Two by Two, The Shape of a Shapeless Movement by Irvine Grey

[Happy Feet]

Book review only for those who have read the entire book.

[Happy Feet]

My book has arrived, I will do a review shortly. Impressed by the clarity so far by what I have read.

[irvinegrey]

Some have contacted me saying that there is difficulty getting the book from some online suppliers. You can get it directly from my website www.irvinegrey.com. Prices were reduced earlier this week and there are no postage costs.

[sacerdotal]

Jun 24, 2013 19:37:34 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Book review only for those who have read the entire book.

I will hopefully be getting the book shortly. I will partake in this thread once I read it. Thanks for starting it.

[irvinegrey]

Jun 28, 2013 19:53:50 GMT -5 sacerdotal said:

Jun 24, 2013 19:37:34 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Book review only for those who have read the entire book.

I will hopefully be getting the book shortly. I will partake in this thread once I read it. Thanks for starting it.

Sounds good. I am genuinely looking forward to the views and comments from those who have read the book.

[Persona non grata]

Jun 29, 2013 9:27:57 GMT -5 irvinegrey said:

Jun 28, 2013 19:53:50 GMT -5 sacerdotal said:

I will hopefully be getting the book shortly. I will partake in this thread once I read it. Thanks for starting it.

Sounds good. I am genuinely looking forward to the views and comments from those who have read the book.

My copy arrived yesterday, thank you Irvine. I too am looking forward to sharing in this thread once I've had a chance to read the book.

[Happy Feet]

I have now finished reading the book and will now post my review. As it is just over 3 pages, I have posted it in 3 parts.

[Happy Feet]

Review of the book Two by Two, The Shape of a Shapeless Movement by Irvine Grey.

The book is 183 pages including appendices, Bibliography and Epilogue and took around 7 hours of concentrated time to read. I offer this review.

The book is an excellent, honest summary of the group which Grey refers to as the 2x2s focusing mostly on the doctrine of the group in light of scripture. A summary which I could relate to even though I live on the opposite side of the world to Grey. It was as if he wrote my story and that of so many who are in the group or left based on my observations and letters I have received over the years. Grey gives an example of an advertisement where the workers have called themselves modern day apostles yet as Grey points out they have little in common with the original apostles sent out by Jesus. Grey uses the group’s original focus based on Matthew 10. Certainly I heard many times in the 30 years I was in the group this chapter cited as proof they were continuing the work of Jesus today. However, Grey aptly draws attention to the fact that Jesus did not call women into the ministry as the 2x2s do and although they claim to be following Matthew 10 they do very little of it, picking and choosing what they want while discarding other parts as being not relevant for today.

Grey successfully shows how the workers are unable to see scripture for themselves outside of what they preach. It is if they have blinders on and only see the parts they can relate to while largely leaving most of the Bible untaught.

One argument which could be used against the book is that Grey borrows liberally from the books written by Stone and Daniels who left a number of years ago which some in the group would echo that the group is no longer like that. However, this argument is soon dispersed with as Grey attended many meetings and conventions, uses quotes from these meetings and conversations with workers to back up Stone's and Daniel’s assertions.

What particularly impressed me was Grey’s ability to skilfully collate a number of historical documents into chronological order, causing the information to blend giving a coherent picture of the history of the group. Grey appears to have studied the group extensively having just on 100 books listed in the Bibliography section, several journals and magazines and around 20 websites as well as having attended gospel meetings, conventions and had conversations with workers. I was not left with anything less than the conclusion that this is a well researched piece of work which starts off as a historical review leading to a climax as Grey reaches his conclusion about the group in light of Scripture. He shows how the group reduces the sacrifice of Jesus – the central core of the Bible; to the workers, their ministry and meeting in the home.

Although the workers shy away from the word doctrine, Grey compares the doctrine or teachings of the workers with that of mainstream Christianity. What amazes me is the inability of the workers to read scripture and see what it says. Instead they take a very limited part of the Gospel and apply it to themselves at the expense of other scripture. It is as if they miss the central theme of the Bible and end up with an incoherent message or as Grey puts it, vagueness ramblings which as Grey points out is not the Gospel message at all, but an emphaisis on man’s way of doing things. He rightly says the Gospel that the workers preach is a homeless ministry and meeting in the home. The 2x2 message is the workers and their ministry. This is not the Gospel message we read about in the Bible which Grey so aptly describes as being the Cross and resurrection of our Lord. The focus of the Gospel message we read about in the Bible focuses wholly on Jesus not on man who is prone to sin. Jesus was the sinless one and no comparison can be made between our efforts and the life and sacrifice of Jesus which Grey points out in his book. ............................................ con't

[Happy Feet]

My criticism with Grey’s book is that although I believe in the trinity I do not believe this alone gives any group the label of being a cult. Grey also states that the workers do not believe in the deity of Christ. This is debatable as although the workers stress that Jesus is our pattern preacher and that by looking at the workers one can see Jesus which makes Jesus not greater than earthly men and women I would argue that they do see Him as divine. However, this can be argued against as in meetings I heard many times that Jesus had to become perfect meaning he was not always perfect or was not perfect from the beginning. The words in Hebrew were quoted in this regard. So in writing this I guess that that tells me that maybe Grey is correct when he says they do not see Jesus as divine. However, I disagree and believe that Grey is conferring that the 2x2s do not believe in the trinity therefore they do not believe in the deity of Christ. Grey appears to link the 2 together. There are many deities in the world and many people like the 2x2s I believe, believe in the deity or divine nature of Christ but not the trinity. However, Grey does argue this statement successfully and as above, it appears that although in some regards the 2x2s appear to preach and believe in His deity they also show just as much evidence that they do not see Jesus as much more than their example. My conclusion is that Christians say that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine, the 2x2s emphasise the human part of Jesus at the expense of His divinity. The unique part of Jesus to a Christian is His divine nature which is minimised in the workers message. Their ministry is focused on themselves as being like Jesus rather than the focus being the sacrifice of Jesus’ life on the Cross for human kind. The workers sacrifice is emphasised as proof they are the true church and one which people who profess must accept rather than ones faith being placed in Jesus alone. Grey has given many examples of this for those who doubt this is the case.

The trinity on the other hand I feel is a separate issue but Grey bases his definition of a cult on this based on Theological reasons namely their lack of belief in the deity of Christ and the trinity. I feel the confusion regarding the trinity comes when people stress that the Father and Jesus are One being, when clearly that is not the trinity. I did not see a clear definition of the trinity in Grey’s book and one can be forgiven for thinking that Grey sees the Father and Son as one being. As wikipepdia states, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons - the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". As some put it, Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus. The 3 are separate but together are God.

When assessing whether a group is a cult or not society has been more prone to look on the psychological or sociological aspects of a group rather than the theological given the number of groups whose members have followed their leaders to death. This alone shows the danger of following men. It is the psychological and sociological aspects of the group which leads to disaster. Having said that my observation has been that those groups who do not believe in the Trinity are often exclusive and controlling of their members. However, there are also Trinitarian groups who are cultish in their practices. I can see a danger when we exult ourselves to that of Jesus or bring him to our level resulting in our focus becoming inward leading to exclusivity and an inward focus as opposed to being Christ focused.

A key factor for me in Grey’s book is that Grey points out that the 2x2s started as an evangelical movement. The early workers went around setting up halls and preaching to the unconverted. The workers started off with only a few people and not so many years later attracted a large number of followers. Today workers do not go out into the world preaching but instead preach to the converted. Their focus is inward. Most in the group today are 3rd or 4th generation members whose grandparents ‘professed’ as a result of the evangelical efforts of the early workers. The group has largely stagnated with workers relying on existing members for emotional and practical support. The group has become inward looking compared to the focus of the early workers who obeyed the great commission of going out into the world and preaching the Gospel. Today it is largely a closed group with little focus on reaching the outside world but focused on keeping existing members together and as Grey stated, "and keeping the world out." .................con't

[Happy Feet]

Also what I found interesting was Grey’s experience of talking to the workers and the worker saying they will only talk if the spirit leads them/him to. Grey rightly defines this as the workers using this kind of statement as an excuse not to talk to him. They over emphasise the spirit almost blaming God or the Spirit rather than taking responsibility for their own actions. Grey also points out that the workers talk about the spirit and leave out Holy when the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit.

Grey certainly shows up the workers lack of Bible knowledge. Grey knows his Bible and does not need to twist and turn to make it say something to support his view. He has simply stated what the Bible teaches which regard to truths. He has given ample evidence that the workers are not teaching Biblical truths but given this is a research document he is limited and is no doubt required to meet certain requirements from reliable sources to form a foundation to his work. The workers with their limited Bible knowledge and focus on the homeless ministry and meeting in the home clearly show a lack of substance in light of Jesus Himself who came to be a sacrifice for us which is the centre of the Gospel message. The workers Gospel is one of the ministry whereas Grey’s is one that focuses solely on Jesus for our salvation. The workers cannot answer any Bible believing Christian as has been the experience of many, regarding simple facts of the Christian faith based on the Bible. Grey certainly shows this in his research and experience.

Given that Irvine requested input from people I found that input was rather limited borrowing largely from books about the group. I do not share the same view as Grey when he stated on several occasions that researching the group has been a difficult task due to the fact that the group does not state its beliefs in writing. As Grey pointed out it is apparent what the group tells the outside world and what it actually preaches inside the group are 2 different things so I believe that any statement of belief will not necessarily be the true teachings of the group which tries to appear somewhat mainstream to outsiders but in reality is an exclusive tightnit group with its own doctrines based on the sacrifice of the workers and not solely on Christ. As Grey put it, they add to the Gospel by saying Jesus and the ministry. I think the proof is in their preaching and Grey has used sources from inside the group due to his own attendance at meetings, reading an enormous amount of literature and correspondence with others to back up his conclusions.
Although Grey says the group does not print any literature I find this to be contrary given that the group does have in print and circulate numerous notes of sermons by workers. There is ample literature on the teachings of the group.

In conclusion, I do not see that Grey has done an evaluation based on his own beliefs or that of his own denomination The Baptist Church, but one based on the Bible. He has seen through and related the non Biblical doctrine of the workers in light of the Bible.
At times I found myself disagreeing with Grey only to reflect and realise that Grey is correct. Being just distant enough from the group having only attended meetings while on holiday with his grand mother as a child and more recently as an observer as well as being a scholar of the Bible, Grey was able to give an objective view in light of the Bible and was aptly equipped to handle such a topic.

One incorrect statement I noticed was on page 38 of the book where Grey writes that Cooney died in New Zealand. This is not correct as Cooney died in New South Wales, Australia. One could be forgiven for mistaking the New in NSW for New in NZ. However, I was impressed that Grey has been able to collate so much information with such accuracy. Overall, I was very impressed with the book and the manner in which it is presented and one I could recommend that those in meetings read. My view is that Grey’s book is one that is more likely to lead people to Christ rather than away.

Thanks for your honesty, effort and a well deserved degree, Irvine Grey.

L.C: M.Soc.Sc

[harpic]

I received my copy yesterday and had it read in about the same time frame as Happy Feet mentioned (6/7 hrs). To the detriment of other work!

Firstly, it is a book that I could relate to very much, knowing the 2x2's, most of the workers quoted, being familiar with most of the TMB members or website owners quoted, and with basic Christian doctrine. All of the books quoted I have at least heard of, even if I haven't actually read them. However, for someone unfamiliar with the 2x2's, I suspect the book might seem a bit confusing. It lacks an overall description of them to the uninitiated. However, the target audience will most likely have some knowledge of them.

Happy Feet mentioned that she felt the book lacked a concise definition of the Trinity. I think this is also because he is assuming that the reader will be familiar with the concept of the Trinity.

I feel that the book builds upon previous research and is very up-to-date in that the personal feedback that he gathered and the meetings that he attended have been in the past couple of years. So it is current. To a 2x2 discovering the book, they will be introduced to all the other info out there in the bibliography.

I personally found some of the laying down of the foundations of the criteria for what is or isn't a cult and what is or isn't Christian, reviewing various theologians, etc. somewhat heavy reading. It is absolutely necessary for him to do that in the course of his thesis and I'm sure he has narrowed that down from many other sources which he would be familiar with, but still I found that the hardest section to wade through.

Where the book absolutely triumphs, is in the sermon quotes! They are from the horses mouth, not the quotations of 'disgruntled ex's', and he is completely up front about who, when, and where they were quoted from. When you see the preaching in writing, it really stands out how many incomplete sentences are in there and how much repetition of phrases. You can nearly hear the hypnotic sing-song. Being personally familiar with some of the workers quoted, I can hear the inflection of their voices in my mind as I read it. The voice is what convinces people that they are saying something profound. It's all drama, really! The sermons quoted are very typical of their mish-mash of disjointed thoughts. He has very clear quotes showing that they equate themselves with the blood of Christ, and the gospel.

I feel that a huge amount of research went into this book and that it is written in a very logical manner. No one can say that it was written by a person with a vendetta. I hope that it will be useful to many people, both within the 2x2's and for those who have left or who have contact with the 2x2's.

I somehow suspect Tommie Gamble and the quoted workers are not going to be one bit pleased with all his efforts, though! I actually feel a bit sorry for them, because they probably didn't realize how their quotes would appear. However, if any of them read the book and have their eyes opened to a wider reality, it would be so worthwhile!

Thanks, Irvine Gray. It's a great book and I hope to be able to use it for the apologetic purposes you intended it for amongst my own circle of influence.

[CherieKropp]

HappyFeet,
You wrote a very well presented, balanced, insightful book review! 
It's impressive and I imagine that Irvine will be pleased with it.
So glad you shared it here with us.

Cherie

[StAnne]

I also meant to say a thank-you to you Happy Feet and to you harpic.

[Persona non grata]

Irvine Grey's book is a well written, relevant account of the movement. It is likely the most objective critique published and it is well worth reading. While there are sometimes hints of prejudice ("... although both (Trotter and Pattison) were part of the movement, their accounts are very honest and generally fair." Page 47.), Grey is often positive towards members of the fellowship ("Throughout my research I met many wonderful people in the 2x2 movement. From my discussions I believe there are those who have a genuine, living faith in Christ alone for their salvation." Page 181.)

We need to be mindful of Grey's personal beliefs which have influenced his conclusions and we can have respect for his convictions. Grey has proven to be approachable and amicable and his book shows no signs of being a work of animosity.

Grey describes his thesis as being an examination and analysis of the movement's history, sociology and theology and as such I've attempted a brief review on these three areas:

History
In Grey's portrayal of the movement's history, he draws heavily on other publications and as such there are no surprises and very little new to discover here. There are a small number of factual errors however Grey acknowledges these mistakes and we can assume their correction in future re-prints. The History section spans 25 pages and relies predominantly on The Secret Sect by Doug & Helen Parker, Patricia Roberts' books, and the Impartial Reporter newspaper as source material. In a previous chapter Grey expounds the value of both Goodhand Patterson's and Alfred Trotter's accounts and also references them in the history section. He also draws from the Faith Mission's Bright Words, David Stone's (Kathy Lewis') book, Lynn Cooper's book, and the 1901 and 1911 Irish Census amongst others. Despite having met with John Long's grandson and obtained permission to use this valuable resource, Grey only fleetingly mentions John Long's Journal.
Not surprisingly, Grey focuses on the two most dominant early workers William Irvine and Edward Cooney. He refers to Cooney as a co-founder, starting the movement (along with Irvine) despite Cooney's involvement beginning a few years after 1897, the year Grey agrees on as the founding year. There's no questioning Cooney's influence as a co-leader and Grey dedicates a chapter to him, outlining in detail the events surrounding his involvement and excommunication.

All in all, Irvine Grey brings together the various sources and presents them in an easy to read condensed version.


Sociology
Thirty four pages of the thesis are given to studying the sociology of the group. In my view this is the most interesting part of Grey's book and it's here that the movement would do well to take heed to the constructive criticisms that he makes. Grey's impressions have been formed from two angles: personal experiences (restricted to Ireland and a couple of days at one convention in Stockholm, Sweden); and the experiences of others (predominantly via TMB). Regular TMB users will recognise many of the 'anonymous' contributors.

Without the prejudice of prior membership or the fear of repercussion, Grey is able to point out several valid shortcomings. Although many of the criticisms do not apply universally to the fellowship, if members of the fellowship are able to read the book objectively then we'll find the critique to be helpful in drawing attention to things that require improvement. Even if only for this section, the book is well worth reading.

Theology
I freely acknowledge my incompetence as a theologist, compared with Irvine Grey. This is obviously the main focus of Grey's thesis and he dedicates 67 pages to the subject of theology. It's only here that the book begins to read more like a religious tract with the intent to promote the gospel as according to Grey's ideals (and as shared by the majority of mainstream denominations).
While making previous mention of the only authorised publication of the movement, Hymns Old & New, it is disappointing that Grey doesn't delve deeper into this source. He does state that workers did not respond when asked about the hymn book, however, given that we have on record Willie Hughes' answer regarding the use of hymns written by 'outsiders', I feel it's to the detriment of Grey's research that he didn't direct more effort into interpreting the content of the hymns as a definitive indication of the theology of the fellowship.

The major objection that I have to Grey's work is that he concludes that the fellowship does not recognise the divinity of Christ. Having lived my whole life under the influence of the movement I can say I have never doubted or sought to diminish the divinity of our Saviour. Having not had the opportunity to witness a fellowship meeting, Grey will have to be forgiven for completely overlooking the partaking of the emblems - an acknowledgment of Christ's divinity and remembrance of His offer and of which we partake in every Sunday. This is an integral part of the fellowship, being one of only two rituals that the movement subscribes to - the other being that of baptism by full immersion.

Although not in agreement with the conclusions that Irvine Grey draws regarding the fellowship, I admire his efforts and respect his personal beliefs.

[Persona non grata]

P.S.: Irvine and I have corresponded over the last couple of weeks (and continue to do so) regarding his book and the objections I have with some of his impressions and conclusions. As he has stated, he has proven willing to engage in civilised discussion with those who have first read the book. I'm sure most of these issues will come to be discussed here on TMB on a case by case basis as time allows.

[What Hat]

"We need to be mindful of Grey's personal beliefs which have influenced his conclusions and we can have respect for his convictions."

Not really. There is no place for personal beliefs in an academic work. It appears to me from your review that his book is riddled with some serious holes, from an academic perspective.
He misses on the divinity question, which is central to his 'cult' analysis. He ignores the hymn book, the only reference unique to the movement. Did you say that he also misses on the 'bread and wine'? And you don't mention the 'cult' conclusion in your review or deal with it in any way.
But we do get that Irvine Grey is a pretty nice guy, and I'm sure he is.

[Persona non grata]

Jul 7, 2013 23:01:25 GMT -5 What Hat said:

"We need to be mindful of Grey's personal beliefs which have influenced his conclusions and we can have respect for his convictions."

Not really. There is no place for personal beliefs in an academic work.

When reading this book, we do need to keep in mind Grey's personal beliefs. They have influenced his conclusions. As decent fellow human beings I feel we can respect others' personal convictions even though we may not share them.

It appears to me from your review that his book is riddled with some serious holes, from an academic perspective.

Yes, this reflects poorly on Queen's University of Belfast who bear responsibility for due diligence in insuring accuracy.

He misses on the divinity question, which is central to his 'cult' analysis. He ignores the hymn book, the only reference unique to the movement. Did you say that he also misses on the 'bread and wine'?

Yes, these are some of the objections that I'm discussing with Irvine.

And you don't mention the 'cult' conclusion in your review or deal with it in any way.

It didn't seem important to me. Grey makes the conclusion from a theological standpoint and based on the influences of personal belief; I didn't put a lot of value on the statement.

It has already been mentioned by others and thrashed out on the board by many who haven't yet read the book. I think Irvine is being fair when he suggests we read the book before discussing one particular out-of-context term.

But we do get that Irvine Grey is a pretty nice guy, and I'm sure he is.

Glad to hear that. He is a nice guy and, surprisingly enough, quite capable of rational discussion.

[What Hat]

Jul 8, 2013 2:55:30 GMT -5 Persona non grata said:

Jul 7, 2013 23:01:25 GMT -5 What Hat said:

"We need to be mindful of Grey's personal beliefs which have influenced his conclusions and we can have respect for his convictions."

Not really. There is no place for personal beliefs in an academic work.

When reading this book, we do need to keep in mind Grey's personal beliefs. They have influenced his conclusions. As decent fellow human beings I feel we can respect others' personal convictions even though we may not share them.

It appears to me from your review that his book is riddled with some serious holes, from an academic perspective.

Yes, this reflects poorly on Queen's University of Belfast who bear responsibility for due diligence in insuring accuracy.

He misses on the divinity question, which is central to his 'cult' analysis. He ignores the hymn book, the only reference unique to the movement. Did you say that he also misses on the 'bread and wine'?

Yes, these are some of the objections that I'm discussing with Irvine.

And you don't mention the 'cult' conclusion in your review or deal with it in any way.

It didn't seem important to me. Grey makes the conclusion from a theological standpoint and based on the influences of personal belief; I didn't put a lot of value on the statement.

It has already been mentioned by others and thrashed out on the board by many who haven't yet read the book. I think Irvine is being fair when he suggests we read the book before discussing one particular out-of-context term.

But we do get that Irvine Grey is a pretty nice guy, and I'm sure he is.

Glad to hear that. He is a nice guy and, surprisingly enough, quite capable of rational discussion.

My primary objection to Grey's analysis, at this point, is with the theological mode of analysis, not specifically at the detailed level of the content of the book. Which is coming, BTW.
Irvine Grey and I hashed these issues out long before he published his book, so I don't need the book itself to critique the theological definition of a 'cult' and the use of this mode of analysis. And it is not particularly my own critique either.
It'll be quite interesting to look at the book at the level of particulars once I get it.
Finally, we can have respect for Grey's convictions, and consider their influence on his analysis, but that is not supposed to happen in an academic work.

[irvinegrey]

Jun 24, 2013 19:37:34 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Book review only for those who have read the entire book.

I thought it worth posting this again since What Hat seems to have missed it!

[Happy Feet]

What Hat, you are/will be also talking from your personal belief. Look forward to reading your review of Irvine's book from your perspective.

[What Hat]

Jul 8, 2013 15:49:09 GMT -5 irvinegrey said:

Jun 24, 2013 19:37:34 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Book review only for those who have read the entire book.

I thought it worth posting this again since What Hat seems to have missed it!

I'm not reviewing the book. Anyone can comment on the reviews.

[What Hat]

Jul 8, 2013 16:32:55 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

What Hat, you are/will be also talking from your personal belief. Look forward to reading your review of Irvine's book from your perspective.

Not really. My analysis is largely based on modern cultural and critical theory. However, I won't reference much of that in my review since it tends to lose people ... well, people over 30 in any case.

www.renewtheology.org/paperCSmith0709

[Deleted]

I ordered the book from Mr. Grey and am dancing about in eager anticipation of receiving it. Well, I would be, but it's 104 degrees here today and that put a damper on my enthusiasm for the time being.

[Happy Feet]

You wrote: I'm not reviewing the book. Anyone can comment on the reviews

You wrote: My analysis is largely based on modern cultural and critical theory. However, I won't reference much of that in my review since it tends to lose people ... well, people over 30 in any case.

I'm lost already - but then I am over 30.

Post 1: you are not going to review the book
Post 2: you are going to review the book.

You are going to review yours on modern cultural and critical theory - Irvine based his on mainstream theological theory. Again you are evaluating it based on your world view. Irvine based his on his world view.

[What Hat]

Jul 8, 2013 23:01:35 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

You wrote: I'm not reviewing the book. Anyone can comment on the reviews

You wrote: My analysis is largely based on modern cultural and critical theory. However, I won't reference much of that in my review since it tends to lose people ... well, people over 30 in any case.

I'm lost already - but then I am over 30.

Post 1: you are not going to reviewING the book RIGHT NOW
Post 2: you are going to review the book IN THE FUTURE

You are going to review yours on modern cultural and critical theory - Irvine based his on mainstream theological theory. Again you are evaluating it based on your world view. Irvine based his on his world view.

Mainstream theological theory closes around a SINGLE belief system. Modern cultural theory is PLURALISTIC and does not close around a single belief system. It tolerates many beliefs, not just one.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that people over 30 get lost in general, but most have not encountered deconstruction and the like. Anyone under 30 with a liberal arts education today will have encountered these ideas.
In any case, no worries, since I won't need to reference those ideas in order to review the book.

[Happy Feet]

I believe that someone over 30 is more likely to encounter a wider range of deconstruction and the likes. It sometimes takes age and maturity to be a critical thinker. Learning is life long and does not stop at 30. Coming out of university is just the beginning.

Any one with a higher education is likely to have encountered these ideas, not just a liberal arts degree. You seem to place your bachelor degree on a higher plain that someone like Irvine who has a masters degree in another topic. I prefer the sciences myself.

[What Hat]

Jul 8, 2013 23:33:38 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

I believe that someone over 30 is more likely to encounter a wider range of deconstruction and the likes. It sometimes takes age and maturity to be a critical thinker. Learning is life long and does not stop at 30. Coming out of university is just the beginning.

Any one with a higher education is likely to have encountered these ideas, not just a liberal arts degree. You seem to place your bachelor degree on a higher plain that someone like Irvine who has a masters degree in another topic. I prefer the sciences myself.

The degree doesn't matter. I know people with grade 5 education that know far more than someone with a theology degree.

I agree with age and maturity being a potential asset in exploring new ideas and thinking. But age and maturity can also mean 'stuck in a certain mindset'.

I don't mean to fault theology especially although I fault much of it. There are actually interesting things being done in the area of theology. Thinkers like Marcus Borg, and one I have just discovered, John Hick. For me it doesn't come down to academic credentials, but which ideas work and which do not work. Grey's theological background has little use today, although sometimes I fear that we are slipping back into theocracy and fundamentalism and that all the intellectual gain of the post-modern era will be lost.

[What Hat]

I found the following commentary from Christopher Carroll Smith's essay to be interesting and relevant to Grey's analysis.

But others perceive a causal relationship between rigid orthodoxy and Christianity’s violent history and so conclude that the revision of that orthodoxy is a Christian ethical mandate. This is the position, most notably, of pluralist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Theologically,” Ruether observes, “anti-Judaism developed as the left hand of Christology.”[19] The problem for orthodox Christology is further exacerbated by the fact that its full, normative realization of authentic humanity occurred in a white male, potentially legitimizing sexism and racism.[20] Reuther therefore rejects the finality and atonement of Christ, preferring to treat him as a norm and/or paradigm of liberation and the cross as a political assassination and act of oppression on the part of the authorities. Ruether understands this view of Jesus to be deeply rooted in the historical content of his prophetic and liberating teaching, but also to arise in the encounter of that teaching with the ethical realities of our present existence.[21] She is arguably therefore both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern.