Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 16:41:34 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. I agree with that. When I look around at exes I personally know well (including relatives), most have a favourable or neutral view of the meetings and the friends. I have personally opened the door for discussion with many exes to pour out their anger and found there was none, sometimes the opposite. I think ram is right that most of the anger we see is a result of experiencing some sort of abuse, most often a "spiritual" abuse. People rarely get ticked off for no reason at all, and most often it is a good reason. That experience of abuse does tend to obscure the positive aspects. The problem with the book is that Grey relies a lot on exes who have gone through some pretty difficult experiences like Edgar and Dennis to contribute to his construction of the state of the 2x2 group. Then you add in an extremist the other way like Tommie Gamble and you can't possibly get an accurate understanding of what 2x2ism is all about. Even your own experience ram is likely out of date so your confirmation of Grey's book is confirmation that his book is not very relevant for the present day even though it was relevant for when you left the system. You've been out for over a decade(?) now and I would suggest that there have been many rough edges smoothed off since then. I'm not suggesting that all is perfume and roses, but any ex who has been out for over a decade can't accurately comment on the present day state of the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 23, 2013 21:43:19 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. Because a major doctrine and characteristic of the f&w's is that we can become pious by becoming little children again by adopting child-like views. In light of the example of Jesus' approach with the world, just where is the line between child-like and child-ish views?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 21:57:23 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. I have had problems with Grey's misguided approach from the very start, and believe me, I was trying to help Grey out by pointing him to work in cultural studies and sociology which showed that his approach was dated and not credible. Perhaps I came on too strong. The abysmal result was completely predictable given the methodology Grey used, but I must admit the book was even worse than I expected. I am certainly not the only person that thinks so. But I would stress that it's not personal. If this was just another attack by an ex-, I would let it ride, but I cannot in good conscience let this escape without notice. Believe me, there are a dozen other worthwhile things I would much rather do than itemise dozens of errors in a book like this. Anyway, ram, you clearly have not read my critique and you are just pronouncing opinions in absence of any of the issues I have raised ... and then pat yourself on the back to boot. Also funny that you take issue with me doing that. At least I did read Grey's book before I commented on it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 23, 2013 22:10:42 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. I agree with that. When I look around at exes I personally know well (including relatives), most have a favourable or neutral view of the meetings and the friends. I have personally opened the door for discussion with many exes to pour out their anger and found there was none, sometimes the opposite. I think ram is right that most of the anger we see is a result of experiencing some sort of abuse, most often a "spiritual" abuse. People rarely get ticked off for no reason at all, and most often it is a good reason. That experience of abuse does tend to obscure the positive aspects. The problem with the book is that Grey relies a lot on exes who have gone through some pretty difficult experiences like Edgar and Dennis to contribute to his construction of the state of the 2x2 group. Then you add in an extremist the other way like Tommie Gamble and you can't possibly get an accurate understanding of what 2x2ism is all about. Even your own experience ram is likely out of date so your confirmation of Grey's book is confirmation that his book is not very relevant for the present day even though it was relevant for when you left the system. You've been out for over a decade(?) now and I would suggest that there have been many rough edges smoothed off since then. I'm not suggesting that all is perfume and roses, but any ex who has been out for over a decade can't accurately comment on the present day state of the fellowship. Many of the ex's like Grey's book, so apparently he has done a good job of explaining their perspective. But the book lacks balance, plain and simple. A half truth is not the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 23, 2013 22:22:26 GMT -5
The bottom line of any critique or commentary of the 2x2 is that the workers' doctrine comes down to a decree that salvation is an effort or approach to piety. This focus is ontologically distinct from the patently Christian confession that salvation is an imputation of righteousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 22:40:42 GMT -5
The bottom line of any critique or commentary of the 2x2 is that the workers' doctrine comes down to a decree that salvation is an effort or approach to piety. This focus is ontologically distinct from the patently Christian confession that salvation is an imputation of righteousness. Well, I'm glad someone is sayin' it plain and simple! It's a breath of fresh air!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 3:09:05 GMT -5
Even your own experience ram is likely out of date so your confirmation of Grey's book is confirmation that his book is not very relevant for the present day even though it was relevant for when you left the system. You've been out for over a decade(?) now and I would suggest that there have been many rough edges smoothed off since then. I'm not suggesting that all is perfume and roses, but any ex who has been out for over a decade can't accurately comment on the present day state of the fellowship.
I have no problem accepting a degree of what you say here CD. I went "aside" from the sect back in late 1995 (it's a long complicated story - I never regarded myself as having left!) which is much longer than the decade you estimated. However, I remained close to the sect and during the late 2000's attended missions for more than two years. Also went to at least a couple of conventions. I also had a close uncle and cousin still "in" during that time with whom I had much contact and discussions etc, as well as one or two other 'fessers. I would suggest that I was still in a prime position to pick up on any changes. Then my cousin (divorced) got re-married to an outsider and as you can imagine, there was not any changes to the ugly side of things!
My uncle died less than 2 years ago, so I have had fairly recent contact with things although nothing like it was formerly. I think one important consideration though is that over here we were considered very conservative even to the Irish. That must be saying something? Also, in my general area the 'fessing population was predominantly (by far) the golden oldies, who traditionally held to the old ways. Any real change is going to be from the younger generations. I do not think there is any real change from the top, more acceptance of the younger generations doing their own thing because the leaders realise they do not have the same control over them?
Grey's book will still be pertinent to the oldies, but perhaps less relevant to the new shoots growing through?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 3:27:22 GMT -5
I have had problems with Grey's misguided approach from the very start, and believe me, I was trying to help Grey out by pointing him to work in cultural studies and sociology which showed that his approach was dated and not credible. Perhaps I came on too strong. The abysmal result was completely predictable given the methodology Grey used, but I must admit the book was even worse than I expected. I am certainly not the only person that thinks so. But I would stress that it's not personal. If this was just another attack by an ex-, I would let it ride, but I cannot in good conscience let this escape without notice. Believe me, there are a dozen other worthwhile things I would much rather do than itemise dozens of errors in a book like this. Anyway, ram, you clearly have not read my critique and you are just pronouncing opinions in absence of any of the issues I have raised ... and then pat yourself on the back to boot. Also funny that you take issue with me doing that. At least I did read Grey's book before I commented on it.
What Hat, you have expressed concern about potential damage that Grey's book may cause to the fellowship. In my opinion, these fears are virtually groundless. As far as the theology goes this will be of little interest to most F&W's for whom theology belongs to the college bred and those filled with head knowledge. As far as the rest of the content goes, Grey has not really said anything that has not been said in more detail and with more condemnation in the other works out there which have preceded it. When I read the book I found it humbly written and in many ways presented in a diluted form to these other works. Anyone looking for juicy information about the 2x2's would be best directed elsewhere where there is less risk of disappointment.
You are right, I have not read your critique (yet?). I don't have to. I am judging Grey's work by my own personal experiences and knowledge (hence no comment on theology)of the sect. I find it very relevant and accurate in that respect. FWIW I am not taking any issue with you with you directly. I am only defending the book as it relates to what I know. Nothing will change that. You can rob a man of anything except his experiences! Your comments may well be accurate for another geographical area. I have stated this several times, but that does not alter the accuracy of Grey's book to my geographical area. I even began this discussion by suggesting his research and findings would have been largely centred on the UK and Ireland to offer an explanation for geographical differences.
You stated:
At least I did read Grey's book before I commented on it.
Which comments are you referring to? I think this statement is being very much economical with the truth. As far as I can recall Grey's book was only fit for hanging in a dry toilet long before you relaxed your reluctance to read it? I think you hoisted your own petard with this one? Don't take it personally though. It is merely a pertinent observation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 5:19:45 GMT -5
At least I did read Grey's book before I commented on it. No, you didn't. In fact you even started a thread on the 24th June called 'Why I personally resent Irvine Grey's book' and then, in perhaps the most remarkable opening line in any thread ever posted on the board, you began by stating 'Ok I haven't read the book'. I lost track of the number of posts you made in relation to the book before admitting to have read it. Not only did you begin commenting on the book before you had read it, it could be said that you began commenting on the book even before it was written. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 24, 2013 6:41:54 GMT -5
Here is just a brief analysis of What Hats comments on the site of the link he posted. My comments are over 3 posts. It is nearly mid night so I have not read it through. I'll do that some other time. Comments are welcome.
What Hat: I can easily analyse and pull to bits your critique on Irvine’s book. First I find it unbelievable or ignorant that you who do not have any qualifications above a bachelor’s degree (correct me if I am wrong – and in English – again correct me if I am wrong) put down a master’s thesis and in theology and approved by a reputable university. Going by your posts your bias was clearly there before you even read the book. You call his thesis a major piece of work. We are talking about a master’s thesis, not a phd research thesis.
I will try and just pull out just a few of your criticisms. Just the tip of the iceberg.
You wrote: The movement does have over 100,000 members around the world, with no headquarters, no staff, and a very decentralized ministry. He (Irvine) states that the f&wm “deny having a headquarters or formal organization” implying that they actually do. But they don’t have either one.
My comment: I agree they deny it and I am not just implying they do have, I am stating they do. They have a centralised ministry, they have what can be called headquarters in each city, a central place where they can stay when they arrive at a city and their mail is sent. The only difference is that they use someone’s home rather than a public building. Convention grounds are also their centralised meeting place of all workers and members once a year. Money goes into these grounds which some could even call their head quarters where workers congregate for 6 or more weeks a year. They have head workers, who communicate with each other and met together. I am not sure how often they meet. They fly around the world attending conventions at centralised locations. On a number of occasions on this board workers have been referred to as staff and they receive money from the movements funds. They are staff.
You compare your analysis with that of “the Stone-Campbell movement, which you say is a similar movement that subsequently spawned three separate denominations including the Churches of Christ...” Irvine choose to analyse the movement against another criteria. A theological perspective and he has a right to do so. If we have a dozen people analysing the movement we will have a dozen different paths in which we choose to analyse the movement. Why should he choose to analyse it according to your ideas. You have a narrow view of the world if you think that people should analyse things according to your world view. What I love about humans is the vast scope of the human mind and experience. Irvine choose to analyse the 2x2s against evangelical Christianity not another church which claims it is the true church started by Jesus. Neither the 2x2s nor Church of Christ would accept each other as both claim they are the true church. It seems illogical to analyise the 2x2s against a church which claims to be the true church when the 2x2s claims their is. This is one of the similarities and not one that would make a good analysis although their control factors are similar the same as any exclusive group. As you wrote: The Church of Christ has/is: Autonomous, congregational church organization without denominational oversight; Local governance[9]:238 by a plurality of male elders etc..... yet you say it is similar to the 2x2s.
I fail to see the similarity between the 2x2s and C of C who have Christian bookshops, church buildings, have a plurality of elders run each church and have their own websites. The 2x2s have denominational oversight – the workers are their oversight, and depending on what is meant by autonomous, each congregation of the 2x2s is not autonomous but is part of the larger movement who come together for Gospel meetings, conventions etc. If it means autonomous from other churches then most churches are autonomous. The c of c is governed by a group of elders, the 2x2s are governed by workers in the area with local fellowships being governed by one elder each, not several as the c of c is. Elders in the 2x2s are under the control of the workers.
You wrote: Grey’s essay never engages the motives of the 19th century ‘Great Awakening’ but uses the approach of comparing scattered anecdotes of recent sermons in Ireland against a definition of evangelicalism provided by Bebbington.
My comment: Why should Grey engage the motives of the Great Awakening, (because you say he should?) Irvine chose to do a theological comparative study based on evangelical Christianity.
You wrote: First, Grey’s essay contains no commonsensical description of f&wm practices, like that you quoted regarding the Churches of Christ. Sermon extracts form the basis for analysis.
My response: Because his description is not to your liking you say it is non commonsensical yet many can attest to that which Irvine describes. I am not sure where you got what you posted about the Churches of Christ from but they have their own statement of beliefs and websites. The workers do not have a statement of belief so sermon notes would be the best source to form an analysis. Another issue you brought up was your apparent objection to Irvine’s comment on secrecy. Irvine has correctly described the motives of secrecy of the movement which Doug Parker aptly calls the Secret Sect.....continued
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 24, 2013 6:43:42 GMT -5
con't analysis of What Hat's analysis of Irvine's book.
What Hat wrote: To my knowledge, the workers have always granted open access to convention grounds to media, but the fact is that the movement has never generated anything sufficiently newsworthy to attract media interest.
You have made a sweeping statement saying the movement has never generated anything sufficiently newsworthy to attract media interest. Cherie has a number of newspaper articles that have been deemed newsworthy enough to print in newspapers. So to say ‘never’ is completely wrong. From the early days of the movement there have been newspaper articles on the group – namely the Impartial Reporter and articles which have appeared in newspapers over the years.
Irvine wrote: “Members are forbidden to form a relationship with the opposite sex unless they too profess. You wrote: It happens frequently enough to pass with little notice or disturbance......
My comment: I disagree with you. It does not pass with little notice or disturbance. Homes where only one is professing is labelled a divided home and such marriages are discouraged by workers. It certainly does not pass with little notice. I am not sure if I am correct in saying that some who marry outsiders are not allowed to take the bread and wine – but to say it hardly goes unnoticed is an understatement.
You wrote: McGongigle states that the workers “believe that all are damned unless they hear the Gospel from a 2x2 preacher” (ix). This is an inference and perhaps a reasonable one to make. The same inference can be drawn from most orthodox Christian preachers vis a vis other religions.
(Maybe you have wrongly used the word religions when you really mean denominations ?) Evangelical churches which Irvine basis his analysis on accept a range of mainstream denominations and people move freely between denominations. They reject those churches that are exclusive not mainstream. Note Queens university is a mixture of denominations.
You wrote: However, no present day worker would make a statement like this in such a confrontational and judgemental manner. Nor would any present day worker make a statement as judgemental as the following one by McGonigle, “It is my prayer they [2x2]s will read it with an open mind and that the Holy Spirit will give wisdom and discernment to those who read it and that many will come out of darkness into the marvellous light of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ” (ix). .... at least so-called 2x2 preachers do not have the temerity and lack of grace to make such protestations publicly.
My comment: Another hall mark of the 2x2s was their putting down of other churches and ministers calling them false, hirelings etc. The workers have had no qualms about putting down and condemning Christian churches. They have done more than to offer a prayer for those they consider lost.
You wrote: Had his thesis merely noted those aspects of f&wm which would be considered heretical in terms of mainstream Christian theology, and which would serve as a warning to Grey’s peers, then I would have no issue with it as an academic work. But when an ideologically based evaluation is used to disparage a benign church group, one wonders by what means a secular university in a democratic country would sanction such an attack. It’s surely not a conclusion that could be drawn using general academic standards that I have encountered here in Canada. And yet this work has been authorized and approved as one of merit by Queen’s University Belfast. This could be a serious problem for the church. Because of QUB’s approval, this work will now be quoted as a serious academic source, when the work is clearly based on ideological prejudice.
What may be seen as benign to you is seen as destructive by others............................continued
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 24, 2013 6:45:35 GMT -5
What Hat, for one who seems to hold themself out as an expert on academic standards above university professors I wonder where your research papers or master’s thesis is/are? From what I get from your analysis is that you prejudged the work with a determination to give it a negative evaluation and that Irvine’s analysis which I would say is more correct than yours going by the comments I have read on the TMB over the years I have been on it and my observation of the group when I was in and since I have been out. You were not born and raised in the group, you do not have most of your family in nor do you have several generations of family in it so your view is different as you appear to not have been touched by the deep sociological, psychological and theological ideals of the group that a b&r, 2nd, 3rd and 3th generation member who have their whole family and early life in does and those whose childhoods were shaped by the group in the early stages of their development. You were not isolated psychologically, sociologically and theologically from others in your formative years through being brought up in the group and were less touched by the groups ideals.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 24, 2013 8:46:57 GMT -5
At least I did read Grey's book before I commented on it. No, you didn't. In fact you even started a thread on the 24th June called 'Why I personally resent Irvine Grey's book' and then, in perhaps the most remarkable opening line in any thread ever posted on the board, you began by stating 'Ok I haven't read the book'. I lost track of the number of posts you made in relation to the book before admitting to have read it. Not only did you begin commenting on the book before you had read it, it could be said that you began commenting on the book even before it was written. Matt10 Those comments were on Grey's methodology, not a review of the book per se. I stand by the comments on that thread and my statement. Looks like lots of reading here today, but unfortunately it may have to wait in getting an Internet connection.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 24, 2013 11:26:50 GMT -5
Happy Feet, I don't have a problem with your analysis of the book or even What Hat's review. What I do take issue with is this statement of yours.
"What Hat: I can easily analyse and pull to bits your critique on Irvine’s book. First I find it unbelievable or ignorant that you who do not have any qualifications above a bachelor’s degree (correct me if I am wrong – and in English – again correct me if I am wrong) put down a master’s thesis and in theology and approved by a reputable university. Going by your posts your bias was clearly there before you even read the book. You call his thesis a major piece of work. We are talking about a master’s thesis, not a phd research thesis."
I don't believe there was any call for academic 'one up man ship'. Just because they don't have a Masters or a Ph.D does not mean they aren't qualified to do a review on something and point out some pretty relevant information. I do corrections for people doing their Masters papers and Ph.D. thesis and so I see a lot of different 'papers' written by a bunch of different people at that level of education. I have seen some pretty good ones, and some pretty bad ones. So it's not the level of your educational degree, it's the ability to take pertinent information and put it down in written form that makes sense to the reader. Saying What Hat has only a Bachelors and only in English, is really just academic snobbery imo. It appears to be an attempt to get others to look at his review and find no value in it because of his credentials.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 24, 2013 12:53:39 GMT -5
What Hat...You were not born and raised in the group, you do not have most of your family in nor do you have several generations of family in it so your view is different as you appear to not have been touched by the deep sociological, psychological and theological ideals of the group that a b&r, 2nd, 3rd and 3th generation member who have their whole family and early life in does and those whose childhoods were shaped by the group in the early stages of their development. You were not isolated psychologically, sociologically and theologically from others in your formative years through being brought up in the group and were less touched by the groups ideals. The same could be said of Irvine Grey...who stated: "I have spent a lifetime observing them up close as an outsider."
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 24, 2013 16:09:41 GMT -5
Happy Feet, I don't have a problem with your analysis of the book or even What Hat's review. What I do take issue with is this statement of yours. "What Hat: I can easily analyse and pull to bits your critique on Irvine’s book. First I find it unbelievable or ignorant that you who do not have any qualifications above a bachelor’s degree (correct me if I am wrong – and in English – again correct me if I am wrong) put down a master’s thesis and in theology and approved by a reputable university. Going by your posts your bias was clearly there before you even read the book. You call his thesis a major piece of work. We are talking about a master’s thesis, not a phd research thesis." I don't believe there was any call for academic 'one up man ship'. Just because they don't have a Masters or a Ph.D does not mean they aren't qualified to do a review on something and point out some pretty relevant information. I do corrections for people doing their Masters papers and Ph.D. thesis and so I see a lot of different 'papers' written by a bunch of different people at that level of education. I have seen some pretty good ones, and some pretty bad ones. So it's not the level of your educational degree, it's the ability to take pertinent information and put it down in written form that makes sense to the reader. Saying What Hat has only a Bachelors and only in English, is really just academic snobbery imo. It appears to be an attempt to get others to look at his review and find no value in it because of his credentials. I have no problem with WH or anyone else reviewing the book. It is WH's one up man ship that I have a problem with. His put downs of the professors of a reputable university making out he is better than them. Cherie, I know Irvine was not b&r but he got much of his info in the thesis/book from those b&r including yourself and Kathy Lewis. He was not doing it from his own experience as WH is.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 24, 2013 16:15:03 GMT -5
I find it unbelievable or ignorant that you who do not have any qualifications above a bachelor’s degree (correct me if I am wrong – and in English – again correct me if I am wrong) put down a master’s thesis and in theology and approved by a reputable university. Are you saying that a reputable university cannot be wrong and their judgment should not be questioned?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 24, 2013 16:23:19 GMT -5
Theology academics can justify war against other theology academics because they disagree over theology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 16:37:52 GMT -5
The bottom line of any critique or commentary of the 2x2 is that the workers' doctrine comes down to a decree that salvation is an effort or approach to piety. This focus is ontologically distinct from the patently Christian confession that salvation is an imputation of righteousness. Well, I'm glad someone is sayin' it plain and simple! It's a breath of fresh air! I spoke about the imputation of righteousness through faith Wednesday night (thinking of Abram and Romans 4) and the elder heaved a huge sigh. My husband isn't sure if he was bored or irritated, but next time I'll go for 'plain and simple' and see how it goes over.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 24, 2013 18:34:39 GMT -5
Well, I'm glad someone is sayin' it plain and simple! It's a breath of fresh air! I spoke about the imputation of righteousness through faith Wednesday night (thinking of Abram and Romans 4) and the elder heaved a huge sigh. My husband isn't sure if he was bored or irritated, but next time I'll go for 'plain and simple' and see how it goes over. Hberry ~ I reckon you might be in for a worker's visit over your use of "imputed righteousness" once word gets back to the field supervisors ~ workers in your area? They don't cotton to use of standard Christian lingo in meetings from what I remember from bygone days ~ unless some things have really changed? People talking about the "unmerited grace of God" and what it means in lives was also shunned back in my professing days. Any changes in these areas in meetings? I would hope so after so many years?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 24, 2013 20:12:04 GMT -5
HF wrote: Cherie, I know Irvine was not b&r but he got much of his info in the thesis/book from those b&r including yourself and Kathy Lewis. He was not doing it from his own experience as WH is.
Actually, Irvine had very little contact with me before he went to print. I think I may have filled out his questionnaire a few years ago. I dont know whether or not he read my on-line book about 2x2 history. He appears to have read some on the TTT website. I asked IG for help in my research--re location of Cooney family graves, Trotter Account, and a couple of historical documents I knew existed, but did not have copies of. I believe there are just (2) TTT links given in his book (I've loaned out my book, so cant doublecheck this).
My name is printed in his book one time - and that is in a quote from Kathy Lewis - and not a quote from me.
My view is that most B&Rs and Latecomers (like what Hat) and Ex-2x2s are more familiar/knowledgeable in many areas of 2x2ism than an "Outsider" (like Grey) is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 22:31:43 GMT -5
HF wrote: Cherie, I know Irvine was not b&r but he got much of his info in the thesis/book from those b&r including yourself and Kathy Lewis. He was not doing it from his own experience as WH is.
Actually, Irvine had very little contact with me before he went to print. I think I may have filled out his questionnaire a few years ago. I dont know whether or not he read my on-line book about 2x2 history. It didnt appear to me that he had read it, going by his book, but I may be mistaken. I believe there are just (2) TTT links given in his book (I've loaned out my book, so cant check this). My name is printed in his book one time - and that is in a quote from Kathy Lewis - and not a quote from me. My view is that most B&Rs and Latecomers (like what Hat) and Ex-2x2s are more familiar/knowledgeable in many areas of 2x2ism than an "Outsider" (like Grey) is. I agree: he only got the surface stuff for the most part. I've got 60 years in the system, and although much of what he said was true, he didn't catch the flavor. Cherie, my book is available for loan too. I'd be glad to donate it to your lending library if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 24, 2013 22:54:30 GMT -5
Happy Feet, I don't have a problem with your analysis of the book or even What Hat's review. What I do take issue with is this statement of yours. "What Hat: I can easily analyse and pull to bits your critique on Irvine’s book. First I find it unbelievable or ignorant that you who do not have any qualifications above a bachelor’s degree (correct me if I am wrong – and in English – again correct me if I am wrong) put down a master’s thesis and in theology and approved by a reputable university. Going by your posts your bias was clearly there before you even read the book. You call his thesis a major piece of work. We are talking about a master’s thesis, not a phd research thesis." I don't believe there was any call for academic 'one up man ship'. Just because they don't have a Masters or a Ph.D does not mean they aren't qualified to do a review on something and point out some pretty relevant information. I do corrections for people doing their Masters papers and Ph.D. thesis and so I see a lot of different 'papers' written by a bunch of different people at that level of education. I have seen some pretty good ones, and some pretty bad ones. So it's not the level of your educational degree, it's the ability to take pertinent information and put it down in written form that makes sense to the reader. Saying What Hat has only a Bachelors and only in English, is really just academic snobbery imo. It appears to be an attempt to get others to look at his review and find no value in it because of his credentials. I have no problem with WH or anyone else reviewing the book. It is WH's one up man ship that I have a problem with. His put downs of the professors of a reputable university making out he is better than them. I don't see that. I see a review and no institution nor it's professors are above that.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 25, 2013 0:18:00 GMT -5
Cherie, I think you have gone off track here. I never said, nor have I seen anyone say that someone who has not been a part of the group (as Irvine) is more knowledgeable than someone who has been in the group. It would be naive for anyone to think that.
I was comparing What Hat's perspective with a B&R. Not an insider vs an outsider.
Here is what I wrote: You (WH) were not born and raised in the group, you do not have most of your family in nor do you have several generations of family in it so your view is different as you appear to not have been touched by the deep sociological, psychological and theological ideals of the group that a b&r, 2nd, 3rd and 3th generation member who have their whole family and early life in does and those whose childhoods were shaped by the group in the early stages of their development. You were not isolated psychologically, sociologically and theologically from others in your formative years through being brought up in the group and were less touched by the groups ideals.
As I said: Irvine got his info from others. He researched the movement. Like any research information comes from a number of sources. it is not a novel where he is writing a book on his life, it is a research paper based on a collection of data from a number of sources.
I see very early in the book on page 9 a quote from your testimony in Reflections. I see 4 quotes on one page from Kathy Lewis book and an email from her. Most of what Irvine writes is from outside sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 4:09:01 GMT -5
From my own experience and that of some others close to me I would suggest that insiders are handicapped by a blindness to the obvious. The severity of this blindness largely depends on how deeply you are part of the system. The closer you are to the core, the more perfect you believe it to be, or try to convince yourself this is the case.
Over the years I have had a number of outsider friends and contacts telling me that I was in a cult. They knew nothing about the way or its inner workings, but presented with a few details, and from an unbiased and neutral position, they were able to quickly attach the label "cult." This was without seeing anything bad with the sect. It was so obvious to these people, yet I couldn't understand their views because I saw it as the only true way.
Years later and with the scales having dropped from my eyes I can now see exactly what these people saw and I feel foolish about it all. The moral of this little story is that some outsiders can readily see the shape of the forest which is denied to those on the inside. Of course outsiders don't really know the innards of the body, but their impressions from the outside ain't very far from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 25, 2013 4:38:02 GMT -5
...he only got the surface stuff for the most part. I've got 60 years in the system, and although much of what he said was true, he didn't catch the flavor. Sort of like comparing an English-as-a-second-language person with a native English speaker?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 4:47:48 GMT -5
...he only got the surface stuff for the most part. I've got 60 years in the system, and although much of what he said was true, he didn't catch the flavor. Sort of like comparing an English-as-a-second-language person with a native English speaker? I have met many Europeans who speak English far better than myself. Not only that they have a far better command of the Queen's English than people from USA!
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 25, 2013 5:02:00 GMT -5
I agree Ram that inside most are captured by the blindness. I say most because there are a very few who can see thing clearly. I think of quizzer and one or two others. Some enlightened ones are trying to change it from the inside. But certainly for most it is only as they come out and look from the outside in did they see these things - myself included. We were blinded by what we were told in spite of the evidence.
Nothing wrong with English second language speakers. Can you speak 2 languages like most English second language speakers can, fixit? What is wrong with English second language speakers and what 's your point?
On another note: I notice that WH is doing to Irvine the same as he has accused Irvine of doing to the f&W. He talks about Irvine not putting forth a balanced view and that his book is just an attack yet WH is doing the same to Irvine.
If you want a balanced view then I think my review on the book on the first page of this thread would fit into that.
I'm finding it tiring fitting this board into all the other things in my life. Every time I say I will just look but find myself writing too. I will stop writing one day but such is life. Not enough time for pleasure, something has to go and it might have to be this board sometime.
|
|