|
Post by fixit on Jun 15, 2014 22:35:17 GMT -5
If the 2x2s were a cult, would they tolerate people like CD and me? There are cultic attitudes and behaviours in the movement, but no more than the Baptist movement that Mr Irvine is part of. I think it would depend on how outspoken you are! ken I think Irvine Gray would have me thrown out of his Baptist movement pretty quickly if I was speaking in church every Sunday.
|
|
msmary
New Member
Left meetings September 2013
Posts: 7
|
Post by msmary on Jun 15, 2014 23:35:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 15, 2014 23:49:54 GMT -5
Taken literally, this definition actually allows that all denominations are cults.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 16, 2014 3:44:17 GMT -5
I think it would depend on how outspoken you are! ken I think Irvine Gray would have me thrown out of his Baptist movement pretty quickly if I was speaking in church every Sunday. Perhaps millions could say that about hundreds, if not thousands of churches.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jun 16, 2014 5:06:15 GMT -5
I think it would depend on how outspoken you are! ken I think Irvine Gray would have me thrown out of his Baptist movement pretty quickly if I was speaking in church every Sunday. It appears you have never been in a Baptist church. I think its Grey not gray. ken
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 16, 2014 5:24:22 GMT -5
Seems like a cult is a group with beliefs different to yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 9:12:27 GMT -5
The word "cult" always has a negative connotation to it except to those who are experts in the concept. To the public, a cult is a harmful group of which to be a member. Dialogue Ireland looks at it that way, and frankly, I think it is a realistic way to look at it. It is quite different to the way Irvine Grey examines it, who sees it like msmary posted regarding "Christian cult" which is simply a group which has sufficient enough doctrinal differences from some mainstream standard. In Grey's case, he uses his understanding of Evangelicalism as the baseline to his cult definition, although he never does explain how 2x2's are "particularly dangerous" Evangelical cult, and I expect that to remain a mystery for some time.
If we focus on harm from the group as the basic requirement for a cult, then how does 2x2ism fit into that?
Have people been harmed by their experience in the 2x2's? Yes
Is harm something that is systematically produced by 2x2ism? No
The above is an important distinction. In order to be a dangerous cult, then in my view, harm must be experienced by the vast majority of the group....excluding certain people such as the workers or others who would control things. That just doesn't happen. If you are a member, you are generally left alone. You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom. Yes, certain influences are attempted at conventions and gospel meetings but none are intentionally or systematically harmful. You can take it or leave it. If you practice some sort of extreme behaviour, you may get a reaction from the system but otherwise, it's a pretty benign system if you are an ordinary, conservative sort of person.
The closest thing I can think of that comes to systematic harm is the exclusivity doctrine, which is no different than mainstream Christian exclusivity.....just much more narrow. Exclusivity generates unnecessary fear, and the narrower the exclusivity, the more heightened the unnecessary fear.
As far as legalisms go, harm from compliance of unjustified legalisms is largely gone from the group today. If someone did approach a member about a silly legalism (which is not a systematic action of the group), the member just has to say "thanks but no thanks" and that will be the end of it unless it is the action of an abusive person, which then becomes a different matter than a "cult" issue.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 16, 2014 10:56:01 GMT -5
Here is a survey of the field on the use of the word 'cult' as I understand.
1) Layman's use. People still do use the word 'cult' without negative overtones, as in, the cult that follows the Grateful Dead, meaning a subculture. But Jim Jones forever changed the meaning of the word 'cult' in the public's eye, and for most people, the operating definition is the one posted by 'wally' a few posts back.
2) Christian theologian's use. Orthodox theologians have had a long-standing division of Christian religious groups into "denominations", "sects" and "cults". These definitions are determined largely on what you believe, although centrist Christians would argue that if you don't follow core Christian teaching you will, by necessity, be dysfunctional socially as well. Irvine Grey uses this kind of definition in his analysis of 2x2 beliefs, and concludes on this basis they are a 'cult' because they don't teach core Christian doctrine. If you have seen the recent ESV Bible, whose editorial board comes largely from Evangelical denominations, you'll notice in one of their appendices they categorize JWs and Mormons as cults, again, based on this kind of analysis.
3) Sociologist use of the word. Sociologists are divided on their use of the word. Some say it should not be used because of its history in marginalizing and suppressing non-orthodox religious groups. (See point 2). So they use more neutral terms like "movement", "religious movement" and "new religious movement" to identify non-orthodox groups, which may or may not exhibit harmful social behaviour. Other sociologists, including Dialogue Ireland, argue for use of the word "cult" but in sociological terms. They're looking for specific negative group behaviours to characterize certain groups as cults.
The single greatest factor that argues against the 2x2s being a "cult" in the layman's or sociologist's view, is the fact that leadership is decentralized and there is not a single 'messianic' style leader. In the more harmful NRMs I've read about (like 'Holy Ghost Girl') you almost always find a single leader and a sycophantic hierarchy. That doesn't mean that the workers hierarchy is ideally structured but there is a degree of transparency and checks and balances in the leadership.
Although the sociological analysis of religious movements is a fairly new field, I believe that harmful behaviours can be detected, identified and explained. Remedy is also possible, although implementation and resistance to change may be insurmountable. The question of good government of any group from a stamp club to a religious movement to a national government is the same question, with the same checkpoints for good governance. Among these are transparency, accountability to the membership, the free flow of information, and a division of powers with balances and checks. I dislike reducing these problems to single word definitions like "cult" or "not a cult" because such discussions sidetrack into all kinds of pointless arguments.
What is sorely needed in the analysis of religious movements is a checklist for good governance like those in use to analyse national governments or the Board of Directors of companies. It's a very similar problem.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 16, 2014 12:15:16 GMT -5
Years ago when I was doing a paper on Jim Jones and his followers for a Psych class, the only real definition of a cult was a religion that was under 100 years old. At that point the Mormon church and the 2x2's as well as quite a few others would have matched this definition. There didn't seem to be a distinction between whether they were dangerous or not. Clearly some are more dangerous than others.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 16, 2014 12:59:06 GMT -5
Years ago when I was doing a paper on Jim Jones and his followers for a Psych class, the only real definition of a cult was a religion that was under 100 years old. At that point the Mormon church and the 2x2's as well as quite a few others would have matched this definition. There didn't seem to be a distinction between whether they were dangerous or not. Clearly some are more dangerous than others. Even the objective-sounding definition which you cite is intended to marginalize some groups and is culturally conditioned. Here is why. A group that has differentiated itself, in recent years, on what centrists consider core beliefs would be a "cult" by this definition. But a group that has differentiated itself only on non-core beliefs would just be considered a new denomination, and therefore, not a "cult". Those who have power, the church hierarchy and their theological constabulary, who decide which beliefs are core to them, thus distance themselves from those most unfavourable to their own self-serving and self-perpetuating system. And of course, it does no good to use a definition that is completely at odds with the lay view. In fact, it's irresponsible. I know this is off-track from your reference point in Psychology, but establishment theologians categorize those with whom they disagree with a word associated with thieves and murderers in the public view. How convenient! As for the psychologists you mention, you'd think they would use a little more care, but probably many of them were Christians too, so they'd not see the issue. Especially if this was in the years before Foucault. The responsible approach in sociology, in my view, is to move away from the term completely. If the group is dangerous, call them "dangerous". Words like illegal, destructive, oppressive may also be useful; there's no shortage of useful and precise adjectives. Using labels is always fraught with peril.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 16, 2014 13:18:36 GMT -5
Incidentally, aside from the cultural wars over the term "cult", have you noticed the on-going arguments about the word "Christian". Evangelicals do not like Mormons calling themselves "Christian". Or Jehovah's Witness. This is the flip side of essentially the same argument. Those in power wish to reserve the word "Christian" only for their own beliefs, in addition to designating which groups are a "cult". Fortunately, establishment theologians are losing their grip on the dictionary along with their loss of power within modern society.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 16, 2014 15:13:33 GMT -5
Years ago when I was doing a paper on Jim Jones and his followers for a Psych class, the only real definition of a cult was a religion that was under 100 years old. At that point the Mormon church and the 2x2's as well as quite a few others would have matched this definition. There didn't seem to be a distinction between whether they were dangerous or not. Clearly some are more dangerous than others. Even the objective-sounding definition which you cite is intended to marginalize some groups and is culturally conditioned. Here is why. A group that has differentiated itself, in recent years, on what centrists consider core beliefs would be a "cult" by this definition. But a group that has differentiated itself only on non-core beliefs would just be considered a new denomination, and therefore, not a "cult". Those who have power, the church hierarchy and their theological constabulary, who decide which beliefs are core to them, thus distance themselves from those most unfavourable to their own self-serving and self-perpetuating system. And of course, it does no good to use a definition that is completely at odds with the lay view. In fact, it's irresponsible. I know this is off-track from your reference point in Psychology, but establishment theologians categorize those with whom they disagree with a word associated with thieves and murderers in the public view. How convenient! As for the psychologists you mention, you'd think they would use a little more care, but probably many of them were Christians too, so they'd not see the issue. Especially if this was in the years before Foucault. The responsible approach in sociology, in my view, is to move away from the term completely. If the group is dangerous, call them "dangerous". Words like illegal, destructive, oppressive may also be useful; there's no shortage of useful and precise adjectives. Using labels is always fraught with peril. I don't think psychology per se had that definition. It was by doing research for a psych paper that I came across that definition of a cult. Since I had to write on Jim Jones and his followers, I had to research information about fringe groups, the psychological implications etc. It was just that when I found the definition of a cult, that definition merely stated it was any religion under 100 years old. Since then the criteria has changed considerably. I agree that the word should be either not used at all, or at least with very great caution. I agree with you, if a group is dangerous, call them 'dangerous'. That said, I thought the use in Irvine Grey's book on the 2x2's to be a very irresponsible labeling of a group that I don't believe deserves such a label.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jun 16, 2014 20:45:11 GMT -5
The word "cult" always has a negative connotation to it except to those who are experts in the concept. To the public, a cult is a harmful group of which to be a member. Dialogue Ireland looks at it that way, and frankly, I think it is a realistic way to look at it. It is quite different to the way Irvine Grey examines it, who sees it like msmary posted regarding "Christian cult" which is simply a group which has sufficient enough doctrinal differences from some mainstream standard. In Grey's case, he uses his understanding of Evangelicalism as the baseline to his cult definition, although he never does explain how 2x2's are "particularly dangerous" Evangelical cult, and I expect that to remain a mystery for some time. If we focus on harm from the group as the basic requirement for a cult, then how does 2x2ism fit into that? CD, harm goes far deeper than what shows on the surface of the 2x2 group. I'd suggest you might have a difficult time understanding this since you likely have not exited the group. From your posts I'd say you're satisfied in the comfort zone provided by the group. agreed Is is possible that those still inside the group by choice do NOT see the harm that has actually been unknowingly inflicted on them. They have been convinced as a result of shallow outward changes of group members including clothing choices that there is no cultish harm that has brainwashed them to some degree. I would agree that some are more susceptible than others but I believe anyone who remains in the group has been brainwashed to some degree. Is it possible that current members are in an absolute state of denial that they have actually been manipulated by the power of the system? OH?? Is this so?? You must be talking about a different 2x2 system. The system I left just 4 years ago is loaded with judgment of others who are out of sync with the "expectations" of the group. I've heard entirely TOO much small talk (I listen to conversations) and had very pointed comments from workers made to me to know that what you suggest is not true. Doesn't this somewhat contradict your claim that there is no harm from the system?? The group is VERY exclusive and I think you know this. There may be a handful, and I'd say a small percentage, who genuinely believe that others outside of the group are just as much inside the will of "God" as they are. The typical belief, though often unvoiced, is that others who are genuinely interested in abiding inside the true fellowship of Christ will find their way to the 2x2 system and this concept has been hammered into their minds since the group was started. I'd say the vast majority of friends and workers would be terribly uncomfortable with regular fellowship in another so-called "organized" church. Define "unjustified". Perhaps in some respects. They likely wouldn't say anything to the individual. Instead there is a lot of talk of "concern" among members about those who lack understanding. I've heard more that I care to of this type of talk. It's disgusting and YES - this talk is still alive and well in the system. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically CD, but I see a lot of denial of members who are doing their level best to climb out of the mire of the system and think they'll "fix" things. Far too many exes had the same point of view that you had but eventually came to the conclusion that you can't put new wine in old bottles.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 16, 2014 20:59:06 GMT -5
I'd say the vast majority of friends and workers would be terribly uncomfortable with regular fellowship in another so-called "organized" church. Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom."
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jun 16, 2014 21:21:53 GMT -5
I'd say the vast majority of friends and workers would be terribly uncomfortable with regular fellowship in another so-called "organized" church. Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom." fixit, I am not making any claims that other "organized churches" are not exclusive. But many in the 2x2 system who claim to be non-exclusive seem to deny the fact that most in the 2x2 system HAVE been manipulated into believing in a certain way of fellowship or "truth". Theological freedom? How do you describe theological freedom? Certainly not from workers standpoint. And based on the structure of the system the workers are deemed to have far more understanding of scripture than the members. At least I believe many in the fellowship regard them more highly than they should. I was in the system (by choice) for 35 years, still have an entire family "in" and am regularly in the company or workers through my family on a fairly regular basis. I do have a pretty good idea of what is currently happening in the fellowship and hear plenty of the same conversation I've heard for almost 40 years! As far as Trinitarian theology goes, I think it's presumptuous to claim to have any absolute knowledge about this concept. To some degree it appears that this concept is a "fad" whether it's right or wrong. There are many who intimidate others who do not believe in the Trinitarian theory and imply that they are void of scriptural understanding. Same behavior that has been predominant in the 2x2 and other religions for ages. And I think this so called "understanding" is a result of the influence of someone who is persuasive enough to present enough scripture to prove their point of view. This is my perspective on things. Maybe things are different in Canada but certainly not in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 16, 2014 22:07:22 GMT -5
Can you suggest an "organized" church that would accept folks who reject trinitarian and Jesus=God theology, along with once-saved-always-saved predestination theory? I agree with CD's statement about the 2x2 church: "You actually have a remarkable amount of theological freedom." fixit, I am not making any claims that other "organized churches" are not exclusive. But many in the 2x2 system who claim to be non-exclusive seem to deny the fact that most in the 2x2 system HAVE been manipulated into believing in a certain way of fellowship or "truth". Theological freedom? How do you describe theological freedom? Certainly not from workers standpoint. And based on the structure of the system the workers are deemed to have far more understanding of scripture than the members. At least I believe many in the fellowship regard them more highly than they should. I was in the system (by choice) for 35 years, still have an entire family "in" and am regularly in the company or workers through my family on a fairly regular basis. I do have a pretty good idea of what is currently happening in the fellowship and hear plenty of the same conversation I've heard for almost 40 years! As far as Trinitarian theology goes, I think it's presumptuous to claim to have any absolute knowledge about this concept. To some degree it appears that this concept is a "fad" whether it's right or wrong. There are many who intimidate others who do not believe in the Trinitarian theory and imply that they are void of scriptural understanding. Same behavior that has been predominant in the 2x2 and other religions for ages. And I think this so called "understanding" is a result of the influence of someone who is persuasive enough to present enough scripture to prove their point of view. This is my perspective on things. Maybe things are different in Canada but certainly not in the U.S. I agree that there are variations between regions. I also agree with your perspective on religious theory. The theory that many Christian groups make an issue of runs counter to the simplicity that is in Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 23:59:41 GMT -5
First of all FT, let me say that your response is intelligent and thoughtful, and I highly respect it, and its integrity. So my replies are not meant to degrade the quality of your very good observations and questions. The word "cult" always has a negative connotation to it except to those who are experts in the concept. To the public, a cult is a harmful group of which to be a member. Dialogue Ireland looks at it that way, and frankly, I think it is a realistic way to look at it. It is quite different to the way Irvine Grey examines it, who sees it like msmary posted regarding "Christian cult" which is simply a group which has sufficient enough doctrinal differences from some mainstream standard. In Grey's case, he uses his understanding of Evangelicalism as the baseline to his cult definition, although he never does explain how 2x2's are "particularly dangerous" Evangelical cult, and I expect that to remain a mystery for some time. If we focus on harm from the group as the basic requirement for a cult, then how does 2x2ism fit into that? CD, harm goes far deeper than what shows on the surface of the 2x2 group. I'd suggest you might have a difficult time understanding this since you likely have not exited the group. From your posts I'd say you're satisfied in the comfort zone provided by the group. Short answer: the group provides me no comfort zone. I am an independent sort of person, and the group has little comfort for me. I lead an independent life. I take no nonsense from the group. In fact, they know that and offer me little, if no, nonsense. That is the only way to be part of any group. Take no cr_p from anyone.....politely of course. Good. That is a very interesting viewpoint. However, what I am trying to say is that no one is trying to harm anyone. That is what I mean about "systematic" harm. At the very worst, the situation is that victims are perpetuating their victimhood. That may be true, but the leaders really do believe that whatever they are telling their followers, that it for the best for the followers. Harm is not systematically applied, nor intended. At worst, it's a bunch of buffoons selling a line of goods to a bunch of suckers.....but I don't think it is that bad. Yes, there are buffoons and there are suckers, but that is not systematic. The more important question would be whether or not the leaders are victims of their own delusions, and the members just do along with it? Oh yes emphatically so. There are no "Statements of Faith". That's actually a pretty cool thing. If you have a theological view, there is no one in the system that can refute your view because there is not common statement. That's amazing really. As a member, you have complete control over your theology! I have a universalist viewpoint and nobody touches it.....I really like that! If I were a Baptist, Presbyterian or a Pentecostal, I would be expected to sign on to a very detailed and specific theology......which I could not and retain my integrity. In this regard, 2x2ism is awesome! I could not be a member of most Christian organizations because of what they would force me to affirm. Ahh, you have not yet discovered the primary use of your middle finger! Whoa. Every Christian thinks that every non-Christian is unsaved. Is this not true? If so, this is new to me! "No one can come to the Father except through me." This is Christian exclusivity at its worst, believing that your group and ideas are the only way. It is just as deluded as anything the 2x2s have dreamed up. "unreasonable" (at the risk of oversimplification) Nothing personal at all. I highly respect your response. It is measured and fair. The truth is: I don't worry about "the talk". I'm not disgusted about it. It's what people do, given they are people. People get upset, people judge, people worry, people talk, people gossip, people do all sorts of things. I happen to love people regardless. There're just people. Yet at the same time, I know some awesome professing people. People who don't judge, People who love everyone no matter who or where they are. People who are in trouble, people who have left the meetings. Those sort of people do exist in the meetings. I know them. I personally know who they are. They are not cult people.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 17, 2014 4:42:40 GMT -5
If I were a Baptist, Presbyterian or a Pentecostal, I would be expected to sign on to a very detailed and specific theology......which I could not and retain my integrity. In this regard, 2x2ism is awesome! I could not be a member of most Christian organizations because of what they would force me to affirm. Exactly how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 17, 2014 5:07:33 GMT -5
If I were a Baptist, Presbyterian or a Pentecostal, I would be expected to sign on to a very detailed and specific theology......which I could not and retain my integrity. In this regard, 2x2ism is awesome! I could not be a member of most Christian organizations because of what they would force me to affirm. Exactly how I feel. There might be freedom of beliefs up to a point. This could depend on how your beliefs differ, what you make known of them in and out of the meetings, and how you are viewed by the powers-that-be firstly and the friends in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 6:46:21 GMT -5
There might be freedom of beliefs up to a point. This could depend on how your beliefs differ, what you make known of them in and out of the meetings, and how you are viewed by the powers-that-be firstly and the friends in general. Every group has their tolerance limitations. In that sense every group is "cultist" but it's not dangerous. I think that if a member of any organization feels too far away from what the organization stands for, they should simply leave rather than hang around feeling ostracised.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 17, 2014 11:40:13 GMT -5
There might be freedom of beliefs up to a point. This could depend on how your beliefs differ, what you make known of them in and out of the meetings, and how you are viewed by the powers-that-be firstly and the friends in general. Every group has their tolerance limitations. In that sense every group is "cultist" but it's not dangerous. I think that if a member of any organization feels too far away from what the organization stands for, they should simply leave rather than hang around feeling ostracised. Exactly CD. I'm sure if I was in any of the 'worldly churches' and I happened to mention that everything that Jesus said had already been said by The Buddha, I would not be looked upon favorably.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2014 15:20:53 GMT -5
If I were a Baptist, Presbyterian or a Pentecostal, I would be expected to sign on to a very detailed and specific theology......which I could not and retain my integrity. In this regard, 2x2ism is awesome! I could not be a member of most Christian organizations because of what they would force me to affirm. Exactly how I feel. I disagree with this statement regarding mainstream churches but see that it applies to the 2x2s. I have been in a number of mainstream churches. You do not need to sign to any specific theology. You do not have to sign to anything but to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour. Any one can accept the Lord. You do not have to believe in the Trinity to get baptized even. You certainly do not have to become a member if you want to be baptized unlike in meetings, where membership is based on professing in their meetings. In mainstream churches faith is based on faith in Jesus alone. It is the workers however who require you to believe they are the true way, to renounce your previous church beliefs, and assign yourself to them and their beliefs. The workers scrutinies people. In main steam churches you can become a member if you want but many do not bother. I have no idea who in our church believe in the Trinity and who do not. I have never been asked when going into membership in a Baptist Church if I believe in the Trinity. My guess is some of those who are saying these things about mainstream churches have never had much to do with them especially regarding 'professing' or getting baptized in one. I believe ones integrity is compromised by joining the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jun 17, 2014 15:57:41 GMT -5
It will be one year tomorrow (18th) since I held the first of a series of book launches in Ireland. Since then more than 1100 of Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement have been bought with most them going outside Ireland to the USA, Canada, NZ and Australia.
It is almost a year ago since Mike attended the book launch in Dublin and he recently made me aware that he did not agree with my conclusion before he published this online. He is entitled to his viewpoint, and it is only that, but I stand by the conclusion so on that we are happy to differ.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 17, 2014 16:05:59 GMT -5
1. The 2x2 church has not been able to go on there for nearly 30 years.
2. There are 58 religions that took the name of Jesus in that part alone.
Does that mean that 58 Christian groups were operating where the 2x2 group was unable to operate?
Am I interpreting this correctly?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 17, 2014 16:07:44 GMT -5
I disagree with this statement regarding mainstream churches but see that it applies to the 2x2s. I have been in a number of mainstream churches. You do not need to sign to any specific theology. You do not have to sign to anything but to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour. Any one can accept the Lord. You do not have to believe in the Trinity to get baptized even. You certainly do not have to become a member if you want to be baptized unlike in meetings, where membership is based on professing in their meetings. In mainstream churches faith is based on faith in Jesus alone. It is the workers however who require you to believe they are the true way, to renounce your previous church beliefs, and assign yourself to them and their beliefs. The workers scrutinies people. In main steam churches you can become a member if you want but many do not bother. I have no idea who in our church believe in the Trinity and who do not. I have never been asked when going into membership in a Baptist Church if I believe in the Trinity. My guess is some of those who are saying these things about mainstream churches have never had much to do with them especially regarding 'professing' or getting baptized in one. I believe ones integrity is compromised by joining the 2x2s. This hasn't been my experience, although I think it's a little more relaxed in other denominations. Shortly after we left the friends, I attended a local community church, and I'm still friends with folks there although I don't attend. After the service we'd break up into study groups for discussion. At one of them I mentioned that I don't believe in eternal Hell. This came back to me in a round-about way that I had thrown a few people for a loop, not that I cared. We now attend a worship/ study group with a number of couples who are active in other congregations. Most of them comment that they like our group because we can discuss fairly openly, again, as most of us, but not all, are not Bible literalists. Throw out a few ideas that are against the grain in your church and see what reaction you get. But somehow I don't see you doing that, which is why I discount your experience as far as your church's tolerance for dissent.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 17, 2014 16:09:53 GMT -5
I have been in a number of mainstream churches. You do not need to sign to any specific theology. You do not have to sign to anything but to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour. Any one can accept the Lord. You do not have to believe in the Trinity to get baptized even. You certainly do not have to become a member if you want to be baptized unlike in meetings, where membership is based on professing in their meetings. In mainstream churches faith is based on faith in Jesus alone. It is the workers however who require you to believe they are the true way, to renounce your previous church beliefs, and assign yourself to them and their beliefs. The workers scrutinies people. In main steam churches you can become a member if you want but many do not bother. I have no idea who in our church believe in the Trinity and who do not. I have never been asked when going into membership in a Baptist Church if I believe in the Trinity. My guess is some of those who are saying these things about mainstream churches have never had much to do with them especially regarding 'professing' or getting baptized in one. I believe ones integrity is compromised by joining the 2x2s. Does your church have a statement of faith?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 17, 2014 18:51:23 GMT -5
Incidentally, aside from the cultural wars over the term "cult", have you noticed the on-going arguments about the word "Christian". Evangelicals do not like Mormons calling themselves "Christian". Or Jehovah's Witness. This is the flip side of essentially the same argument. Those in power wish to reserve the word "Christian" only for their own beliefs, in addition to designating which groups are a "cult". Fortunately, establishment theologians are losing their grip on the dictionary along with their loss of power within modern society. I agree with you except that I would not have used the word "fortunately".
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 17, 2014 19:06:48 GMT -5
I disagree with this statement regarding mainstream churches but see that it applies to the 2x2s. I have been in a number of mainstream churches. You do not need to sign to any specific theology. You do not have to sign to anything but to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour. Any one can accept the Lord. You do not have to believe in the Trinity to get baptized even. You certainly do not have to become a member if you want to be baptized unlike in meetings, where membership is based on professing in their meetings. In mainstream churches faith is based on faith in Jesus alone. It is the workers however who require you to believe they are the true way, to renounce your previous church beliefs, and assign yourself to them and their beliefs. The workers scrutinies people. In main steam churches you can become a member if you want but many do not bother. I have no idea who in our church believe in the Trinity and who do not. I have never been asked when going into membership in a Baptist Church if I believe in the Trinity. My guess is some of those who are saying these things about mainstream churches have never had much to do with them especially regarding 'professing' or getting baptized in one. I believe ones integrity is compromised by joining the 2x2s. This hasn't been my experience, although I think it's a little more relaxed in other denominations. Shortly after we left the friends, I attended a local community church, and I'm still friends with folks there although I don't attend. After the service we'd break up into study groups for discussion. At one of them I mentioned that I don't believe in eternal Hell. This came back to me in a round-about way that I had thrown a few people for a loop, not that I cared. We now attend a worship/ study group with a number of couples who are active in other congregations. Most of them comment that they like our group because we can discuss fairly openly, again, as most of us, but not all, are not Bible literalists. Throw out a few ideas that are against the grain in your church and see what reaction you get. But somehow I don't see you doing that, which is why I discount your experience as far as your church's tolerance for dissent.
yes I have tried it and done it. You are making assumptions about me which you know nothing about. Most pastors welcome the views of members. Any church who does not welcome this comes under the criteria of cultism in my view. The 2x2s are the only place I have been where people who have a different view are helped out the door. I don't go to other churches that come under this category. I go to main stream churches. We encourage different opinions in our church and other churches I have been in. Every home group I have been to, different opinions are respected and valued and I have been to many Baptist and Pentecostal churches. We have discussion nights once a month at our church where we discuss different views. We acknowledge that there are many views on the Bible. We had a few discussion nights on creation - was the world made in 7 days, 7 year, 7,000 years or 7 periods of time etc. We all had different views and every one respected and added to the discussion. We acknowledge there is not one fixed answer on many things in the Bible. We are now discussing politics with the elections coming up this year. We will all give our views and no one will be told theirs is right an the others are wrong. We just put it all out there for discussion. We spent a number of session on end times last year, some believed in mid trib, some post trib, some pre or post millennium and some had views I had never heard of. These are all members of our church which is a well known respected mainstream church. I've had this kind of thing in the 30 years I have been attending Churches. Nothing is stifled like in the 2x2s. If people don't like how a church is run they can easily go to another. People of any view are welcome but there are some things such as the life and death of Christ that we will not budge on. After all they are basic things that make up a Christian. Yes we have a statement of faith. I wouldn't go to a church who is not up front about their beliefs. A statement of Faith is just basic Christian principles only a few things compared to the millions of discussion points in the Bible.
|
|