|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 10:09:11 GMT -5
To some extent the f&w movement is a failed experiment, although many individuals continue to thrive within the movement. More power to them.
I believe that much of the criticism of the movement on TMB is misguided and misses the mark.
The kind of criticism which I think is misguided takes the following form.
1) It argues that the specific beliefs of the friends are not aligned with Scripture.
2) It then argues that conventional, orthodox Christian teaching is more aligned with Scripture.
3) It then seeks to use the well-developed marginalization language of Christian theology to pigeon hole the teachings of the friends as "heretical", "unorthodox" and the group, in the theological sense, is a "cult".
Established church theology, which a small, but unfortunately influential, percentage of the planet's population is still stupid enough to wholly endorse, the friends are indeed heretical and a cult.
Anyway, enough of the usual rant; here is the point I really wish to make.
The f&w movement never was or is a turning back to basic theology, that is, a highly literal interpretation of the New Testament. It certainly does make the claim that they are the only ones to use "only" Scripture and no other written teaching, as if that constitutes some kind of a high ground.
What the early workers did try to do is to re-assert basic principled teaching, the words of Jesus, over and against the highly corrupt and broken theology of the church as seen in a divided Ireland.
Critiquing the theology of the friends on the basis of a textual interpretation of Scripture, e.g. Matthew 10 picked apart, to cite a common example, amounts to nothing.
There are two key aspects of formal Christian theology that those workers understood as corrupting, and that they stood against.
(1) The theology of church, as adopted by 99% of Christendom, teaches of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And thus, implicitly that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are False. (Jesus = God) Even though there is little Biblical support for this idea. (This part of church teaching ably serves the conquerors and practitioners of War. It adds a root of "us and them" thinking which leads to hatred, oppression, group cohesion and marginalization into church teaching. If you wish to see that today, look no further than the conservative Evangelical movement and its reactions to Islam.)
(2) Generally, orthodox theology also supports heierarchy generally, and a specific form of heierarchy in each church. It's essential to those who committ to a life in the church, that they have some security of income and support, and that becomes embedded in the teaching of the church. Yet, Jesus taught the opposite.
(But even ordinary, mainstream churches have always taught something very good and valuable, and this at the core redeems the church, and no corrupting influence can get away from it: that one's personal relationship with Jesus is paramount, and that relationship through prayer and reading of Scripture needs to inform one's life without mediation through a hierarchy.)
I don't see that the friends and workers have done a better job than other church groups in de-emphasizing the corrupting influence of power and control versus other groups. Progress within Western society in terms of liberty and personal freedom have done their own number on the influence of church hierarchy, praise be to God.
All I'm saying is that the more important evaluation of the friends' church, and any other church, is how well they have facilitated the Pilgrim's progress, rather than how close they hew to any particular theological line.
I do think that what the early Workers did and tried to teach, distinguished from where the movement is today, represents a way forward for the church. The old established church, as it existed in 1890, is broken. The church is dead, long live the church.
I'll leave it there for now.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Feb 7, 2016 15:14:18 GMT -5
Thats 1 way of looking at 2x2-ism - but to me it seems a sort of over-rosey picture that completely misses what I think is the more important point that we were LIED TO about many things. That includes denying of the history and that theres no rules and that 2x2-ism had no doctrine other than the bible's literal words and that workers never excommunicate and that the workers were penniless and so much more. Then theres a huge amount of stuff thats swallowed thats plain ole hypocritical and just lived-with no matter that its obviously untrue and that the F&W's dont do anything different than those groups of people supposedly in false ways that we heard damned because of having buildings or having an organization or having a name or just because they never professed thru the workers and etc.
Other churches might have similar problems both in hypocrisy and misrepresenting what the bible says but that doesn't excuse 2x2-ism. But I also can't think of another I've encountered that has both of those plus the amount of lying and misdirection and all the while claiming to be TRUTH. Just cause other churches have problems does not make it ok for 2x2-ism to practice the same things all the while touting itself as being the only way when its as fatally flawed as any other. 2x2-ism may have shown up some of the flaws in some churches in 1900 but it really hasn't done much different in practice and introduced some bad flaws of its own - yeah god can use any kind of group to promote his aims of drawing people to himself but that doesn't justify bad things done by any particular church - including 2x2-ism.
Theres hundreds of old articles about 2x2-ism's first days and the preaching wasn't so much a return to some ideal or about doctrine as it was about damning everybody else. Tho today's system is focused inward and workers no longer preach that message from the street corners the only-our-way-or-you're-on=the-highway-to-hell is still a big part of the teach/belief today and notwithstanding those who selectively filter out that underlying message and the basic and the accompanying and completely non-biblical insistence that its only OUR church in the home and OUR ministers without a home that will get anybody a lottery ticket that might get someone to heaven. You are right that bible and sound teaching from the scriptures matter little in 2x2-ism - in the name of 'the spirit' EVERYTHING is open to be twisted or slanted or ignored or misrepresented or over-emphasized or just plain invented out of whole cloth to support that bedrock foundational doctrine. Is that good? The F&W's already get enough fuzzy afirmation - that passes for the spirit or discussion or study - of the status quo twice or more times each week. I think its fair criticism to point out that those arbitrary teachings and traditions and outright lies are grounded in and propounded by men and not an accurate take from the bible and not a sound foundation for claiming to be following jesus. Like some others it points more to the organization - its meetings and ministry. So to me 2x2-ism has always been not so much a way forward as it is more a repackaging of the same flaws - maybe a bit less worse than some and a bit worse than others.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 7, 2016 15:44:04 GMT -5
I don't believe the Christian church is dead. The traditional church might be but there are many mega churches that have sprung up in the last century with congregations in the thousands. They have the basic fundamental foundation of the traditional church but their worship is awesome. The 2x2s lack worship and is largely dead. To me worship is what has progressed within the church. Going out 2x2 and meeting in the home misses the mark of what Jesus sacrifice and true worship is about.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 16:03:51 GMT -5
Thats 1 way of looking at 2x2-ism - but to me it seems a sort of over-rosey picture that completely misses what I think is the more important point that we were LIED TO about many things. That includes denying of the history and that theres no rules and that 2x2-ism had no doctrine other than the bible's literal words and that workers never excommunicate and that the workers were penniless and so much more. Then theres a huge amount of stuff thats swallowed thats plain ole hypocritical and just lived-with no matter that its obviously untrue and that the F&W's dont do anything different than those groups of people supposedly in false ways that we heard damned because of having buildings or having an organization or having a name or just because they never professed thru the workers and etc. Other churches might have similar problems both in hypocrisy and misrepresenting what the bible says but that doesn't excuse 2x2-ism. But I also can't think of another I've encountered that has both of those plus the amount of lying and misdirection and all the while claiming to be TRUTH. Just cause other churches have problems does not make it ok for 2x2-ism to practice the same things all the while touting itself as being the only way when its as fatally flawed as any other. 2x2-ism may have shown up some of the flaws in some churches in 1900 but it really hasn't done much different in practice and introduced some bad flaws of its own - yeah god can use any kind of group to promote his aims of drawing people to himself but that doesn't justify bad things done by any particular church - including 2x2-ism. Theres hundreds of old articles about 2x2-ism's first days and the preaching wasn't so much a return to some ideal or about doctrine as it was about damning everybody else. Tho today's system is focused inward and workers no longer preach that message from the street corners the only-our-way-or-you're-on=the-highway-to-hell is still a big part of the teach/belief today and notwithstanding those who selectively filter out that underlying message and the basic and the accompanying and completely non-biblical insistence that its only OUR church in the home and OUR ministers without a home that will get anybody a lottery ticket that might get someone to heaven. You are right that bible and sound teaching from the scriptures matter little in 2x2-ism - in the name of 'the spirit' EVERYTHING is open to be twisted or slanted or ignored or misrepresented or over-emphasized or just plain invented out of whole cloth to support that bedrock foundational doctrine. Is that good? The F&W's already get enough fuzzy afirmation - that passes for the spirit or discussion or study - of the status quo twice or more times each week. I think its fair criticism to point out that those arbitrary teachings and traditions and outright lies are grounded in and propounded by men and not an accurate take from the bible and not a sound foundation for claiming to be following jesus. Like some others it points more to the organization - its meetings and ministry. So to me 2x2-ism has always been not so much a way forward as it is more a repackaging of the same flaws - maybe a bit less worse than some and a bit worse than others. Sorry, but your experience was different from mine. Or I should say, your perception of the experience. For example, the issue of the origins was masked, but I never felt lied to, and still don't. Most members and workers believe or did believe that "it goes back to Christ", and in many respects it does do that. I was speaking with someone recently from the church of Christ who are fully acquainted with the particulars of their history, but they will tell you the same thing: "this goes back to Christ". And they'll tell you that they attach no special recognition to their leading historical lights. I don't believe that ignoring the history is a good thing, BTW. In fact, knowing the particulars of your history as a people or a church is very important, and you ignore it at your peril. But at the same time I don't feel I was "lied to". I could continue point-by-point but let's just leave this issue. I'm not trying to defend or justify the 2x2s/ friends. I'm just saying that it's absurd to try and nitpick any church based on what Scripture says. For one thing, you're stooping to judgementalism. The friends don't nitpick other churches in their sermons, verse by verse. But so called enlightened, better Christians think that is something they are allowed to do. For another, every church believes that their doctrine is soundly based on Scripture ... and how many of these soundly based doctrines do we have as a result. No, I think the friends are right in terms of setting aside the question of sound theology, and look instead for guidance and direction from Scripture on a personal basis. Unfortunately, some workers do feel it's their lot to provide personal guidance and direction on a pointed basis to others. But as many or more resist this impulse. That was our experience. We were fortunate to not be born within one of those overbearing families that use Scripture and belief as a bludgeon. If that is what happened to you, my condolences.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 16:10:14 GMT -5
I don't believe the Christian church is dead. The traditional church might be but there are many mega churches that have sprung up in the last century with congregations in the thousands. They have the basic fundamental foundation of the traditional church but their worship is awesome. The 2x2s lack worship and is largely dead. To me worship is what has progressed within the church. Going out 2x2 and meeting in the home misses the mark of what Jesus sacrifice and true worship is about. The kind of heart-felt, basic roots Christianity I believe in is not exemplified particularly by the 2x2 church at the present time. So I'll make no defence on that score. But the "mega churches" are just a giant flame-out of a certain kind of Christianity; a few more decades and the mega churches will be gone. They are really just a local phenomenon in certain parts of the world, in any case. The "mega churches" are drawing from other established and dying churches, it's all part of the downward spiral of mainstream Christianity. Lots of good people in those churches, but that's my feeling about it. I'll hold out that it is possible to attend a mega-church and be part of the revitalized church. If there is a mega-church where people read Rob Bell I'll revise my opinion. But I feel that it's all Messianic worship and me-too ism .... praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 7, 2016 16:31:27 GMT -5
To me it is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 16:40:18 GMT -5
To me it is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His church. To be honest I have mixed feelings about the mega churches, or let's say, the large community, Pentecostal churches. I like many aspects of the evangelical movement - their overseas work, organizations like World Vision (which we supported the whole time we were in the friends' church), and some of the community relief work they do. I also like the music of Hillsong and the like, although I find the constant Jesus worship and explicit euphoria a little discomfiting. But I think that's just my personal style and upbringing speaking out. The parts of it I dislike are the extreme Bible literalism, young Earth, intelligent design, global warming denying ... everything will continue as it is so trust in the Lord ... kind of mindset. If they can shed that mindset there might be hope for them, because most young people with an education just don't buy this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 7, 2016 16:51:56 GMT -5
It seems to be the young people who the mega churches are getting. The church Rob Bell started is called a mega church without the worship style. It's church, The Mars Hill Bible Church doesn't state their beliefs on their website. Why?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 16:59:04 GMT -5
It seems to be the young people who the mega churches are getting. The church Rob Bell started is called a mega church without the worship style. It's church, The Mars Hill Bible Church doesn't state their beliefs on their website. Why? Hmm. I looked that up, and at first blush, I'm quite impressed by what I read. Mars Hill Bible Church is somewhat against the grain as far as the other mega-churches. I would easily feel at home there, at least, based on what I read about them. I got a kick out of this quote on wikipedia, "Some religious conservatives criticized Dobson [mentor of Rob Bell] for occasionally drinking beer while testifying about his Christian faith". Really, who cares about that? But it shows where some heads are at, and where others are not.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Feb 7, 2016 17:04:51 GMT -5
Decades of hiding and lying(coverups) of reg'd names, CSA, heresy of exclusivism that means ALL who are outside are not going to heaven (but to hell)
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 7, 2016 18:13:17 GMT -5
I don't think it is good drinking alcohol while witnessing your faith. I see it could be a stumbling block for some. How does he know that the other person does not have an alcohol problem or recovering. To me it is an unwise thing to do. I wonder if he would feel the same about smoking marijauna or even cigarettes.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Feb 7, 2016 18:21:08 GMT -5
Sorry, but your experience was different from mine. Or I should say, your perception of the experience. For example, the issue of the origins was masked, but I never felt lied to, and still don't. Most members and workers believe or did believe that "it goes back to Christ", and in many respects it does do that. I was speaking with someone recently from the church of Christ who are fully acquainted with the particulars of their history, but they will tell you the same thing: "this goes back to Christ". And they'll tell you that they attach no special recognition to their leading historical lights. I don't believe that ignoring the history is a good thing, BTW. In fact, knowing the particulars of your history as a people or a church is very important, and you ignore it at your peril. But at the same time I don't feel I was "lied to". I could continue point-by-point but let's just leave this issue. I'm not trying to defend or justify the 2x2s/ friends. I'm just saying that it's absurd to try and nitpick any church based on what Scripture says. For one thing, you're stooping to judgementalism. The friends don't nitpick other churches in their sermons, verse by verse. But so called enlightened, better Christians think that is something they are allowed to do. For another, every church believes that their doctrine is soundly based on Scripture ... and how many of these soundly based doctrines do we have as a result. No, I think the friends are right in terms of setting aside the question of sound theology, and look instead for guidance and direction from Scripture on a personal basis. Unfortunately, some workers do feel it's their lot to provide personal guidance and direction on a pointed basis to others. But as many or more resist this impulse. That was our experience. We were fortunate to not be born within one of those overbearing families that use Scripture and belief as a bludgeon. If that is what happened to you, my condolences. " Lets just leave this issue" is just the sort of discussion-ending put-down I remember from workers. I'm certain that FEELING you've not been lied to is not at all the same as NOT BEING lied to and your experience of feeling not lied to is NOT everyone elses. Being " fortunate to not be born within one of those overbearing families that use Scripture and belief as a bludgeon" - backhanded slam - just tells me you weren't born into the F&W's but for whatever reason found it easy to fit right in with never openly differing or deeply discussing or discerning on much of anything to do with the faith all F&W's are expected to support and swallow whole and relegating the bible as little more that a prop on which to hang feelings and self-preferences when it suits. You are defending them again - against anyone who has moved on and maybe sees things a lot different from the outside and you're minimizing the importance of there being no biblical basis for those man-made traditions and teachings that were held up to be god's only way on earth and without which everyone outside is damned to hell. Odd but I guess none of thats important to you - ok with me but no reason to be dismissive of those in and out for whom those are important.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 18:36:19 GMT -5
Sorry, but your experience was different from mine. Or I should say, your perception of the experience. For example, the issue of the origins was masked, but I never felt lied to, and still don't. Most members and workers believe or did believe that "it goes back to Christ", and in many respects it does do that. I was speaking with someone recently from the church of Christ who are fully acquainted with the particulars of their history, but they will tell you the same thing: "this goes back to Christ". And they'll tell you that they attach no special recognition to their leading historical lights. I don't believe that ignoring the history is a good thing, BTW. In fact, knowing the particulars of your history as a people or a church is very important, and you ignore it at your peril. But at the same time I don't feel I was "lied to". I could continue point-by-point but let's just leave this issue. I'm not trying to defend or justify the 2x2s/ friends. I'm just saying that it's absurd to try and nitpick any church based on what Scripture says. For one thing, you're stooping to judgementalism. The friends don't nitpick other churches in their sermons, verse by verse. But so called enlightened, better Christians think that is something they are allowed to do. For another, every church believes that their doctrine is soundly based on Scripture ... and how many of these soundly based doctrines do we have as a result. No, I think the friends are right in terms of setting aside the question of sound theology, and look instead for guidance and direction from Scripture on a personal basis. Unfortunately, some workers do feel it's their lot to provide personal guidance and direction on a pointed basis to others. But as many or more resist this impulse. That was our experience. We were fortunate to not be born within one of those overbearing families that use Scripture and belief as a bludgeon. If that is what happened to you, my condolences. " Lets just leave this issue" is just the sort of discussion-ending put-down I remember from workers. I'm certain that FEELING you've not been lied to is not at all the same as NOT BEING lied to and your experience of feeling not lied to is NOT everyone elses. Being " fortunate to not be born within one of those overbearing families that use Scripture and belief as a bludgeon" - backhanded slam - just tells me you weren't born into the F&W's but for whatever reason found it easy to fit right in with never openly differing or deeply discussing or discerning on much of anything to do with the faith all F&W's are expected to support and swallow whole and relegating the bible as little more that a prop on which to hang feelings and self-preferences when it suits. You are defending them again - against anyone who has moved on and maybe sees things a lot different from the outside and you're minimizing the importance of there being no biblical basis for those man-made traditions and teachings that were held up to be god's only way on earth and without which everyone outside is damned to hell. Odd but I guess none of thats important to you - ok with me but no reason to be dismissive of those in and out for whom those are important. It's not a "put down". Just a recognition that I won't be able to change your way of thinking and you won't change mine. So what's the point of continuing this line of conversation? I'm not dismissing your way of looking at things. It's valid, but it is based on your experience which differs from mine. Much of our individual realities, and this goes for anyone, not just me and you, are subjective, not objective. That's often why people differ so much in their opinions on this, and many other topics. The reference to family background is because a person's experience is entirely different in a family context within a religion. There are way more pressures, more coercion, more difficulty in being able to leave. We didn't have any of that, so it's been easier for our family all the way around. It's not meant as a slight. I don't know the circumstances you faced, but I do know that many of those hurt the most are those who have large, extended professing families and/or were deeply involved or had family in the work. Often in that situation one's social life, entertainment, work life and religion are all with the same group of people, and that creates high vulnerability and the potential for co-ercion. Someone who goes to one church on Sunday, works with another group of people, has family that go to different churches, or no church, and maintains a social life outside their church is going to have a far different experience. You also don't know what kind or kinds of conversations we had with workers. There's nothing you know that I don't know. No facts or events you could tell me about. I've read it all and heard it all. The difference in point of view is purely subjective and based on personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 18:40:10 GMT -5
I don't think it is good drinking alcohol while witnessing your faith. I see it could be a stumbling block for some. How does he know that the other person does not have an alcohol problem or recovering. To me it is an unwise thing to do. I wonder if he would feel the same about smoking marijauna or even cigarettes. I don't think he was swilling beer while preaching, LOL. Nothing wrong with drink in moderation. The Bible recommends a little wine for our stomach's sake. So do doctors today. And let's not forget the wine at the wedding in Canaan. Or the passover wine. However, if you take the path of a teetotaller, good on you. I too believe that we have to be careful about the substances we use.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 7, 2016 19:20:04 GMT -5
There is a time and place for everything and drinking beer while testifying about your Christian faith is not in my eyes one. I do not read where Jesus or the apostles did it or said that it was fine. Having wine at a wedding or for the emblems is a different place and setting.
I am sure there is plenty you don't know about the workers and church. For one you were not born and raised in it which is a whole lot different from coming in as an adult. You don't have the generations behind you for a start. Different points of view are facts for each individual.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2016 22:04:08 GMT -5
To some extent the f&w movement is a failed experiment, although many individuals continue to thrive within the movement. More power to them. I believe that much of the criticism of the movement on TMB is misguided and misses the mark. The kind of criticism which I think is misguided takes the following form. 1) It argues that the specific beliefs of the friends are not aligned with Scripture. 2) It then argues that conventional, orthodox Christian teaching is more aligned with Scripture. 3) It then seeks to use the well-developed marginalization language of Christian theology to pigeon hole the teachings of the friends as "heretical", "unorthodox" and the group, in the theological sense, is a "cult". Established church theology, which a small, but unfortunately influential, percentage of the planet's population is still stupid enough to wholly endorse, the friends are indeed heretical and a cult. Anyway, enough of the usual rant; here is the point I really wish to make. The f&w movement never was or is a turning back to basic theology, that is, a highly literal interpretation of the New Testament. It certainly does make the claim that they are the only ones to use "only" Scripture and no other written teaching, as if that constitutes some kind of a high ground. What the early workers did try to do is to re-assert basic principled teaching, the words of Jesus, over and against the highly corrupt and broken theology of the church as seen in a divided Ireland. Critiquing the theology of the friends on the basis of a textual interpretation of Scripture, e.g. Matthew 10 picked apart, to cite a common example, amounts to nothing. There are two key aspects of formal Christian theology that those workers understood as corrupting, and that they stood against. (1) The theology of church, as adopted by 99% of Christendom, teaches of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And thus, implicitly that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are False. (Jesus = God) Even though there is little Biblical support for this idea. (This part of church teaching ably serves the conquerors and practitioners of War. It adds a root of "us and them" thinking which leads to hatred, oppression, group cohesion and marginalization into church teaching. If you wish to see that today, look no further than the conservative Evangelical movement and its reactions to Islam.) (2) Generally, orthodox theology also supports heierarchy generally, and a specific form of heierarchy in each church. It's essential to those who committ to a life in the church, that they have some security of income and support, and that becomes embedded in the teaching of the church. Yet, Jesus taught the opposite. (But even ordinary, mainstream churches have always taught something very good and valuable, and this at the core redeems the church, and no corrupting influence can get away from it: that one's personal relationship with Jesus is paramount, and that relationship through prayer and reading of Scripture needs to inform one's life without mediation through a hierarchy.) I don't see that the friends and workers have done a better job than other church groups in de-emphasizing the corrupting influence of power and control versus other groups. Progress within Western society in terms of liberty and personal freedom have done their own number on the influence of church hierarchy, praise be to God. All I'm saying is that the more important evaluation of the friends' church, and any other church, is how well they have facilitated the Pilgrim's progress, rather than how close they hew to any particular theological line. I do think that what the early Workers did and tried to teach, distinguished from where the movement is today, represents a way forward for the church. The old established church, as it existed in 1890, is broken. The church is dead, long live the church. I'll leave it there for now. The early workers certainly did not reject much of the mainstream theology or belief of the Christian church. This is evident in the hymns they sang and what is written by various early workers. They rejected the structure of the Christian church - the method of ministry, buildings etc Again the hymns in the Go-Preacher book give an insight into their "revelation" around Matthew 10 etc. Church structures have been and can be very helpful but they are not the raison d'etre of the Christian. The Trellis and the Vine is a good book to read which has helped think about the role of church and the need to constantly keep it in it's right perspective. Otherwise, the church and its structures have a habit of becoming the priority when they clearly shouldn't. www.matthiasmedia.com.au/the-trellis-and-the-vineYes the very early workers including Irvine did teach the Trinity. But later they didn't. My point about Matthew 10 is that they did not observe the jot and tittle of those verses, as critics often point out, but they extracted the root principle ... which is the problems around a paid clergy. I don't think we disagree here. I agree that structure and leadership is a requirement in order for people to make common cause, and also a requirement in making common cause in the name of Jesus Christ. It's not a given that those structures will be coercive but often they are. The reference sounds interesting ... I'll have a look.
|
|
gells
Senior Member
Posts: 744
|
Post by gells on Feb 8, 2016 10:37:10 GMT -5
Funny about this, the theology, and the basics misunderstood: I honestly don't know what the F&W, believe. I mean I grew up that way, and didn't leave until well into my 20's, and I know the basics, but if you go deeper, I don't know what they believe. And for the most part, I think everyone comes up with something of their own, because very little is agreed upon. We do know that it's works based. And most people teach against the trinity, but not all (I recent heard that B.B., the eastern USA overseer, spoke on how Jesus is fully man and fully God.) But I know that every member of my family would say that is heresy, until they heard it with their own ears. If you were to ask me anything on a deeper levels about their beliefs, I couldn't answer. They don't agree on their doctrine. And if you have questions, you get backlash.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2016 19:23:46 GMT -5
Funny about this, the theology, and the basics misunderstood: I honestly don't know what the F&W, believe. I mean I grew up that way, and didn't leave until well into my 20's, and I know the basics, but if you go deeper, I don't know what they believe. And for the most part, I think everyone comes up with something of their own, because very little is agreed upon. We do know that it's works based. And most people teach against the trinity, but not all (I recent heard that B.B., the eastern USA overseer, spoke on how Jesus is fully man and fully God.) But I know that every member of my family would say that is heresy, until they heard it with their own ears. If you were to ask me anything on a deeper levels about their beliefs, I couldn't answer. They don't agree on their doctrine. And if you have questions, you get backlash. I think that's correct. But are perhaps also imposing a more conventional church paradigm on the friends' beliefs. Their belief system is different from that of most theologically-centric churches. But not all. I'm not saying it's better, necessarily and there is a tension between the "advertised claim" and the actual situation. The "advertised claim" is as follows: 1) We use only the Bible. That in itself implies a loose, principle driven, individualistic belief system. When it comes to particulars the Bible on its own doesn't take you all that far. At the level of overall principles, there's a lot to lead and guide a person. Making detailed choices and decisions ... results may vary somewhat. 2) We are led by "the Spirit". It's up to each person to apply Biblical teaching in the context of the surrounding culture and their lives. 3) We don't have rules ... which is a corollary to the other two points. From the platform that is mostly all you will ever hear. But in actual practice the following has occurred. 1) There are "unwritten" rules; break them at your peril. 2) In the absence of a particular, written theology, workers adjudicate difficult issues like divorce or television in the home by fiat. Sometimes this isn't too bad ... anyone in the church should figure out that televisions are a no-no (at least they were a decade or two ago). But some workers rule according to their own inner compass and it doesn't work out too well. And some lack wisdom and judgement. And some micro-manage. Some have it figured out properly and don't intercede and don't poke into the private business of others. These are unfortunately not seen nearly often enough. 3) There are "received notions" noised in some circles, but these are not told to newbies/ babes. One thought is that newbies may not be ready, but the actual reason is that there are things people are afraid to say. Like, all other churches are "false". I rarely heard this from the platform, but obviously it's something most members think. If you have the courage of personal conviction I think you can go a long way within the friends on the first three points, which is the better part of the friends' beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2016 20:04:52 GMT -5
Yes the very early workers including Irvine did teach the Trinity. But later they didn't. My point about Matthew 10 is that they did not observe the jot and tittle of those verses, as critics often point out, but they extracted the root principle ... which is the problems around a paid clergy. I don't think we disagree here. I agree that structure and leadership is a requirement in order for people to make common cause, and also a requirement in making common cause in the name of Jesus Christ. It's not a given that those structures will be coercive but often they are. The reference sounds interesting ... I'll have a look. Yes, I think the early workers had quite reasonable intentions and thinking. They had pretty orthodox doctrine. They clearly felt that they needed to draw a line in the sand re well paid clergy and institutionalised Christianity - nothing wrong with that. Workers could marry or be single - seemed like there was flexibility in the system. Whilst there were clearly leaders there didn't appear to be a strong hierarchy early on. I don't even think based on early hymns that there was necessarily a strong "works" culture - the hymn "Sinners come to Jesus" which is now "Wanderers come to Jesus" made it clear that people could receive a full salvation - NOW" (in all caps in the hymn book). Of course that has been somewhat moderated now. It's a pity they didn't stick to the formula they had and let the Living Witness Doctrine and many other things creep in. Mind you, the friends seem to fall into two main camps - those who are exclusive and hold to worker doctrine about the ministry and are very obedient to workers etc and those who see themselves as non-exclusive and pretty much like another Christian church and take or leave what workers say depending on their perspective. While overall numbers in the group continue to decline the proportion of people in the latter camp seem to be growing reasonably rapidly - at least that is the perspective in Australia. I think Clearday and JD have indicated similar thoughts previously on their parts of the world. The crucial turning point seems to be when John Long was excom'd at a convention meeting, somewhere around 1905. If the friends' moderate that is a good thing; I'm past being very concerned about what does happen, other than wishing the best for the people involved.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 8, 2016 22:11:59 GMT -5
To some extent the f&w movement is a failed experiment, although many individuals continue to thrive within the movement. More power to them. I believe that much of the criticism of the movement on TMB is misguided and misses the mark. The kind of criticism which I think is misguided takes the following form. 1) It argues that the specific beliefs of the friends are not aligned with Scripture. 2) It then argues that conventional, orthodox Christian teaching is more aligned with Scripture. 3) It then seeks to use the well-developed marginalization language of Christian theology to pigeon hole the teachings of the friends as "heretical", "unorthodox" and the group, in the theological sense, is a "cult". Established church theology, which a small, but unfortunately influential, percentage of the planet's population is still stupid enough to wholly endorse, the friends are indeed heretical and a cult. Anyway, enough of the usual rant; here is the point I really wish to make. The f&w movement never was or is a turning back to basic theology, that is, a highly literal interpretation of the New Testament. It certainly does make the claim that they are the only ones to use "only" Scripture and no other written teaching, as if that constitutes some kind of a high ground. What the early workers did try to do is to re-assert basic principled teaching, the words of Jesus, over and against the highly corrupt and broken theology of the church as seen in a divided Ireland. Critiquing the theology of the friends on the basis of a textual interpretation of Scripture, e.g. Matthew 10 picked apart, to cite a common example, amounts to nothing. There are two key aspects of formal Christian theology that those workers understood as corrupting, and that they stood against. (1) The theology of church, as adopted by 99% of Christendom, teaches of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And thus, implicitly that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are False. (Jesus = God) Even though there is little Biblical support for this idea. (This part of church teaching ably serves the conquerors and practitioners of War. It adds a root of "us and them" thinking which leads to hatred, oppression, group cohesion and marginalization into church teaching. If you wish to see that today, look no further than the conservative Evangelical movement and its reactions to Islam.) (2) Generally, orthodox theology also supports heierarchy generally, and a specific form of heierarchy in each church. It's essential to those who committ to a life in the church, that they have some security of income and support, and that becomes embedded in the teaching of the church. Yet, Jesus taught the opposite. (But even ordinary, mainstream churches have always taught something very good and valuable, and this at the core redeems the church, and no corrupting influence can get away from it: that one's personal relationship with Jesus is paramount, and that relationship through prayer and reading of Scripture needs to inform one's life without mediation through a hierarchy.) I don't see that the friends and workers have done a better job than other church groups in de-emphasizing the corrupting influence of power and control versus other groups. Progress within Western society in terms of liberty and personal freedom have done their own number on the influence of church hierarchy, praise be to God. All I'm saying is that the more important evaluation of the friends' church, and any other church, is how well they have facilitated the Pilgrim's progress, rather than how close they hew to any particular theological line. I do think that what the early Workers did and tried to teach, distinguished from where the movement is today, represents a way forward for the church. The old established church, as it existed in 1890, is broken. The church is dead, long live the church. I'll leave it there for now. This is great thread. I don’t really have anything much to contribute. Basically I think it’s pointless to criticize a group for not following a theology that they aren’t claiming to be following. To me it makes as much sense as criticizing the fellowship for not following Islamic theology correctly. The idea of Christianity as the only true religion often leads to prejudice and intolerance. It is good that the fellowship largely did not take up the “T” belief. However, I think they were unsuccessful in achieving something morally preferable when many within the group fell into developing and teaching their own brand of exclusivity, prejudice and intolerance. Better than some, perhaps partially because of the relatively small number of members in the fellowship. Worse than some others in terms of developing internal accountability measures for some OS’s and workers, I think. Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2016 23:17:05 GMT -5
To some extent the f&w movement is a failed experiment, although many individuals continue to thrive within the movement. More power to them. I believe that much of the criticism of the movement on TMB is misguided and misses the mark. The kind of criticism which I think is misguided takes the following form. 1) It argues that the specific beliefs of the friends are not aligned with Scripture. 2) It then argues that conventional, orthodox Christian teaching is more aligned with Scripture. 3) It then seeks to use the well-developed marginalization language of Christian theology to pigeon hole the teachings of the friends as "heretical", "unorthodox" and the group, in the theological sense, is a "cult". Established church theology, which a small, but unfortunately influential, percentage of the planet's population is still stupid enough to wholly endorse, the friends are indeed heretical and a cult. Anyway, enough of the usual rant; here is the point I really wish to make. The f&w movement never was or is a turning back to basic theology, that is, a highly literal interpretation of the New Testament. It certainly does make the claim that they are the only ones to use "only" Scripture and no other written teaching, as if that constitutes some kind of a high ground. What the early workers did try to do is to re-assert basic principled teaching, the words of Jesus, over and against the highly corrupt and broken theology of the church as seen in a divided Ireland. Critiquing the theology of the friends on the basis of a textual interpretation of Scripture, e.g. Matthew 10 picked apart, to cite a common example, amounts to nothing. There are two key aspects of formal Christian theology that those workers understood as corrupting, and that they stood against. (1) The theology of church, as adopted by 99% of Christendom, teaches of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And thus, implicitly that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are False. (Jesus = God) Even though there is little Biblical support for this idea. (This part of church teaching ably serves the conquerors and practitioners of War. It adds a root of "us and them" thinking which leads to hatred, oppression, group cohesion and marginalization into church teaching. If you wish to see that today, look no further than the conservative Evangelical movement and its reactions to Islam.) (2) Generally, orthodox theology also supports heierarchy generally, and a specific form of heierarchy in each church. It's essential to those who committ to a life in the church, that they have some security of income and support, and that becomes embedded in the teaching of the church. Yet, Jesus taught the opposite. (But even ordinary, mainstream churches have always taught something very good and valuable, and this at the core redeems the church, and no corrupting influence can get away from it: that one's personal relationship with Jesus is paramount, and that relationship through prayer and reading of Scripture needs to inform one's life without mediation through a hierarchy.) I don't see that the friends and workers have done a better job than other church groups in de-emphasizing the corrupting influence of power and control versus other groups. Progress within Western society in terms of liberty and personal freedom have done their own number on the influence of church hierarchy, praise be to God. All I'm saying is that the more important evaluation of the friends' church, and any other church, is how well they have facilitated the Pilgrim's progress, rather than how close they hew to any particular theological line. I do think that what the early Workers did and tried to teach, distinguished from where the movement is today, represents a way forward for the church. The old established church, as it existed in 1890, is broken. The church is dead, long live the church. I'll leave it there for now. This is great thread. I don’t really have anything much to contribute. Basically I think it’s pointless to criticize a group for not following a theology that they aren’t claiming to be following. To me it makes as much sense as criticizing the fellowship for not following Islamic theology correctly. The idea of Christianity as the only true religion often leads to prejudice and intolerance. It is good that the fellowship largely did not take up the “T” belief. However, I think they were unsuccessful in achieving something morally preferable when many within the group fell into developing and teaching their own brand of exclusivity, prejudice and intolerance. Better than some, perhaps partially because of the relatively small number of members in the fellowship. Worse than some others in terms of developing internal accountability measures for some OS’s and workers, I think. Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive) Since we left the friends 5 or so years ago, we've found there is a revitalization occurring within Christianity. It's not really in the form of a new denomination or new theology. One name for it is "missional Christianity", another "progressive or liberal" Christianity. For some time, my wife and I have been meeting every 2-3 weeks with a few other couples who are all committed to making a difference. Some of us attend and participate in mainstream churches and some do not. I don't see the friends being part of this re-awakening simply because they choose not to be. My thinking is informed by writers like Marcus Borg and John Hick. But others in the group, including my wife, like N.T. Wright, Jean Vanier and others.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 10, 2016 0:11:04 GMT -5
Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive) You make some good points Ellie. In church groups, as well as in societies at large, each generation gets to choose how they want things to be. The demographics of the F&W is changing quite rapidly, and much of the legalism and weirdness we read on TMB would be unthinkable for younger generations. Undoubtedly the fellowship is changing as we speak. The fellowship 100+ years ago was able to "fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package". Since those days when most members were from "outside" it has over time become a generational church. It has turned inward making it very difficult for new people to become integrated with professing culture. A few profess but most last only a few years unless they marry inside. I also see the lack of an organized theology as a strength rather than a weakness. It's far better to seek a relationship with God than a relationship with an organized theology. 'Twas life I got, not theory: His voice I did obey And entered in by Jesus, God's only way.
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Feb 10, 2016 1:14:16 GMT -5
To some extent the f&w movement is a failed experiment, although many individuals continue to thrive within the movement. More power to them. I believe that much of the criticism of the movement on TMB is misguided and misses the mark. The kind of criticism which I think is misguided takes the following form. 1) It argues that the specific beliefs of the friends are not aligned with Scripture. 2) It then argues that conventional, orthodox Christian teaching is more aligned with Scripture. 3) It then seeks to use the well-developed marginalization language of Christian theology to pigeon hole the teachings of the friends as "heretical", "unorthodox" and the group, in the theological sense, is a "cult". Established church theology, which a small, but unfortunately influential, percentage of the planet's population is still stupid enough to wholly endorse, the friends are indeed heretical and a cult. Anyway, enough of the usual rant; here is the point I really wish to make. The f&w movement never was or is a turning back to basic theology, that is, a highly literal interpretation of the New Testament. It certainly does make the claim that they are the only ones to use "only" Scripture and no other written teaching, as if that constitutes some kind of a high ground. What the early workers did try to do is to re-assert basic principled teaching, the words of Jesus, over and against the highly corrupt and broken theology of the church as seen in a divided Ireland. Critiquing the theology of the friends on the basis of a textual interpretation of Scripture, e.g. Matthew 10 picked apart, to cite a common example, amounts to nothing. There are two key aspects of formal Christian theology that those workers understood as corrupting, and that they stood against. (1) The theology of church, as adopted by 99% of Christendom, teaches of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And thus, implicitly that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are False. (Jesus = God) Even though there is little Biblical support for this idea. (This part of church teaching ably serves the conquerors and practitioners of War. It adds a root of "us and them" thinking which leads to hatred, oppression, group cohesion and marginalization into church teaching. If you wish to see that today, look no further than the conservative Evangelical movement and its reactions to Islam.) (2) Generally, orthodox theology also supports heierarchy generally, and a specific form of heierarchy in each church. It's essential to those who committ to a life in the church, that they have some security of income and support, and that becomes embedded in the teaching of the church. Yet, Jesus taught the opposite. (But even ordinary, mainstream churches have always taught something very good and valuable, and this at the core redeems the church, and no corrupting influence can get away from it: that one's personal relationship with Jesus is paramount, and that relationship through prayer and reading of Scripture needs to inform one's life without mediation through a hierarchy.) I don't see that the friends and workers have done a better job than other church groups in de-emphasizing the corrupting influence of power and control versus other groups. Progress within Western society in terms of liberty and personal freedom have done their own number on the influence of church hierarchy, praise be to God. All I'm saying is that the more important evaluation of the friends' church, and any other church, is how well they have facilitated the Pilgrim's progress, rather than how close they hew to any particular theological line. I do think that what the early Workers did and tried to teach, distinguished from where the movement is today, represents a way forward for the church. The old established church, as it existed in 1890, is broken. The church is dead, long live the church. I'll leave it there for now. This is great thread. I don’t really have anything much to contribute. Basically I think it’s pointless to criticize a group for not following a theology that they aren’t claiming to be following. To me it makes as much sense as criticizing the fellowship for not following Islamic theology correctly. The idea of Christianity as the only true religion often leads to prejudice and intolerance. It is good that the fellowship largely did not take up the “T” belief. However, I think they were unsuccessful in achieving something morally preferable when many within the group fell into developing and teaching their own brand of exclusivity, prejudice and intolerance. Better than some, perhaps partially because of the relatively small number of members in the fellowship. Worse than some others in terms of developing internal accountability measures for some OS’s and workers, I think. Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive)
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 10, 2016 6:43:16 GMT -5
This is great thread. I don’t really have anything much to contribute. Basically I think it’s pointless to criticize a group for not following a theology that they aren’t claiming to be following. To me it makes as much sense as criticizing the fellowship for not following Islamic theology correctly. The idea of Christianity as the only true religion often leads to prejudice and intolerance. It is good that the fellowship largely did not take up the “T” belief. However, I think they were unsuccessful in achieving something morally preferable when many within the group fell into developing and teaching their own brand of exclusivity, prejudice and intolerance. Better than some, perhaps partially because of the relatively small number of members in the fellowship. Worse than some others in terms of developing internal accountability measures for some OS’s and workers, I think. Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive) Since we left the friends 5 or so years ago, we've found there is a revitalization occurring within Christianity. It's not really in the form of a new denomination or new theology. One name for it is "missional Christianity", another "progressive or liberal" Christianity. For some time, my wife and I have been meeting every 2-3 weeks with a few other couples who are all committed to making a difference. Some of us attend and participate in mainstream churches and some do not. I don't see the friends being part of this re-awakening simply because they choose not to be. My thinking is informed by writers like Marcus Borg and John Hick. But others in the group, including my wife, like N.T. Wright, Jean Vanier and others. “Missional Christianity” is not a term I’ve heard. Progressive I have. I agree with you this is a “revitalisation”. It’s just hasn’t got enough visibility presently, here anyway, to pull Christianity out of decline. I don’t imagine the vast majority of the friends would know such thinking exists. Neither do I think they’d join the bandwagon if they did. The liberalism would probably be a bit much for the older ones. I do think they can still fill some gaps, though, especially in the small country ‘one church’ towns.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 10, 2016 6:45:24 GMT -5
Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive) You make some good points Ellie. In church groups, as well as in societies at large, each generation gets to choose how they want things to be. The demographics of the F&W is changing quite rapidly, and much of the legalism and weirdness we read on TMB would be unthinkable for younger generations. Undoubtedly the fellowship is changing as we speak. The fellowship 100+ years ago was able to "fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package". Since those days when most members were from "outside" it has over time become a generational church. It has turned inward making it very difficult for new people to become integrated with professing culture. A few profess but most last only a few years unless they marry inside. I also see the lack of an organized theology as a strength rather than a weakness. It's far better to seek a relationship with God than a relationship with an organized theology. 'Twas life I got, not theory: His voice I did obey And entered in by Jesus, God's only way. I ramble on a bit much fixit The legalisms are disappearing quickly for the friends and I think that’s great. The inward thing is a problem but young people these days also tend to have, I think, more non-professing friends than they once did. That might be helpful for new convert integration. On the flip side it also makes it easier to leave.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 10, 2016 6:55:00 GMT -5
This is great thread. I don’t really have anything much to contribute. Basically I think it’s pointless to criticize a group for not following a theology that they aren’t claiming to be following. To me it makes as much sense as criticizing the fellowship for not following Islamic theology correctly. The idea of Christianity as the only true religion often leads to prejudice and intolerance. It is good that the fellowship largely did not take up the “T” belief. However, I think they were unsuccessful in achieving something morally preferable when many within the group fell into developing and teaching their own brand of exclusivity, prejudice and intolerance. Better than some, perhaps partially because of the relatively small number of members in the fellowship. Worse than some others in terms of developing internal accountability measures for some OS’s and workers, I think. Overall I felt that the lack of an organized theology was a strength rather than a weakness while I was in the fellowship. It’s my opinion that as time goes by the lack of alignment with any established church theology claiming a literal interpretation of the bible will not be viewed as an issue for the fellowship. Unless mainstream Christianity IMO becomes more egalitarian and updates to be compatible with current scientific knowledge it will continue to decline in numbers and (I’m guessing) become a smaller version reflecting the opinions of today’s more extreme adherents. Many people I come into contact with view Christianity as fear propagating, judgmental and lacking in love and understanding. Some of that opinion is probably greatly unfounded. Nevertheless, I believe that in order to appeal to western people today an urgent positive re-branding of Christianity is needed. To the extent that the fellowship has distanced itself from Christianity it could perhaps leverage this and fill some gaps for people who are interested in following Jesus but are not interested in the current mainstream Christian package. Just speculation. (I can't realistically see the fellowship being this proactive) Ellie - when did you stop going to the meetings? I seem to recall a year or two ago you saying that you were still going. I may be wrong but I was just curious. You don't have to answer if you'd rather not. I left quite recently. I liked our little meeting, they are all nice people. It didn’t matter to me that I had some odd thoughts for a professing person.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2016 20:15:32 GMT -5
Since we left the friends 5 or so years ago, we've found there is a revitalization occurring within Christianity. It's not really in the form of a new denomination or new theology. One name for it is "missional Christianity", another "progressive or liberal" Christianity. For some time, my wife and I have been meeting every 2-3 weeks with a few other couples who are all committed to making a difference. Some of us attend and participate in mainstream churches and some do not. I don't see the friends being part of this re-awakening simply because they choose not to be. My thinking is informed by writers like Marcus Borg and John Hick. But others in the group, including my wife, like N.T. Wright, Jean Vanier and others. “Missional Christianity” is not a term I’ve heard. Progressive I have. I agree with you this is a “revitalisation”. It’s just hasn’t got enough visibility presently, here anyway, to pull Christianity out of decline. I don’t imagine the vast majority of the friends would know such thinking exists. Neither do I think they’d join the bandwagon if they did. The liberalism would probably be a bit much for the older ones. I do think they can still fill some gaps, though, especially in the small country ‘one church’ towns. Tim Keller is a good speaker on the subject of being "missional". If you Google the term, there are tons of resources though.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 10, 2016 21:35:19 GMT -5
Thanks What Hat. Already added to my list of Google items.
|
|