioned some of their teaching. I suspect individuals can do that with particular workers and exist okay in the system....but I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. It is true that the workers are too easily threatened by challenging ideas, not from initiates who are never a threat, but from long-standing members or members of long standing families such as yourself. However, your analysis is not an even one. You don't belong among the friends, I can tell you straight up from your posts on the forum. And if that sounds harsh, I don't belong there either, with my views being what they are. Well, possibly, if I kept them quiet and low key, which I no longer want to do. Meanwhile your views are no threat and not challenging to most established literalist congregations. Here's something else to think about. Churches which tolerate open confrontation and dissent tend toward schism. My cultural background, Dutch, is one which is highly tolerant of confrontation and is often viewed by WASP culture as tactless. Germans are the same. And perhaps this is why there are so many denominations of Mennonites, Reformed and Lutheran with new ones starting almost every year. I think the friends have tried to eliminate open dissent and confrontation certainly in the meeting structure ... no back and forth ... and a general aversion to confrontation.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 18, 2014 10:09:12 GMT -5
I can suggest many mainstream churches that would accept folks who might reject trinitarian theology. They would clearly hope and pray that the individual would come to understand who Jesus is (given that it is really only a number of sects - Mormans, JW's, Christadelphians, 2x2's that reject this theology and in relation to the 2x2's some workers might believe in it as discussed elsewhere but they won't preach it). As Mary mentioned the churches certainly wouldn't change their published beliefs. I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private. However, you will also find theological freedom among individuals in mainstream churches. In our church the theology is clear from a leadership position. But no-one has ever been asked to join, sign a statement of beliefs etc. There are about 1,000 people who attend on Sundays - I imagine you would get some theological diversity among a group like this but agree it would be very uncommon to reject the Trinity and divine election. There will no doubt be some differences around the edges of doctrines like divine election but if we ended up arguing around the academics we would probably have missed the bigger picture. In the 2x2 system there tends to be very limited interaction on doctrine with workers or even across a meeting group. You can believe largely what you want and provided you don't challenge the workers or speak too openly about things you can exist quite well. I have seen one example recently of a person who by their own admission has been an atheist for years but has also spoken in meetings for years. Of course, the atheist position wasn't revealed until they left. Where it is a little different in mainstream churches (generally evangelical) is the Bible study groups are an open discussion format generally about chapters (and themes/concepts in these chapters) in the Bible - so you might contribute a position which is discussed or you might be asked what you believe etc. In other words, you are more likely to expose a viewpoint earlier because of the interactive nature of the discussion. In my experience, no-one would say to you "stop coming to church", "don't take communion" if you held a non-orthodox position. You might ultimately end up in a discussion with a leader about it if you wanted to take it there. I've had some incredibly good discussions with ministers over the years on doctrinal issues - I've never felt at any stage unable to raise an issue, take an alternate view or feel like I might lose my salvation if I disagreed I have also had some discussions with workers over the years on doctrinal positions - with one exception (John Winter) they were all on their guard immediately, very closed.....and that was way before I ever questioned some of their teaching. I suspect individuals can do that with particular workers and exist okay in the system....but I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. Ross, this is the point I was attempting to get across. Thanks for your input. I think it's rather easy for those who still attend meetings to dismiss the fact that many of us are well aware of exactly what goes on in the fellowship ...especially those of us who were in for decades. Prior to leaving the fellowship I attempted to get some questions answered by several workers. In every case they were immediately on guard and very evasive. I was not in any way attempting to argue but simply asking what their position was on different things. The last one I spoke with (overseer) was anxious to terminate the conversation and his last words were "I think this conversation is at an end". (reminded me a lot of the conversation Brandon had with the elders). He did not clearly answer any question I asked but made it clear that: 1) He believed the workers were the only "true" ministry 2) He believed that the fellowship was the only "true" fellowship. 3) He believed that all other churches and ministries were false. So to attempt to persuade me that workers do not still peddle this line of thought is pointless. It's alive and well. I believe the ministry is a very key part of any group and you can rest assured that they train the younger ones in the ministry to push this same line of belief. Individuals can hear this type of thing so long they can actually be afraid to question it. I was in the position of CD and others like him for several years before feeling that I had no option but to leave a system and a ministry that had deceived the members (whether intentionally or not) far too long. The fact is that if you believe that the only way to do church is in a home, and with their style of ministry, then it follows that other churches are false. You don't have to peddle it; it's an inevitable conclusion. If you don't share the conclusion you don't share the core belief. The question that is still a little bit open, is whether people in other churches can be saved or not. I wished you would have asked the head worker that one. The standard answer is "we don't judge", so that might be all you would have got. One very conservative senior worker, in our home, told us he had come to believe that God did work in other churches and did work with people before they met the true ministry. That idea might be more widely held.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 18, 2014 13:19:32 GMT -5
It is true that the workers are too easily threatened by challenging ideas, not from initiates who are never a threat, but from long-standing members or members of long standing families such as yourself. However, your analysis is not an even one. You don't belong among the friends, I can tell you straight up from your posts on the forum. And if that sounds harsh, I don't belong there either, with my views being what they are. Well, possibly, if I kept them quiet and low key, which I no longer want to do. Meanwhile your views are no threat and not challenging to most established literalist congregations. Here's something else to think about. Churches which tolerate open confrontation and dissent tend toward schism. My cultural background, Dutch, is one which is highly tolerant of confrontation and is often viewed by WASP culture as tactless. Germans are the same. And perhaps this is why there are so many denominations of Mennonites, Reformed and Lutheran with new ones starting almost every year. I think the friends have tried to eliminate open dissent and confrontation certainly in the meeting structure ... no back and forth ... and a general aversion to confrontation. Aha - Dutch background - I thought that a few weeks ago based on your writings. I've spent a large chunk of my working life in a Dutch company (and have many Dutch friends) so have had good exposure. May help that one side of my family is German heritage... I'm well aware that, like you, I don't belong among the friends. It's very hard to stay there when you ask questions and don't get sensible answers or any answers. Sydney protestant churches have a rich evangelical history...so yes, I would fit into many Sydney churches of different denominations. The Sydney diocese of the Anglican church has a very strong evangelical/reformed heritage - that doesn't mean that you won't find a couple of Anglo-Catholic churches in it so there is a reasonable amount of diversity. On your last point there's a big difference between open confrontation/dissent and having good, healthy, open conversations about the Bible, what it might be saying etc. I'm not a great fan of open confrontation/dissent unless it absolutely requires that response. In my experience, it was difficult to have a good, healthy open conversation about what the Bible is saying. If you try to eliminate that, a schism may not occur. However, in an age and society where people are encouraged to ask questions and expect to discuss/canvass different viewpoints you might end up finding in a few years that the organisation which tries to eliminate that, ends up eliminating itself. On another note, given that Australia has no chance in the World Cup (we are about to play the Netherlands shortly) I'm hoping that the Dutch go one better this time and take out the trophy I think there was an overt attempt by the workers to eliminate argument. A good idea? Probably not in the long run. So, the game ended and "we" won 3-2 over the Socceroo's. Holland wasn't supposed to do anything this World Cup. Then they beat Spain 5-1 in a stunner. FIFA actually has Holland ranked below both Spain and Chile. I think the difference this time is not too many ego's. Basically the two Robin's are expected to do most of the scoring. Whereas, with a team like Portugal, apparently the players were keeping the ball away from Ronaldo, their star player. I don't blame them. Lest I appear to be gloating too much, I thought I might pass along this very funny clip on soccer fan-dom. www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 18, 2014 14:10:46 GMT -5
"I agree in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - you can believe basically what you want - which in my opinion is a key problem that the church has. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private."
....but I think it is relatively hard to continue to exist if you don't adopt worker positions on the major things and you choose to make these differences known. Ross, will you please just listen to your own words?
And then write on the blackboard one hundred times
"in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom" "in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom"
Even in dictatorships "People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe - provided they keep it relatively private."
In dictatorships people find " it is relatively hard to continue to exist if (they)don't adopt worker (dictator's) positions on the major things and choose to make these differences known."
It is getting late,-going towards mid-night here in the mid-west USA.
After you write the hundred times, "in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom," I hope to see your answer tomorrow, as to whether that you still believe that it is true.
(PS: better keep it relatively private though, and not let your positions be known or you might not continue to exist)
It's getting late here and you are probably just eating your Special K!! Okay, I stopped writing after 50 times My pen ran out of ink... I changed it to "in the 2x2 church you have remarkable theological freedom - provided you don't tell anyone" I'm not going to write the extra bit 100 times. Were you a teacher?? Good afternoon, Ross! (I don't do mornings very well)
So, I wonder why anyone would want to stay in a church where they don't feel free to tell anyone what their beliefs really were?
Also, how can anyone feel that they have "remarkable theological freedom" in such a church?
By not telling anyone what they really believe, wouldn't they feel that they were not being very honest?
What encourages them to stay? (ehum... other than the potlucks, I mean)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 18, 2014 23:39:41 GMT -5
Good afternoon, Ross! (I don't do mornings very well)
So, I wonder why anyone would want to stay in a church where they don't feel free to tell anyone what their beliefs really were?
Also, how can anyone feel that they have "remarkable theological freedom" in such a church?
By not telling anyone what they really believe, wouldn't they feel that they were not being very honest?
What encourages them to stay? (ehum... other than the potlucks, I mean) You're asking the wrong person - I couldn't handle it so moved on... There are a number though who believe mainstream Christian theology, are not exclusive, have a great circle of friends and good local fellowship that they can discuss things, appreciate most of their workers and choose to stay. Everyone's situation is different and there are many factors at play - all I can say is that the many Christian folk that we know in this neck of the woods who have left over the past 20 years and have moved on to different churches would all say that the experience has been a rich and rewarding one - they don't look back hankering after the past. OK. Somehow I thought that you were still in!
I also moved on. My family, -I have brother & sister-in-law & their families are still in. Well some of them and some are not.
My husband died still professing , but my children (3) are not.
I find it so interesting that so many that left the *truth* just went on to join other Christian churches.
When I left I took a look at all Christian religions & saw nothing that I needed from any of them. They seemed to only be divided on nit-picking issues but otherwise was the same old, same old,- a means of controlling people. Some seem to find Christianity some kind of comfort. I was an adult, -so why would I need a pseudo-comfort 'blanket'?
After that as I studied religions in general I found they were built on an attempt to understand the world & themselves with a lot of supernatural, paranormal hooey thrown in where they couldn't find knowledge at the time in which they lived, -a 'god of the gaps.'
So I couldn't see any purpose in attempting to believe any of that. -For starters which one of all of the supernatural, paranormal hooey (there is so much of it) could I believe?
(I still find it hard as to why so many people in this day still insist on their "gods of the gaps." )
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 19, 2014 15:35:26 GMT -5
I understand your world view and agree that religion hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. However, there are a lot of people out there (including myself) who believe in a Creator. For us He's not a "god of the gaps" but a God of the Universe.I haven't followed your story but don't know how you see Jesus and where he fits in to the overall picture. For me, the more I learn and the more rational the world becomes, having a God in whom I can trust for not only each day but the future makes more and more sense. In my worldview, science and religion more than comfortably co-exist. But let's not turn this into a Richard Dawkins v's John Lennox debate - those guys are far more adequately skilled at it than we are. I know there are a lot of people who believe in a "Creator". That is what I don't understand.
Because if you you must believe that the Universe came into existence through a "Creator," -then isn't that belief just the biggest "god of the gaps" there is?
Since "God of the Gaps" is created by people when they haven't the knowledge to know something, -haven't you have just created the biggest granddaddy of all of the "GOD OF THE GAPES?"
"Gods of the gapes" are thrown into areas where knowledge is lacking. (as of yet)
It seems that so many people must have an answer to everything & if they don't have one, they will create one, (God of the Gap)
The scientific method is to continue to search. I am content to NOT know everything and don't need to throw a god into where I don't yet know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 21:13:48 GMT -5
Well, I believe in a Creator who has revealed Himself to me. Some time ago, Ma'am, you commented to me that perhaps if you had the same experiences in life as I have had, you might/would/could believe as I believe, accepting my comment that had I only yours and not mine, I could well believe as you. That comment made me respect your beliefs and opinions much more than before. Do you now renounce that comment? Not that it really matters one whit, I guess.
Ma'am, to my mind, people who do not know the God in whom I believe, serve and worship, are pretty poor people to make their statements of fact about Him who they freely admit they do not know. When He sent that unbelievable huge, fearsome, gargoyle like, being to me with an unspoken message of provision for my future on this earth the night after Ylva died, I had absolutely no idea what has come to pass would ever be my portion. At that time, in despair such things were furthest from my mind. Yet, it has become literally a very real part of my life, and was far from my mindset or thoughts at that period of my life.
How could it even have been part of my awareness that included in that massive displayed tray of horn of plenty was a document with something written on it regarding something that MUST be paid, yet stamped "paid in full" upon it, and only a week ago, almost four years later, I would receive that very document, and from Washington State no less? No explanation as yet, and I have inquired. Nobody else even knew about that need.
Yeah, I know, figments of imagination, coincidence, whatever a non-believer's explanation, however for me it is simpler to accept my God on HIS terms, and not my own. Even Katie, came into my life just one week after I begged God to find such a "Katurah" for me as He allowed Abraham after the loss of his beloved Sara, with all of some 4 dozen attributes which I had listed in my request. (Grin, no fertility was not one of them!) Katie has them all, and lived 2400 miles away. I am very thankful for the God I have come to know, worship, and serve.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jun 24, 2014 15:08:42 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism.
In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 24, 2014 19:17:52 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark. Mr. Grey, I think some confuse the world-at-large for classically evangelical Christians. To evangelical Christians, the 2x2 sect may, indeed, be a cult, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. To the world at large, the 2x2 sect is less than a neutrino blip in the universe. The Jim Jones cult, as one example in contrast, is far more than that to the world at large. That is what most people would think of as a "particularly dangerous cult."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 19:25:11 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark. Mr. Grey, I think some confuse the world-at-large for classically evangelical Christians. To evangelical Christians, the 2x2 sect may, indeed, be a cult, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. To the world at large, the 2x2 sect is less than a neutrino blip in the universe. The Jim Jones cult, as one example in contrast, is far more than that to the world at large. That is what most people would think of as a "particularly dangerous cult." In another post there is reference to the fact that theologically they don't measure up to the classical evangelicalism and therefore would be deemed diabolical on that premise. As far as being a dangerous cult under the terms that describe Jim Jones and his koolaide gang, the 2x2's do not even come close to being a dangerous cult.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 24, 2014 19:53:10 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark. Mr. Grey, I think some confuse the world-at-large for classically evangelical Christians. To evangelical Christians, the 2x2 sect may, indeed, be a cult, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. To the world at large, the 2x2 sect is less than a neutrino blip in the universe. The Jim Jones cult, as one example in contrast, is far more than that to the world at large. That is what most people would think of as a "particularly dangerous cult." Further to this, I wonder how many immediately think of Jim Jones when they hear the word cult attributed to a group of which they have little knowledge. "You know, those people are of a cult."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 20:36:29 GMT -5
Mr. Grey, I think some confuse the world-at-large for classically evangelical Christians. To evangelical Christians, the 2x2 sect may, indeed, be a cult, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. To the world at large, the 2x2 sect is less than a neutrino blip in the universe. The Jim Jones cult, as one example in contrast, is far more than that to the world at large. That is what most people would think of as a "particularly dangerous cult." Further to this, I wonder how many immediately think of Jim Jones when they hear the word cult attributed to a group of which they have little knowledge. "You know, those people are of a cult." Probably a lot of people. That or the Moonies(?)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2014 22:45:45 GMT -5
Well, I believe in a Creator who has revealed Himself to me. Some time ago, Ma'am, you commented to me that perhaps if you had the same experiences in life as I have had, you might/would/could believe as I believe, accepting my comment that had I only yours and not mine, I could well believe as you. That comment made me respect your beliefs and opinions much more than before. Do you now renounce that comment? Not that it really matters one whit, I guess.
Ma'am, to my mind, people who do not know the God in whom I believe, serve and worship, are pretty poor people to make their statements of fact about Him who they freely admit they do not know. When He sent that unbelievable huge, fearsome, gargoyle like, being to me with an unspoken message of provision for my future on this earth the night after Ylva died, I had absolutely no idea what has come to pass would ever be my portion. At that time, in despair such things were furthest from my mind. Yet, it has become literally a very real part of my life, and was far from my mindset or thoughts at that period of my life.
How could it even have been part of my awareness that included in that massive displayed tray of horn of plenty was a document with something written on it regarding something that MUST be paid, yet stamped "paid in full" upon it, and only a week ago, almost four years later, I would receive that very document, and from Washington State no less? No explanation as yet, and I have inquired. Nobody else even knew about that need.
Yeah, I know, figments of imagination, coincidence, whatever a non-believer's explanation, however for me it is simpler to accept my God on HIS terms, and not my own. Even Katie, came into my life just one week after I begged God to find such a "Katurah" for me as He allowed Abraham after the loss of his beloved Sara, with all of some 4 dozen attributes which I had listed in my request. (Grin, no fertility was not one of them!) Katie has them all, and lived 2400 miles away. I am very thankful for the God I have come to know, worship, and serve. Hi Dennis! I'm glad to see that you are able to post again here. Also that you and Katie are doing better.
YES, I remember my post to you where I made that comment.
I haven't had the same experiences in life as you have. I know that you have had some very bad experiences as well as some good, and also some unusual ones.
Our experiences in life certainly affects our beliefs. Maybe it is more how each of us interpret the experiences.
I interpret mine according to what I understand about religion as well as about science, -as no doubt you do also.
My friend, ( I hope I can call you a friend) I do believe you have a right to express your interpretation as you see it and I really am glad to see you doing so back on TMB again!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2014 23:02:17 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark. Mr. Grey, exactly what do you mean by the "characteristics of classical evangelicalism?"
Take the Bible: -what part of the bible and what interpretation of the the bible is in your view "classical evangelicalism?"
The Cross? -what teachings about the Cross do you determine to be "classical evangelicalism?"
"Conversion?"
"Activism" -Especially what does this consist of in "classical evangelicalism?"
Most of all, how do you consider characteristics of "classical evangelicalism" differing from the 2X2's or Jim Jones, or any other religion that you consider being a "cult?"
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2014 23:15:25 GMT -5
As I read these posts I can only conclude that there is a serious lack of understanding of the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. Of course there are many who lay claim to the epithet of evangelicalism but sadly few of these reflect the characteristics of classical evangelicalism. In my research for Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement I used David Bebbington’s four characteristics of classical evangelicalism – The Bible; The Cross; Conversion and Activism as the benchmark. Mr. Grey, exactly what do you mean by the "characteristics of classical evangelicalism?"
Take the Bible: -what part of the bible and what interpretation of the the bible is in your view "classical evangelicalism?"
The Cross? -what teachings about the Cross do you determine to be "classical evangelicalism?"
"Conversion?"
"Activism" -Especially what does this consist of in "classical evangelicalism?"
Most of all, how do you consider characteristics of "classical evangelicalism" differing from the 2X2's or Jim Jones, or any other religion that you consider being a "cult?"
Dmmichgood ~ I believe Irvine Gray may be referring to the movement of "classical evangelicalism" in the 60's and 70's which was making the headlines in the area of evangelizing the masses and getting people back into church? However, when I think of a dangerous cult, I'm also reminded of such groups as the Jim Jones cult or that dude, David Koresh, in Waco, TX in 1993 who made the headlines for numerous atrocities.
www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/may/recovering-classic-evangelicalism-interview-with-gregory.html?paging=off
www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/koresh/1.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2014 23:28:03 GMT -5
Mr. Grey, exactly what do you mean by the "characteristics of classical evangelicalism?"
Take the Bible: -what part of the bible and what interpretation of the the bible is in your view "classical evangelicalism?"
The Cross? -what teachings about the Cross do you determine to be "classical evangelicalism?"
"Conversion?"
"Activism" -Especially what does this consist of in "classical evangelicalism?"
Most of all, how do you consider characteristics of "classical evangelicalism" differing from the 2X2's or Jim Jones, or any other religion that you consider being a "cult?"
Dmmichgood ~ I believe Irvine Gray may be referring to the movement of "classical evangelicalism" in the 60's and 70's which was making the headlines in the area of evangelizing the masses and getting people back into church? However, when I think of a dangerous cult, I'm also reminded of such groups as Jim Jones or that dude in Waco, TX who made the headlines in years past.
www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/may/recovering-classic-evangelicalism-interview-with-gregory.html?paging=off
Thanks, Faune.
Mr. Grey, is this what you meant by "classical evangelicalism?"
If so, would you explain why should this period of time (1960's-1970's) be called "classical evangelicalism?"
How could it be more important than the evangelicalism that went on those many years before? Was there something wrong with the evangelicalism in those days?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 24, 2014 23:45:43 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ You're welcome! Here's a description of what classic evangelicalism entailed back in the Hippie era.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 14:24:35 GMT -5
My friend, ( I hope I can call you a friend) I do believe you have a right to express your interpretation as you see it and I really am glad to see you doing so back on TMB again! Thank you, ma'am. Surely you don't think of me as so shallow as to cease being anyone's friend because of disagreement about God, or His existence. If it became a matter of arrogance, either on my part or another's then possibly such friendship might be damaged. In such a case it might as well be my fault as another's.
We have had to delay our departure from Southeast Texas to Southwest Washington for one week. Trying now to have that written in stone, however y'all know the saying about "the best laid plans of mice and men!" Got the real estate sales contract signed today. Heavy rains, thunder and lightning all around. Still hurricane free... Working hard as this old cripple possibly can. All for now, friend.
|
|