|
Post by JO on Apr 15, 2012 14:20:55 GMT -5
We're meeting with a few couples now in a study group. The only thing I dislike about it, is that one of the members of the group fancies himself as the leader of the group, and while we're happy to have him there, the group would function just as well without him .. as it would without any one of us. If he or anyone in the group decided that the group should have a name I think I would head for the hills. I don't know at what point a group takes a name. This morning I went to a church service, and the church has a name, not a denominational one, and I'm quite fine with that. I suppose that once you have a building, a mission and a mandate, whatever it is, it's probably good to have a name. But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other. I suppose the friends might have had that kind of feeling at one time, that I have about our study group, but now it just seems like any other denomination. You are in the friends' denomination or you are not in the friends' denomination, so it might just as well have a name as far as I'm concerned. I believe that's about right. William Irvine, Eddie Cooney et. al. were a "mission" - a number of minimalist young people sharing the gospel with their fellow man - not a church organisation. They had no intention of becoming an organisation but it happened anyway. Eddie Cooney was concerned when his colleagues registered the group during the First World War. That was the start of the two faces of the fellowship: 1. To outsiders "we are an organisation". 2. To insiders, "we are not an organisation" Is it OK for a group to have two faces? If not, what action should be taken to align the two faces?
|
|
|
Post by popcorn on Apr 15, 2012 14:39:53 GMT -5
Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group.
If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 14:49:31 GMT -5
your quote What "But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other." I hear this from so many who left the fellowship even though they could be an asset to any church. I wonder is a case of once burned twice shy? That is certainly a fair question to consider. I have noticed too a reluctance to get deeply involved in other churches. I doubt that I would do so either if the meetings were no longer feasible. Mind you, the Christian world has changed too in regard to name identifiers. When I was growing up, asking someone their religion would always produce an answer of Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, etc. Today, I would be more likely to hear "Christian" and no offer of the church group unless asked. Not that they are trying to hide the church organization, but because they see beyond it and don't put their faith in it. I think the advent of the age of openness beginning in the 1960's and now the information age beginning in the 1990's, there are very few people who are under the illusion that their church group is The Only Right Way, or even the best church around. There are just a few hangers-on of exclusive groups who still think that way and are desperately clinging to an untenable concept of exclusivity and specialness.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 15, 2012 15:17:14 GMT -5
Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. Got that, nathan9?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 15, 2012 15:18:55 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 15:50:20 GMT -5
Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. I think it is fairly simple. Informal names always develop by what people see as the most dominant, visible characteristic. To outsiders, the meetings are hidden in homes and the conventions are tucked away on a farm so they don't consider those aspects. There isn't a lot that is visible so the worker-pairs system becomes what they see most strikingly. Now you see how others see us. Now examine the name that the workers have chosen to register with governments: "Christian Conventions". The pattern is the same only this comes from the workers' point of view. What dominates to them is the Convention system. They devote a huge part of their resources to conventions, both time and money. Hence, they named it what dominates their own consciousness the most. And now you know how the workers see it.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 15, 2012 16:09:11 GMT -5
Or maybe they had this in mind:
a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 16:28:48 GMT -5
Or maybe they had this in mind: a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct Gotta love that explanation emy! Just for fun, you should look up Occam's Razor. It applies to our explanations of the registered name.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2012 17:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2012 18:12:51 GMT -5
your quote What "But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other." I hear this from so many who left the fellowship even though they could be an asset to any church. I wonder is a case of once burned twice shy? Not really. It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself, which is what many churches tend to do. I don't want to be an asset to someone's church. I could give you quite a long list of organizations and individuals that we have connected with since leaving the fellowship, and some are strong binds, and some infrequent, and some just a friend of a friend of a friend. It's great to feel so connected to the will of God worked out in lives, and it's just all around us. Here's a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer that our study group reflected on lately. "He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial". (Bonhoeffer). We have to put the Christian community, and even humanity, ahead of the group that we join or feel a part of, and certainly ahead of building a particular dream. I'm not saying that can't be done within a particular denomination; but for now, I feel no need to 'join' or find the 'right' church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2012 18:16:03 GMT -5
Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. There are also lots of "no name" churches, most of whom have been assigned a name by outsiders. local church, Plymouth Brethren and even Lutherans at one time are all examples of churches that don't have officially have a name. Then there are groups like the 'Church of Christ' who pick a neutral name that they don't consider a denominational name.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2012 18:44:34 GMT -5
your quote What "But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other." I hear this from so many who left the fellowship even though they could be an asset to any church. I wonder is a case of once burned twice shy? Not really. It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself, which is what many churches tend to do. I don't want to be an asset to someone's church. I could give you quite a long list of organizations and individuals that we have connected with since leaving the fellowship, and some are strong binds, and some infrequent, and some just a friend of a friend of a friend. It's great to feel so connected to the will of God worked out in lives, and it's just all around us. Here's a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer that our study group reflected on lately. "He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial". (Bonhoeffer). We have to put the Christian community, and even humanity, ahead of the group that we join or feel a part of, and certainly ahead of building a particular dream. I'm not saying that can't be done within a particular denomination; but for now, I feel no need to 'join' or find the 'right' church. Not really. It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself, which is what many churches tend to do. I don't want to be an asset to someone's church.I guess I don't understand that statement. In the church I attend, I believe that I am an asset to the church (local). However, I also don't think that the church limits me in any way in my life as a Christian. I also believe that the church isn't 'someone's', but rather a place where we all are a part of the body of Christ the same as Christians in other churches (or no churches) Likewise, the church also gives me opportunities to reach out to others. This year will be our 6th year of having a 'Blessing of the Bikes', where we invite bikers to a breakfast that we make at the church, have a short talk related to being a Christian and then pray with those who would like us to for a safe riding season. The pastor thought this would be a good outreach, and although we don't get a lot of folks, I have felt it to be worthwhile. For the last 3 years I have been the one to speak..... (maybe that is what is keeping people away.... HA!!) Incidentally, I would guess that we probably only make it to about half the Sunday services at our church since we miss most of services in the summer because we are off with our motorcycle club.......
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 15, 2012 19:34:29 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? I haven't figured out why its OK for workers to give a name for the church, yet little children at school are expected to explain that we have no name for our church. Like it or not, two by two is the name that the church is known by. Anyone who doesn't like that might want to take it up with Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_by_Twos
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2012 20:34:08 GMT -5
Not really. It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself, which is what many churches tend to do. I don't want to be an asset to someone's church. I could give you quite a long list of organizations and individuals that we have connected with since leaving the fellowship, and some are strong binds, and some infrequent, and some just a friend of a friend of a friend. It's great to feel so connected to the will of God worked out in lives, and it's just all around us. Here's a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer that our study group reflected on lately. "He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial". (Bonhoeffer). We have to put the Christian community, and even humanity, ahead of the group that we join or feel a part of, and certainly ahead of building a particular dream. I'm not saying that can't be done within a particular denomination; but for now, I feel no need to 'join' or find the 'right' church. Not really. It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself, which is what many churches tend to do. I don't want to be an asset to someone's church.I guess I don't understand that statement. In the church I attend, I believe that I am an asset to the church (local). However, I also don't think that the church limits me in any way in my life as a Christian. I also believe that the church isn't 'someone's', but rather a place where we all are a part of the body of Christ the same as Christians in other churches (or no churches) Likewise, the church also gives me opportunities to reach out to others. This year will be our 6th year of having a 'Blessing of the Bikes', where we invite bikers to a breakfast that we make at the church, have a short talk related to being a Christian and then pray with those who would like us to for a safe riding season. The pastor thought this would be a good outreach, and although we don't get a lot of folks, I have felt it to be worthwhile. For the last 3 years I have been the one to speak..... (maybe that is what is keeping people away.... HA!!) Incidentally, I would guess that we probably only make it to about half the Sunday services at our church since we miss most of services in the summer because we are off with our motorcycle club....... Check where I said, "I'm not saying that can't be done within a particular denomination, but for now..." So I guess you proved that point.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 15, 2012 20:55:33 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? I haven't figured out why its OK for workers to give a name for the church, yet little children at school are expected to explain that we have no name for our church. Like it or not, two by two is the name that the church is known by. Anyone who doesn't like that might want to take it up with Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_by_TwosOne of my favorite stories is of a couple of workers in North Carolina meeting with a good ole' boy country Baptist preacher. They explained to him that they were with a non-denomination group, didn't take a name, etc. He must have asked them what their doctrine was, and they answered with "We don't have a need for a doctrine, as we believe the bible is our doctrine." The Baptist preacher then answered quite loudly, "Well, I already knew that. I didn't 'spect you boys believed in the Sears and Roebuck Catalog!" The younger companion could tell the story quite humorously and it seemed that ole Baptist preacher got the best of them on that occasion, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2012 21:47:57 GMT -5
I was making the point that attending a church didn't make one fall into the It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 15, 2012 22:27:40 GMT -5
...they answered with "We don't have a need for a doctrine, as we believe the bible is our doctrine." The Baptist preacher then answered quite loudly, "Well, I already knew that. I didn't 'spect you boys believed in the Sears and Roebuck Catalog!" The younger companion could tell the story quite humorously and it seemed that ole Baptist preacher got the best of them on that occasion, at least. Workers who are not used to being questioned or accountable can be quite sloppy with their answers. Every follower of our Lord Jesus has a doctrine. 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 5:22:17 GMT -5
Doctrine in most cases simply means "teaching!"
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 16, 2012 6:26:06 GMT -5
Doctrine in most cases simply means "teaching!" I have heard workers say with some pride : "We have no doctrine, no dogma, no creed." doctrine - (Lat) docere ....to teach dogma - (Gk) dokeo ......to think credo - (Lat?) credo...... I believe [ I think I've remembered correctly] Pride in no teaching, no thinking, no beliefs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 6:29:13 GMT -5
I think if workers are asked what their doctrine is, they perceive the question to be: "what is the doctrine that your church has written up in a handbook?" and they reply "We have none, just the bible". It's a legitimate answer, but doesn't sound right to the listener. The worker would be more clear to answer, "our doctrine comes straight from the bible, we don't have extra-biblical writings".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 9:05:23 GMT -5
Having only the Bible (complete works) as your doctrine can be a very dangerous thing. You can use it to slay those whom are not of the same belief as yourself. Or like Solomon you can have.....how many was it? 800 wives? And as many concubines.
I used to swallow the "only doctrine is the Bible" belief, but now it doesn't make sense. What did the "workers" in the first few centuries use for their doctrine, ie before the NT was written/compiled? What did the workers pre-King James use before the printing/translation of the NT?
I think it is more appropriate to use:
1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and
2) To love your neighbour as yourself.
Now there's a Bible that others will read! It is also sound doctrine! Furthermore, and very importantly, it is a nice, short list for Bert to compile!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 9:34:00 GMT -5
I was making the point that attending a church didn't make one fall into the It's a case of not wanting to be "in a box", and limit oneself syndrome. It doesn't have to be the case, but it often is the case. Many churches to me are off in the wrong direction. A major element of their focus is essentially to be a social club. So instead of making a difference, either materially or spiritually, they put their mindshare and their money into buildings, worship, even gymnasiums and other trappings for their members. They build a small self-contained box that is their "club". Of course, that's not all they do. But often the things they do that are outward-facing into the world, are just tokenism. I have been attending a local church that is not like that. They rent a meeting room at the local rec complex. They are intentional toward social issues, and helping in the inner city, and also helping new Canadians. Lots of other things they're active with. That's a church that I am interested in. They have the money for a building, but the leaders do not want to build a conventional church building. They may never build or if they do, it'll be downtown and serve people in need. Here's another example. My cousin in western Canada has worked with YWAM for many years. They used to run a resort ranch where people could attend Bible classes, attend a retreat, or train to be religious leaders and facillitators. The entire team decided to leave the ranch, and move to a town of 10,000 people where they could make a tangible difference. They run a restaurant/ coffee shop and just "get into" the community. They still do the other things too, but they felt out on the ranch they were too isolated. I have visited various congregations all over the country .. these days when we visit with people I like to worship with them, and I greatly enjoy it. But many churches seem to be out of step in the same way the friends are. They are too inward focused. And I think that is why they are losing people, because it's out of touch with the need that is in the world right now.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 16, 2012 10:46:12 GMT -5
Why do the F&W take no name but assume a name when needed? You could ask todd, Greg. Apparently the correct answer is that you ignore the official and legal names taken by the overseers, and invent whatever you want. (Kinda like the overseers, but not legal.)
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 16, 2012 10:58:13 GMT -5
Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. Sold. I will now refer to the church without a name as the church without a name. Sort of like He Who Must Not be Named (Voldemort) in the Harry Potter book series. The church without a name is even more catchy than 2x2. I like it. Thanks!
|
|
guilt
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by guilt on Apr 16, 2012 11:12:01 GMT -5
CWAN from now on? TCWAN? TCWOAN?
I still like The Fours best.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 16, 2012 12:22:33 GMT -5
If you use that "name" you may need to qualify if you're talking about the book or the church. "The Church Without a Name" is a book by Kathleen Lewis and "The Church With No Name" is a book by Lynn Cooper Calling a group of people 2x2 is a little cheeky or plain rude. If it is intended to describe the group it fails as it refers only to one of many principles of the group, it is disrespectful because it is most often used in posts that are posting negative aspects of the group. If it is hard to describe a church without a name why not stick with that as some have - The Church without a name or No Name Church. Would that be dificult? After all other groups also use the 2x2 principle. Sold. I will now refer to the church without a name as the church without a name. Sort of like He Who Must Not be Named (Voldemort) in the Harry Potter book series. The church without a name is even more catchy than 2x2. I like it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 16, 2012 13:10:48 GMT -5
I been through the desert in ...
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 16, 2012 13:58:25 GMT -5
...many churches seem to be out of step in the same way the friends are. They are too inward focused. And I think that is why they are losing people, because it's out of touch with the need that is in the world right now. This reminds me of the answer Jesus gave when questioned about his role. It was about being in touch with the need that was in the world right then. Religious people condemned those who were in need, while Jesus was more focused on saving the world than condemning the world. ================================================================== Luke 7:20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.
|
|