|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 22, 2013 18:51:55 GMT -5
I have only read 3 pages of your site, what hat, and I find Irvine's statements which you have challenged far more correct than yours. One glaring statement you make is far off the mark. You wrote: Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances.
Mmmmmmm, legalism exists in the F&W among the most insincere members? The opposite is true. The more sincere they are the more they follow the rules. The workers especially female workers are an example of followers of the legalism and the workers are preachers of the legalism that the group follows. One must bare the mark of legalism as proof of their faith.
You make many incorrect assumptions of which you accuse Irvine of. You compare the group with another group which claims to be the true church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 20:44:23 GMT -5
I have only read 3 pages of your site, what hat, and I find Irvine's statements which you have challenged far more correct than yours. One glaring statement you make is far off the mark. You wrote: Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances. Mmmmmmm, legalism exists in the F&W among the most insincere members? The opposite is true. The more sincere they are the more they follow the rules. The workers especially female workers are an example of followers of the legalism and the workers are preachers of the legalism that the group follows. One must bare the mark of legalism as proof of their faith. You make many incorrect assumptions of which you accuse Irvine of. You compare the group with another group which claims to be the true church. The level of legalism among F&Ws isn't much different from the legalism that grips mainstream churches. Legalistic preaching comes on a rogue basis, not as a matter of course. Your comments have a similar problem as Grey's book: they are reflective of history, not current times. Grey relies a lot on information from people who have been out of the system for a long time or live in an area which has hung on to old practices. It seems to me that if an author is going to academically declare a group as a particularly dangerous cult, he/she should evaluate the group in its current state, and throughout various geographical territories, not get stuck in the past. Grey has observed a narrow geographical territory and has failed to evaluate much in its current state. His observations of the current church and its current state of being is seriously lacking, similar to your comments on legalism. Looking to the future, even if the workers attempted to re-introduce legalism, they would fail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 20:53:04 GMT -5
Here is my review of the book for comment. The upload is a 'for review' copy, but it's close to final. I'll correct any overt errors in the review before final release. Your review indicates a grasp of the F&W system and culture that is not understood by Grey....or even a lot of exes and innies. I think you should consider writing THE definitive book on the 2x2's. The Shapeless book is of little current value or future value in spite of getting some things right so somebody needs to do it right.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 22, 2013 21:11:49 GMT -5
I agree that some of Irvine's info was out of date but remember he recently attended convention or was it meetings and talked to the head worker so could see and hear it for himself. I was at the shopping mall this week and saw 2 women who were definitely professing 2x2s by their appearance. Of course there will be some who I do not recognise by their dress. There was a whole chapel full of 2x2s who were easily recognised by their dress at my mother's funeral 3 years ago. The legalism is alive and well today by the majority of 2x2s. Go to any meeting where you see them all together and you can see that.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 22, 2013 21:37:03 GMT -5
I have only read 3 pages of your site, what hat, and I find Irvine's statements which you have challenged far more correct than yours. One glaring statement you make is far off the mark. You wrote: Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances. Mmmmmmm, legalism exists in the F&W among the most insincere members? The opposite is true. The more sincere they are the more they follow the rules. The workers especially female workers are an example of followers of the legalism and the workers are preachers of the legalism that the group follows. One must bare the mark of legalism as proof of their faith. You make many incorrect assumptions of which you accuse Irvine of. You compare the group with another group which claims to be the true church. The problem with "the insincere" is that they eventually come to realize the f&w's cult is far from being "free from numismatics." In their idealistic passion, "the insincere" come to loath every hypocracy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 22, 2013 22:43:31 GMT -5
I have only read 3 pages of your site, what hat, and I find Irvine's statements which you have challenged far more correct than yours. One glaring statement you make is far off the mark. You wrote: Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances. Mmmmmmm, legalism exists in the F&W among the most insincere members? The opposite is true. The more sincere they are the more they follow the rules. The workers especially female workers are an example of followers of the legalism and the workers are preachers of the legalism that the group follows. One must bare the mark of legalism as proof of their faith. You make many incorrect assumptions of which you accuse Irvine of. You compare the group with another group which claims to be the true church. I contrasted Grey's emphasis on the legalistic aspects of the friends' life with the core values of "quiet in the home, serenity, prayer and separation from the ‘world’". Sorry you never got that that's what it was all about. It was and is for a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 22, 2013 23:13:21 GMT -5
I agree that some of Irvine's info was out of date but remember he recently attended convention or was it meetings and talked to the head worker so could see and hear it for himself. I was at the shopping mall this week and saw 2 women who were definitely professing 2x2s by their appearance. Of course there will be some who I do not recognise by their dress. There was a whole chapel full of 2x2s who were easily recognised by their dress at my mother's funeral 3 years ago. The legalism is alive and well today by the majority of 2x2s. Go to any meeting where you see them all together and you can see that. I expect the women you're observing would be over 45? I expect if we hear any legalistic preaching these days it would be from workers who are over 80.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 22, 2013 23:16:02 GMT -5
I agree that some of Irvine's info was out of date but remember he recently attended convention or was it meetings and talked to the head worker so could see and hear it for himself. He spoke with one of the most backward-thinking overseers on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 22, 2013 23:33:14 GMT -5
See how you are trying to rationalise things.
Recognising professing women in the streets because of their dress/legalism.
Your answer: they must be over 45. (no actually I have seen a number of professing families together with young women who have that look). Look at photos of female workers - are they all over 45? They reek of legalism. A large number of professing people are over 45 so you ignore these and base the fellowship on the under 45s or do you base it on the whole congregation. Legalistic preaching - must be by workers over 80.
And to top it all off, the worker that Irvine spoke to is one of the most backward thinking overseers on the planet.
No professing women I see in malls are not all over 45.
What I find amusing is that professing people think they look modern while most still have that traditional professing look.
Interesting how we heard many times with regard to dress how God's standard never changes and it is the same the world over. The brethren were used as an example of how they once had long hair but then started wearing their hair out and looking like the world. So how do the workers words does stand in light of what they claimed? Were they lead by the spirit? Were they wrong? Is the way the same the world over. You guys claim it is not the same the world over and that it has changed. You want to try and make it look mainstream while at they are saying that we are not like the world - in dress. Just read Bert's posts to see legalism.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 22, 2013 23:35:33 GMT -5
This is what you have written: In another section, Grey takes a worker to task for watching television news while in a hotel room (75), since almost all friends do not own a television. Perhaps this action is hypocritical, perhaps not, but Grey always attributes such phenomena to a culture driven by legalism. Grey misses entirely the core f&wm values of quiet in the home, serenity, prayer and separation from the ‘world’. The main idea is to maintain one’s interior peace, not to create legalities about what one can and cannot do. Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances.
I was well aware of what you were saying. You are mixing core values and legalism together whereas Irvine was talking about legalism but that was not what I was referring to. I was referring to your last comment. My belief is that the more sincere the member is the more preoccupied they are in conforming to legalism and the more insincere members are the less likely they are to concern themselves with appearances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 4:23:37 GMT -5
The Shapeless book is of little current value or future value in spite of getting some things right so somebody needs to do it right.
Not speaking specifically about Irvine's book, but I think it is very important that it is recorded what things were like in the past (and present).
My gut churns every time I see some attempting all sorts of contortions and denials about how things were in the past. These are the deceivers or indeed the deceived. The beliefs and practices of the past are extremely important for many due to the effects these have had on their lives. No attempt should be made to dismiss these things due to the profound effect they had on many.
The correct way would be to state as far as possible, how things were in the past and how they are now, along with any willingness or reluctance to admit past errors and address matters accordingly.
We need to see the true current shape of the shapeless movement.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 8:25:19 GMT -5
See how you are trying to rationalise things. Recognising professing women in the streets because of their dress/legalism. Your answer: they must be over 45. (no actually I have seen a number of professing families together with young women who have that look). Look at photos of female workers - are they all over 45? They reek of legalism. A large number of professing people are over 45 so you ignore these and base the fellowship on the under 45s or do you base it on the whole congregation. Legalistic preaching - must be by workers over 80. And to top it all off, the worker that Irvine spoke to is one of the most backward thinking overseers on the planet. No professing women I see in malls are not all over 45. What I find amusing is that professing people think they look modern while most still have that traditional professing look. Interesting how we heard many times with regard to dress how God's standard never changes and it is the same the world over. The brethren were used as an example of how they once had long hair but then started wearing their hair out and looking like the world. So how do the workers words does stand in light of what they claimed? Were they lead by the spirit? Were they wrong? Is the way the same the world over. You guys claim it is not the same the world over and that it has changed. You want to try and make it look mainstream while at they are saying that we are not like the world - in dress. Just read Bert's posts to see legalism. The point is that Grey did not cast his net very wide in looking at evidence, and that he was very selective in choosing facts. For example, the sermon extracts he used are a joke, although I'll be the first to say that the quality of preaching is dropping. Legalism is an issue, but people don't stay because of the legalism, they stay for other reasons. The f&w movement did work for us for many years, and it works for other people. Why do you think that is? Why do you think people like Clearday, fixit and 2x2history stay in? They see all the same issues that you see. My main problem with Grey's book is that he doesn't show the other side, and his view and understanding of the movement is biased and one sided.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 8:31:36 GMT -5
This is what you have written: In another section, Grey takes a worker to task for watching television news while in a hotel room (75), since almost all friends do not own a television. Perhaps this action is hypocritical, perhaps not, but Grey always attributes such phenomena to a culture driven by legalism. Grey misses entirely the core f&wm values of quiet in the home, serenity, prayer and separation from the ‘world’. The main idea is to maintain one’s interior peace, not to create legalities about what one can and cannot do. Like most high commitment faith groups the f&wm have not been able to avoid a degree of legalism among its more insincere members who concern themselves only with appearances. I was well aware of what you were saying. You are mixing core values and legalism together whereas Irvine was talking about legalism but that was not what I was referring to. I was referring to your last comment. My belief is that the more sincere the member is the more preoccupied they are in conforming to legalism and the more insincere members are the less likely they are to concern themselves with appearances. The problem with your statement is that it is a tautology. You are defining what the word "sincere" means, so there is no way I can argue with your conclusion. My definition of "sincere" is entirely different from yours so we are working from a different starting point. I don't define "sincere members" as the legalistic ones. I define "sincere members" as those who get and embrace the core values, and are impervious to appearances. They may conform, they may not conform, but they don't really care all that much because they are motivated in other directions. Now, recognizing social realities they may well do something just to conform. I know we did that in some respects when we were in the movement, but those things were very minor. There are certainly members who live under a burden of having to conform, and they really should exit; many do when they are young. The problem is that there is evidence to support both of our definitions, so it comes down to how we believe people are motivated and what makes them tick. We differ greatly in that as far as the friends are concerned. But that comes down to your personal experience versus mine. I see a side of the friends that you clearly have never seen.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 8:34:28 GMT -5
The Shapeless book is of little current value or future value in spite of getting some things right so somebody needs to do it right.
Not speaking specifically about Irvine's book, but I think it is very important that it is recorded what things were like in the past (and present). My gut churns every time I see some attempting all sorts of contortions and denials about how things were in the past. These are the deceivers or indeed the deceived. The beliefs and practices of the past are extremely important for many due to the effects these have had on their lives. No attempt should be made to dismiss these things due to the profound effect they had on many. The correct way would be to state as far as possible, how things were in the past and how they are now, along with any willingness or reluctance to admit past errors and address matters accordingly. We need to see the true current shape of the shapeless movement. The problem with Grey's book is that events of the past are in many cases asserted as the present state of things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 8:55:40 GMT -5
The Shapeless book is of little current value or future value in spite of getting some things right so somebody needs to do it right.
Not speaking specifically about Irvine's book, but I think it is very important that it is recorded what things were like in the past (and present). My gut churns every time I see some attempting all sorts of contortions and denials about how things were in the past. These are the deceivers or indeed the deceived. The beliefs and practices of the past are extremely important for many due to the effects these have had on their lives. No attempt should be made to dismiss these things due to the profound effect they had on many. The correct way would be to state as far as possible, how things were in the past and how they are now, along with any willingness or reluctance to admit past errors and address matters accordingly. We need to see the true current shape of the shapeless movement. The problem with Grey's book is that events of the past are in many cases asserted as the present state of things. What about the many claims that in essence things have not changed, at least to any significant degree. It appears that the beliefs of the past are much more likely to be felt nowadays, rather than heard? Subtlety replacing spontaneity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 9:21:58 GMT -5
See how you are trying to rationalise things. Recognising professing women in the streets because of their dress/legalism. Your answer: they must be over 45. (no actually I have seen a number of professing families together with young women who have that look). Look at photos of female workers - are they all over 45? They reek of legalism. A large number of professing people are over 45 so you ignore these and base the fellowship on the under 45s or do you base it on the whole congregation. Legalistic preaching - must be by workers over 80. And to top it all off, the worker that Irvine spoke to is one of the most backward thinking overseers on the planet. No professing women I see in malls are not all over 45. What I find amusing is that professing people think they look modern while most still have that traditional professing look. Interesting how we heard many times with regard to dress how God's standard never changes and it is the same the world over. The brethren were used as an example of how they once had long hair but then started wearing their hair out and looking like the world. So how do the workers words does stand in light of what they claimed? Were they lead by the spirit? Were they wrong? Is the way the same the world over. You guys claim it is not the same the world over and that it has changed. You want to try and make it look mainstream while at they are saying that we are not like the world - in dress. Just read Bert's posts to see legalism. In our part of the world, professing women under 45 are extremely difficult to identify as such on the street. "The world" would be completely unable to so and would just see them as nice modest women but would not think for a second they are part of a "particularly dangerous cult" or any cult for that matter. I might be able to do so if I was observing closely, but it would be a strain.....and I am including young women who would be considered among the most conservative. As far as Grey's experience with Tommie Gamble, well anyone who knows the situation will understand why Grey's inside views are so distorted. If Grey was going to do some interviewing, a proper academic would ensure that he interviewed a cross section of authoritative insiders to obtain an accurate picture of the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 9:35:23 GMT -5
The problem with Grey's book is that events of the past are in many cases asserted as the present state of things. What about the many claims that in essence things have not changed, at least to any significant degree. It appears that the beliefs of the past are much more likely to be felt nowadays, rather than heard? Subtlety replacing spontaneity? That's far too abstract to work with. You have to look at the actual evidence. Professional journalists always strive to show multiple points of view, or perspectives on a problem. Grey is a pretty old school Christian thinker so I don't believe a balanced view is in him. Actually, I think most conventional Christians frame their view of the friends in a certain way so it's hard for them to put out something that shows balance. You are already quite handicapped if you bring theology into the picture. In any case, I think his book is a pretty big miss, as far as explaining what the friends are about. It's mainly just an attack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 9:42:05 GMT -5
What about the many claims that in essence things have not changed, at least to any significant degree. It appears that the beliefs of the past are much more likely to be felt nowadays, rather than heard? Subtlety replacing spontaneity? That's far too abstract to work with. You have to look at the actual evidence. Professional journalists always strive to show multiple points of view, or perspectives on a problem. Grey is a pretty old school Christian thinker so I don't believe a balanced view is in him. Actually, I think most conventional Christians frame their view of the friends in a certain way so it's hard for them to put out something that shows balance. You are already quite handicapped if you bring theology into the picture. In any case, I think his book is a pretty big miss, as far as explaining what the friends are about. It's mainly just an attack. Have you considered that Grey's opinions may be largely influenced by how things are/were in the UK and Ireland? There may be significant differences between this side of the pond and yours? I recall that during my professing years we quietly heard regularly of how things were more liberal in "America" and there were many problems there. It was never explained what these things were and of course you daren't ask. One obvious difference that I have come to see is that over here we are far more conservative than you lot are/were. This conservatism worms its way into many things. I am not seeking excuses, but the impression that I get is that CD, yourself and perhaps others from "over there" are bending over backwards to put the sword to Grey's book which strikes a chord (theology aside) with most over here?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 9:51:32 GMT -5
That's far too abstract to work with. You have to look at the actual evidence. Professional journalists always strive to show multiple points of view, or perspectives on a problem. Grey is a pretty old school Christian thinker so I don't believe a balanced view is in him. Actually, I think most conventional Christians frame their view of the friends in a certain way so it's hard for them to put out something that shows balance. You are already quite handicapped if you bring theology into the picture. In any case, I think his book is a pretty big miss, as far as explaining what the friends are about. It's mainly just an attack. Have you considered that Grey's opinions may be largely influenced by how things are/were in the UK and Ireland? There may be significant differences between this side of the pond and yours? I recall that during my professing years we quietly heard regularly of how things were more liberal in "America" and there were many problems there. It was never explained what these things were and of course you daren't ask. One obvious difference that I have come to see is that over here we are far more conservative than you lot are/were. This conservatism worms its way into many things. I am not seeking excuses, but the impression that I get is that CD, yourself and perhaps others from "over there" are bending over backwards to put the sword to Grey's book which strikes a chord (theology aside) with most over here? I don't think it's mainly geographic though that is an element of the difference in reaction. You'll see the difference in reader response in my dialogue with 'Happy Feet'. I think Grey has missed significant positive elements of the f&w experience. The problem is that many individuals who have been raised in the movement and have left have never seen the positive side of it for one reason or another. I look back on my experience in leaving the Reformed Church years ago, and see many parallels. I couldn't get out of there fast enough, and saw all kinds of problems with it. The problems were real enough, but people in that church who I still know; some of them who stayed with it were able to navigate the minefields and have a good spiritually meaningful life as a result. And others have been every bit the hypocrites that they were all those years ago. Anyway, I chose to leave. If you scratch beneath the surface you'll generally see a much different personal history between advocates and detractors of the friends' movement and that can't help but affect their view of the friends. Even though both sides are aware of the problems (on this board I mean). My problem with Grey's work is that an academic work should find a balance between the points of view, and he has not done that. As a point of contrast, the work done by a researcher (forget her name) at the University of Kentucky was a 'no holds barred' look at the problems of exiting friends from a sociological perspective, and came out much better. Using theology to make summary judgements is always a problem fraught strategy; it shouldn't be allowed in academia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 10:16:57 GMT -5
Have you considered that Grey's opinions may be largely influenced by how things are/were in the UK and Ireland? There may be significant differences between this side of the pond and yours? I recall that during my professing years we quietly heard regularly of how things were more liberal in "America" and there were many problems there. It was never explained what these things were and of course you daren't ask. One obvious difference that I have come to see is that over here we are far more conservative than you lot are/were. This conservatism worms its way into many things. I am not seeking excuses, but the impression that I get is that CD, yourself and perhaps others from "over there" are bending over backwards to put the sword to Grey's book which strikes a chord (theology aside) with most over here? I don't think it's mainly geographic though that is an element of the difference in reaction. You'll see the difference in reader response in my dialogue with 'Happy Feet'. I think Grey has missed significant positive elements of the f&w experience. The problem is that many individuals who have been raised in the movement and have left have never seen the positive side of it for one reason or another. I look back on my experience in leaving the Reformed Church years ago, and see many parallels. I couldn't get out of there fast enough, and saw all kinds of problems with it. The problems were real enough, but people in that church who I still know; some of them who stayed with it were able to navigate the minefields and have a good spiritually meaningful life as a result. And others have been every bit the hypocrites that they were all those years ago. Anyway, I chose to leave. If you scratch beneath the surface you'll generally see a much different personal history between advocates and detractors of the friends' movement and that can't help but affect their view of the friends. Even though both sides are aware of the problems (on this board I mean). My problem with Grey's work is that an academic work should find a balance between the points of view, and he has not done that. As a point of contrast, the work done by a researcher (forget her name) at the University of Kentucky was a 'no holds barred' look at the problems of exiting friends from a sociological perspective, and came out much better. Using theology to make summary judgements is always a problem fraught strategy; it shouldn't be allowed in academia. I am not sufficiently attuned with theology to present a debate one way or another with regards to Grey's work. I have only considered its merits on the other factors, though granted it is largely an address from the standpoint of theology. However, I have found that most people, especially from the non- (North)American world are by and large in agreement with Grey's product. Of course I am talking largely about exes. I have found that even the most vehement of ex 2x2's have little problem acknowledging the good factors and experiences with the sect when asked. Some even bring out these things to offset the bad side. This strengthens my view that much of the anti rhetoric is an expressive reaction to spiritual abuse and/or other factors.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 10:27:34 GMT -5
I don't think it's mainly geographic though that is an element of the difference in reaction. You'll see the difference in reader response in my dialogue with 'Happy Feet'. I think Grey has missed significant positive elements of the f&w experience. The problem is that many individuals who have been raised in the movement and have left have never seen the positive side of it for one reason or another. I look back on my experience in leaving the Reformed Church years ago, and see many parallels. I couldn't get out of there fast enough, and saw all kinds of problems with it. The problems were real enough, but people in that church who I still know; some of them who stayed with it were able to navigate the minefields and have a good spiritually meaningful life as a result. And others have been every bit the hypocrites that they were all those years ago. Anyway, I chose to leave. If you scratch beneath the surface you'll generally see a much different personal history between advocates and detractors of the friends' movement and that can't help but affect their view of the friends. Even though both sides are aware of the problems (on this board I mean). My problem with Grey's work is that an academic work should find a balance between the points of view, and he has not done that. As a point of contrast, the work done by a researcher (forget her name) at the University of Kentucky was a 'no holds barred' look at the problems of exiting friends from a sociological perspective, and came out much better. Using theology to make summary judgements is always a problem fraught strategy; it shouldn't be allowed in academia. I am not sufficiently attuned with theology to present a debate one way or another with regards to Grey's work. I have only considered its merits on the other factors, though granted it is largely an address from the standpoint of theology. However, I have found that most people, especially from the non- (North)American world are by and large in agreement with Grey's product. Of course I am talking largely about exes. I have found that even the most vehement of ex 2x2's have little problem acknowledging the good factors and experiences with the sect when asked. Some even bring out these things to offset the bad side. This strengthens my view that much of the anti rhetoric is an expressive reaction to spiritual abuse and/or other factors. Most exes would NOT agree with Grey. What you mean is that most exes who hang around on Internet forums would agree with him. If I think of the exes I know personally in this area, most of whom are in the next generation, most have a positive view of the friends. Most exes are not sufficiently motivated to discuss their experience on-line. They left around the time they came of age, exited with little fan fare although not always, and have moved on. That includes my own kids who are now young adults, and retain a generally positive view of our years in the f&wm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 11:12:39 GMT -5
I am not sufficiently attuned with theology to present a debate one way or another with regards to Grey's work. I have only considered its merits on the other factors, though granted it is largely an address from the standpoint of theology. However, I have found that most people, especially from the non- (North)American world are by and large in agreement with Grey's product. Of course I am talking largely about exes. I have found that even the most vehement of ex 2x2's have little problem acknowledging the good factors and experiences with the sect when asked. Some even bring out these things to offset the bad side. This strengthens my view that much of the anti rhetoric is an expressive reaction to spiritual abuse and/or other factors. Most exes would NOT agree with Grey. What you mean is that most exes who hang around on Internet forums would agree with him. If I think of the exes I know personally in this area, most of whom are in the next generation, most have a positive view of the friends. Most exes are not sufficiently motivated to discuss their experience on-line. They left around the time they came of age, exited with little fan fare although not always, and have moved on. That includes my own kids who are now young adults, and retain a generally positive view of our years in the f&wm. Which brings us back to geographical concerns, where I suggested "America" may differ from the UK and other parts of the globe. Those exes on the WWW appear to agree with Irvine, but those localised to North America (or parts of) may not agree? Theology apart, what Irvine has written in his book is basically very true!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 12:22:49 GMT -5
Most exes would NOT agree with Grey. What you mean is that most exes who hang around on Internet forums would agree with him. If I think of the exes I know personally in this area, most of whom are in the next generation, most have a positive view of the friends. Most exes are not sufficiently motivated to discuss their experience on-line. They left around the time they came of age, exited with little fan fare although not always, and have moved on. That includes my own kids who are now young adults, and retain a generally positive view of our years in the f&wm. Which brings us back to geographical concerns, where I suggested "America" may differ from the UK and other parts of the globe. Those exes on the WWW appear to agree with Irvine, but those localised to North America (or parts of) may not agree? Theology apart, what Irvine has written in his book is basically very true! I wonder if you read my review. You're welcome to challenge any of the many issues I found in the text. And then there is another independent list made by '2x2 history' which you could work through next. I am very skeptical that either innie or non-www exe's (how's that for terminology?) on your side of the pond would accept Grey's views. Certainly he seems to have upset some innies over there so where is that coming from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 12:49:30 GMT -5
Which brings us back to geographical concerns, where I suggested "America" may differ from the UK and other parts of the globe. Those exes on the WWW appear to agree with Irvine, but those localised to North America (or parts of) may not agree? Theology apart, what Irvine has written in his book is basically very true! I wonder if you read my review. You're welcome to challenge any of the many issues I found in the text. And then there is another independent list made by '2x2 history' which you could work through next. I am very skeptical that either innie or non-www exe's (how's that for terminology?) on your side of the pond would accept Grey's views. Certainly he seems to have upset some innies over there so where is that coming from? I would expect for obvious reasons that most innies anywhere in the world would have a tendency to reject Grey's book, even without reading it. That is to be expected. Theologically speaking apart, I certainly agree with the other contents of Grey's book and I think I am fairly representative of many exes over here. In fact I will go as far as to say that many would agree that he has been too tame with his writings. For exes over here I include those children from professing families who never professed, as well as those who did and pressed the button for the ejector seat. Some indeed regard the sect as a dangerous cult based upon their upbringing and experiences and not the lame by comparison theological definition used by Mr Grey either. Of course I cannot speak so much for the generation growing through now. To be quite honest I am not really interested in reading and challenging other conclusions and experiences. I have no intention of refuting the contents which may have been derived from sources different to my own. I can easily reconcile these. Basically I can relate to works like Grey's book and Impartial Reporter very much from my own experiences and from what I have heard from past generations and other people in the UK. Therefore I am very much satisfied as to the verity of documents such as these. This does not mean they are perfect, but in many ways they are far more likely to be more accurate than those critiques or experiences which oppose them, but that is said without prejudice to those other views. I believe in building on the sound foundation of personal experience and I believe I have had that in greater proportion than Mr Grey and have in the past stated his work is very tame compared to some of the other works out there. This all leads me to the conclusion that some may have some kind of personal vendetta with Mr Grey? If such is the case we must be very wary of any strong risk of bias etc.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 13:08:36 GMT -5
I wonder if you read my review. You're welcome to challenge any of the many issues I found in the text. And then there is another independent list made by '2x2 history' which you could work through next. I am very skeptical that either innie or non-www exe's (how's that for terminology?) on your side of the pond would accept Grey's views. Certainly he seems to have upset some innies over there so where is that coming from? I would expect for obvious reasons that most innies anywhere in the world would have a tendency to reject Grey's book, even without reading it. That is to be expected. Theologically speaking apart, I certainly agree with the other contents of Grey's book and I think I am fairly representative of many exes over here. In fact I will go as far as to say that many would agree that he has been too tame with his writings. For exes over here I include those children from professing families who never professed, as well as those who did and pressed the button for the ejector seat. Some indeed regard the sect as a dangerous cult based upon their upbringing and experiences and not the lame by comparison theological definition used by Mr Grey either. Of course I cannot speak so much for the generation growing through now. To be quite honest I am not really interested in reading and challenging other conclusions and experiences. I have no intention of refuting the contents which may have been derived from sources different to my own. I can easily reconcile these. Basically I can relate to works like Grey's book and Impartial Reporter very much from my own experiences and from what I have heard from past generations and other people in the UK. Therefore I am very much satisfied as to the verity of documents such as these. This does not mean they are perfect, but in many ways they are far more likely to be more accurate than those critiques or experiences which oppose them, but that is said without prejudice to those other views. I believe in building on the sound foundation of personal experience and I believe I have had that in greater proportion than Mr Grey and have in the past stated his work is very tame compared to some of the other works out there. This all leads me to the conclusion that some may have some kind of personal vendetta with Mr Grey? If such is the case we must be very wary of any strong risk of bias etc. So your post boils down to: 1) All innies will reject anything negative in Grey's book. 2) All ex's agree with everything in Grey's book, except that he might be too mild. 3) Anyone who says anything against Grey's book is, oh sorry, "may" be on a personal vendetta. 4) You are not interested in any information which might change your thinking about points 1 to 3. In other words, "I've made up my mind, and I've closed up the door".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 13:35:26 GMT -5
I hope this post is okay now. I had accidentally edited ram's post directly when I hit 'edit' instead of 'quote'. Everything should be close to original at this point. (What Hat)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 14:49:06 GMT -5
Which has no bearing on whether the book itself is valid or not. You seem to be saying that criticism of the book can't be valid because people reject it, putting the cart before the horse. The book has to be evaluated on its merits regardless of people's preconceptions.
Again, this has no bearing on the validity of the book. What Grey has said has to be held up to the light of actual experience. In many cases it does not past the test. Further, if this did not purport to be an academic work, no one would care as much.
I have been accused of that, but I have no personal animus against Irvine Grey. He seems like a nice bloke, but kind of old school in his thinking.
You've lost me on this one. There's perception and experience and opinions, and then there are facts, conclusions and the academic process. I have tried to base my critique on the latter, which IMO should always trump people's perceptions. What I am saying is that we are all entitled to our opinions, but in the academic world, we are not entitled to trumpet conclusions for which there is insufficient evidence. Grey's work does not stand up to proper scrutiny in that regard, and that is very clear from my review. In spite of your endorsement of Grey's opinions you have conceded that his evidentiary work took place only in Ireland, so that is already a problem when generalizing about a world-wide movement.
You have also hinted that my motive is a personal vendetta against Irving Grey, but in fact, I have two very different motives. First, the friends could suffer injustice as a result of Grey's work. That's the historical record of the hierarchy of the Christian church. More importantly though, as an academic in a family of academics, the academic process itself must be vouch-safed from those who would corrupt it for their personal interest or for their ideology (all religion is ideology in that sense). Grey has stated that he is doing God's work, and he has no business subverting the academic process for what he sees as "God's work". In my view, theology has no place in a secular institution, and this book is an object example of why that should be true. I have no problem with a Baptist College doing that work, because their bias is clear from the start, but it should not be the business of QUB to sanction one church's attack upon another. That does get me worked up. (And I have the same concerns about the work of Messrs. McGonigle and Tidball, just so you know this is not a personal vendetta against Grey.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 15:15:14 GMT -5
You've lost me on this one. There's perception and experience and opinions, and then there are facts, conclusions and the academic process. I have tried to base my critique on the latter, which IMO should always trump people's perceptions. What I am saying is that we are all entitled to our opinions, but in the academic world, we are not entitled to trumpet conclusions for which there is insufficient evidence. Grey's work does not stand up to proper scrutiny in that regard, and that is very clear from my review. In spite of your endorsement of Grey's opinions you have conceded that his evidentiary work took place only in Ireland, so that is already a problem when generalizing about a world-wide movement.
You have also hinted that my motive is a personal vendetta against Irving Grey, but in fact, I have two very different motives. First, the friends could suffer injustice as a result of Grey's work. That's the historical record of the hierarchy of the Christian church. More importantly though, as an academic in a family of academics, the academic process itself must be vouch-safed from those who would corrupt it for their personal interest or for their ideology (all religion is ideology in that sense). Grey has stated that he is doing God's work, and he has no business subverting the academic process for what he sees as "God's work". In my view, theology has no place in a secular institution, and this book is an object example of why that should be true. I have no problem with a Baptist College doing that work, because their bias is clear from the start, but it should not be the business of QUB to sanction one church's attack upon another. That does get me worked up. (And I have the same concerns about the work of Messrs. McGonigle and Tidball, just so you know this is not a personal vendetta against Grey.)
I've manually copied the above over because I am having difficulty with the quote feature not carrying over the full quote etc.
I think your opening line is very faulty and based upon a presumption of the accuracy of what you call facts, conclusions and academic process. For instance, what can be more factual than one's own personal experiences? Conclusions based upon such experience and knowledge surely fall into the sphere of expert opinion more than research with no personal experience behind it? Please turn from the obvious mistake of confusing perceptions with real experiences where true facts are found. Perceptions may be arrived at conducting research with no experience behind it and may thus be very faulty.
I notice you are prone to putting my words into extreme contexts where they were never intended. I never said that Grey's evidentiary work took place ONLY in Ireland. I suspect that most of his experience and research took place there and perhaps in the rest of Ireland and the UK. Also I suggested that it was North America that might be geographically different. I have no problem with people claiming to have had different experiences, particularly in other parts of the world. That will happen with any movement, anywhere, even within families themselves. What I am stating is that Grey's book is very real and generally accurate to many people, even across the globe. Because others claim different experiences and knowledge does not alter that fact one little bit, nor does Grey's work deny these people their claims to the opposite. In fairness to Grey he in no way implies anything like that.
I have more than hinted at the possibility of yourself having a personal vendetta. I do not mean this personally, but the way you tore his work to shreds in post after post, long before you even decided to read his book, could only send out such an obvious message, something that I may suggest undermines any credibility you may seek to have in critiquing his work. It is a situation of your own doing. I am glad you are making good efforts to distance yourself from any perceived personal attacks. FWIW I am not interested in one church attacking another. I have been connected with two Baptist churches and have never heard anyone criticising any other church or denomination. In fact the opposite is true. Even the RCC is spoken off in favourable terms.
As stated previously I have judged Grey's work by my own factual, personal experiences and knowledge. I believe I have an ability more than most to judge things as fairly, reasonably and without bias in arriving at decisions.
|
|