Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 12:16:07 GMT -5
Back to the original post, the "heart of the matter of what is wrong with 2x2ism". My observations have led me to conclude that the many behavioral traits exhibited by the 2x2 masses (manner of dress, friendship limited except to other 2x2'ers, power of administration given to the ministry, etc) all have roots in the commonly held belief of exclusivity. The idea of exclusivity puts 2x2'ers on an island with each other in a sea of people and drives behavioral traits that have previously defined someone as belonging to 2x2. You raise an interesting point regarding a link between exclusivity and the behavior /org structure. I don't think that it's the case that a group of people with exclusivist views necessarily results in the particular behavior and org structure. Instead I believe that the org structure came first, then the exclusivity theme was emphasized in order to maintain the org structure. Think of it like this: Why do 2x2s accept the despotic org structure of their system? Why do they not demand there be 'rule of law' or formal redress processes or an elected board of governors? The answer is widely mentioned by 2x2s - the workers/overseers are 100% driven by God, so whatever they do it is the right thing to do, therefore no need for checks and balances. In otherwords, 2x2s accept a despotic org structure because they believe the despots are 100% benevolent - no chance for nefarious behavior by any people of authority. How do 2x2s come to such a ridiculous belief about a 100% benevolent leadership? Here is where I think your point about exclusivity comes in - only 2x2s have the Holy Spirit in them (all others are false churches), and it's obvious by the behavior of 2x2s (the fruits of the Spirit - clothing, pairwise ministry, home church, etc). Notice that evidence of the Holy Spirit is all external frankly irrelevant things - but things nonetheless which are exclusivist items. To run the story another way, imagine if Amish folks said they were happy with a despotic org structure because their leaders are 100% benevolent because they have the Holy Spirit in them, and they know this because the leaders never use electricity. Exclusivist behavior as a reason for maintaining a despotic org structure. This is not a fellowship. This is a cult. It has an extremely bad org structure - that's what makes it a cult. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 12:28:42 GMT -5
The Biblical books were long accepted prior to any conferences held regarding them and certainly long before the Roman Catholic Church began persecuting other groups. There were a few other books that were highly regarded by some but they were of a later dater and were not widely accepted as part of the Bible. None of them were the subject of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church as far as I'm aware. Many texts were in use at the time. A number of them were rejected. Here is one group's take on the situation. "One group's take" is an accurate description. The author(s) of that article are worse than what they attribute to Constantine and Eusebius when it comes to taking pieces and putting them together to tell the story they want to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 9, 2016 12:43:40 GMT -5
Back to the original post, the "heart of the matter of what is wrong with 2x2ism". My observations have led me to conclude that the many behavioral traits exhibited by the 2x2 masses (manner of dress, friendship limited except to other 2x2'ers, power of administration given to the ministry, etc) all have roots in the commonly held belief of exclusivity. The idea of exclusivity puts 2x2'ers on an island with each other in a sea of people and drives behavioral traits that have previously defined someone as belonging to 2x2. You raise an interesting point regarding a link between exclusivity and the behavior /org structure. I don't think that it's the case that a group of people with exclusivist views necessarily results in the particular behavior and org structure. Instead I believe that the org structure came first, then the exclusivity theme was emphasized in order to maintain the org structure. Think of it like this: Why do 2x2s accept the despotic org structure of their system? Why do they not demand there be 'rule of law' or formal redress processes or an elected board of governors? The answer is widely mentioned by 2x2s - the workers/overseers are 100% driven by God, so whatever they do it is the right thing to do, therefore no need for checks and balances. In otherwords, 2x2s accept a despotic org structure because they believe the despots are 100% benevolent - no chance for nefarious behavior by any people of authority. How do 2x2s come to such a ridiculous belief about a 100% benevolent leadership? Here is where I think your point about exclusivity comes in - only 2x2s have the Holy Spirit in them (all others are false churches), and it's obvious by the behavior of 2x2s (the fruits of the Spirit - clothing, pairwise ministry, home church, etc). Notice that evidence of the Holy Spirit is all external frankly irrelevant things - but things nonetheless which are exclusivist items. To run the story another way, imagine if Amish folks said they were happy with a despotic org structure because their leaders are 100% benevolent because they have the Holy Spirit in them, and they know this because the leaders never use electricity. Exclusivist behavior as a reason for maintaining a despotic org structure. This is not a fellowship. This is a cult. It has an extremely bad org structure - that's what makes it a cult. Making the connection between 2x2 behaviors/traits and their exclusive belief systems really helped me to understand why people act the way that they do in 2x2. For example, "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." And then, maybe over time it becomes, "I now want to wear a dress, because I feel comfortable in it now and it is right for me". At this second stage, wearing a dress has become part of the woman's comfort zone, their cultural identity, and has become kind of difficult to specifically separate from the dictates of the 'saved fellowship'. But you see, it all started with the idea of exclusivity and instruction from the fellowship that WE have the Holy Spirit and this matter of dress is an indicator of having the Holy Spirit. taken from christianitytoday.com: Q. What is a cult? And how does someone know if the faith they are following is harmful? A. The word cult has three definitions. First of all, it can simply be a group that loves something. When people refer to an "Elvis cult" or "The O.C. cult," they mean really devoted fans. The second definition is that of a religion whose beliefs differ from the majority around them. In the Roman Empire, Christians were sometimes considered a cult because they worshiped Jesus rather than the Roman gods. The third, and most commonly used definition, refers to a religious group that is:
1) Exclusive. They may say, "We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."
2) Secretive. Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.
3) Authoritarian. A human leader expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience.
For the most part, this third definition of cult is being used less and less today. Experts who watch for dangerous or harmful religious groups now use the term new religious movements. The word cult can hurt people because it carries so much negative meaning. My sister was accused of being in a cult just because she preferred hanging out with Christian friends rather than going out drinking with other friends. She might have been in with a group of people that was unlike the norm (because they devotedly followed Christ), but she certainly wasn't following a harmful faith. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 12:55:06 GMT -5
Back to the original post, the "heart of the matter of what is wrong with 2x2ism". My observations have led me to conclude that the many behavioral traits exhibited by the 2x2 masses (manner of dress, friendship limited except to other 2x2'ers, power of administration given to the ministry, etc) all have roots in the commonly held belief of exclusivity. The idea of exclusivity puts 2x2'ers on an island with each other in a sea of people and drives behavioral traits that have previously defined someone as belonging to 2x2. You raise an interesting point regarding a link between exclusivity and the behavior /org structure. I don't think that it's the case that a group of people with exclusivist views necessarily results in the particular behavior and org structure. Instead I believe that the org structure came first, then the exclusivity theme was emphasized in order to maintain the org structure. Think of it like this: Why do 2x2s accept the despotic org structure of their system? Why do they not demand there be 'rule of law' or formal redress processes or an elected board of governors? The answer is widely mentioned by 2x2s - the workers/overseers are 100% driven by God, so whatever they do it is the right thing to do, therefore no need for checks and balances. In otherwords, 2x2s accept a despotic org structure because they believe the despots are 100% benevolent - no chance for nefarious behavior by any people of authority. How do 2x2s come to such a ridiculous belief about a 100% benevolent leadership? Your argument is essentially that the group is a despotic cult because they do not have a formal process devised by men for the self-regulation of the system. Yet history and common sense both tell us that formal systems devised by men do not prevent despotism and they often entrench it and give it a feeling of legitimacy in the eyes of many. Not murdering, not stealing, not lying, not coveting, etc. - these things are all external things involving behavior. Would you say that makes them irrelevant? I do not say that "only 2x2s have the Holy Spirit in them (all others are false churches), and it's obvious by the behavior of 2x2s (the fruits of the Spirit - clothing, pairwise ministry, home church, etc)". Who does? That may be your impression from your experience but your impression does not make the group a cult or prove that all members of the group believe as you said. You can imagine, but that doesn't make it so. Can you cite evidence for that line of reasoning being a widespread Amish teaching? I'd be surprised if you even found a single instance of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 12:59:21 GMT -5
You raise an interesting point regarding a link between exclusivity and the behavior /org structure. I don't think that it's the case that a group of people with exclusivist views necessarily results in the particular behavior and org structure. Instead I believe that the org structure came first, then the exclusivity theme was emphasized in order to maintain the org structure. Think of it like this: Why do 2x2s accept the despotic org structure of their system? Why do they not demand there be 'rule of law' or formal redress processes or an elected board of governors? The answer is widely mentioned by 2x2s - the workers/overseers are 100% driven by God, so whatever they do it is the right thing to do, therefore no need for checks and balances. In otherwords, 2x2s accept a despotic org structure because they believe the despots are 100% benevolent - no chance for nefarious behavior by any people of authority. How do 2x2s come to such a ridiculous belief about a 100% benevolent leadership? Here is where I think your point about exclusivity comes in - only 2x2s have the Holy Spirit in them (all others are false churches), and it's obvious by the behavior of 2x2s (the fruits of the Spirit - clothing, pairwise ministry, home church, etc). Notice that evidence of the Holy Spirit is all external frankly irrelevant things - but things nonetheless which are exclusivist items. To run the story another way, imagine if Amish folks said they were happy with a despotic org structure because their leaders are 100% benevolent because they have the Holy Spirit in them, and they know this because the leaders never use electricity. Exclusivist behavior as a reason for maintaining a despotic org structure. This is not a fellowship. This is a cult. It has an extremely bad org structure - that's what makes it a cult. Making the connection between 2x2 behaviors/traits and their exclusive belief systems really helped me to understand why people act the way that they do in 2x2. For example, "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." And then, maybe over time it becomes, "I now want to wear a dress, because I feel comfortable in it now and it is right for me". At this second stage, wearing a dress has become part of the woman's comfort zone, their cultural identity, and has become kind of difficult to specifically separate from the dictates of the 'saved fellowship'. But you see, it all started with the idea of exclusivity and instruction from the fellowship that WE have the Holy Spirit and this matter of dress is an indicator of having the Holy Spirit. 1) Exclusive. They may say, "We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."
2) Secretive. Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.
3) Authoritarian. A human leader expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience.
For the most part, this third definition of cult is being used less and less today. Experts who watch for dangerous or harmful religious groups now use the term new religious movements. The word cult can hurt people because it carries so much negative meaning. My sister was accused of being in a cult just because she preferred hanging out with Christian friends rather than going out drinking with other friends. She might have been in with a group of people that was unlike the norm (because they devotedly followed Christ), but she certainly wasn't following a harmful faith. I think that you and I agree ( i hope we do) that 2x2 is a very unhealthy enterprise. We might disagree on the use of the word cult. I prefer to use the word cult since the other descriptions do not have as much emotional force as I would like: - spiritually abusive group - despotically organization group structure. Cult is short, easy to digest, and gets the point across that 2x2ism is not healthy. About your argument that it starts with exclusivity, I continue to differ. The reason for the confidence a 2x2 has that they are the only ones with the Holy Spirit is that they are discouraged from ecumenical relations with others - this is the 'group think' I mentioned as part of the org structure problem in my first post. If they had ecumenical relations, the confidence in their monopoly of the Holy Spirit would be shattered instantly. My point is that without the particular org structure, 2x2ism can never ever get the exclusivity arguments up and running. They need to cut off potential sources of counter-argument (restrict relations with outsiders) before they even launch their exclusivity claims. It's the org structure which allows them to cut off the potential sources of counter argument. If the org structure had an open forum for dissent and discussion among laity and clergy, the exclusivity claims would be cleaned out very fast by the rays of sunshine. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 13:05:44 GMT -5
Making the connection between 2x2 behaviors/traits and their exclusive belief systems really helped me to understand why people act the way that they do in 2x2. For example, "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." And then, maybe over time it becomes, "I now want to wear a dress, because I feel comfortable in it now and it is right for me". At this second stage, wearing a dress has become part of the woman's comfort zone, their cultural identity, and has become kind of difficult to specifically separate from the dictates of the 'saved fellowship'. But you see, it all started with the idea of exclusivity and instruction from the fellowship that WE have the Holy Spirit and this matter of dress is an indicator of having the Holy Spirit. "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." does not mean "I believe the Holy Spirit only works in women who wear dresses" or "I believe only women who wear dresses are saved". |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 9, 2016 13:16:29 GMT -5
Making the connection between 2x2 behaviors/traits and their exclusive belief systems really helped me to understand why people act the way that they do in 2x2. For example, "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." And then, maybe over time it becomes, "I now want to wear a dress, because I feel comfortable in it now and it is right for me". At this second stage, wearing a dress has become part of the woman's comfort zone, their cultural identity, and has become kind of difficult to specifically separate from the dictates of the 'saved fellowship'. But you see, it all started with the idea of exclusivity and instruction from the fellowship that WE have the Holy Spirit and this matter of dress is an indicator of having the Holy Spirit. "I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." does not mean "I believe the Holy Spirit only works in women who wear dresses" or "I believe only women who wear dresses are saved". anytoll, are you in 2x2 now? I am associated with it, and was raised in it. I'm a man, by the way, so I'm speaking somewhat fictitiously in the first person. But I have heard workers say what I wrote and women re-state what i wrote many times. Almost verbatim. It's the line given by 2x2 powers that be (and some genuinely believe it) to herd or assemble a people together and appears as a proof that we are unique and separate from the world. However you are correct, I have never heard those statements made that you wrote. But those two lines don't need to be SAID to be COMMUNICATED. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 13:17:37 GMT -5
You raise an interesting point regarding a link between exclusivity and the behavior /org structure. I don't think that it's the case that a group of people with exclusivist views necessarily results in the particular behavior and org structure. Instead I believe that the org structure came first, then the exclusivity theme was emphasized in order to maintain the org structure. Think of it like this: Why do 2x2s accept the despotic org structure of their system? Why do they not demand there be 'rule of law' or formal redress processes or an elected board of governors? The answer is widely mentioned by 2x2s - the workers/overseers are 100% driven by God, so whatever they do it is the right thing to do, therefore no need for checks and balances. In otherwords, 2x2s accept a despotic org structure because they believe the despots are 100% benevolent - no chance for nefarious behavior by any people of authority. How do 2x2s come to such a ridiculous belief about a 100% benevolent leadership? Your argument is essentially that the group is a despotic cult because they do not have a formal process devised by men for the self-regulation of the system. Yet history and common sense both tell us that formal systems devised by men do not prevent despotism and they often entrench it and give it a feeling of legitimacy in the eyes of many. Incredible! Have you actually read what you wrote? Do you realize that you are arguing in a circle? Here is your argument: 1) Men design organizational systems 2) Men are fallible Therefore all organizational systems designed by men produce bad results. Here is the other side of your argument 1) Men are fallible 2) Men design organizational systems Therefore the best system is one not designed by men. These are both unsound arguments. You'd be laughed out of a logic class for handing these in. The whole reason there is so much work done (it's a formal body of study in universities which offer business programs) on organizational structures is we all know humans are fallible, but we try to build the org structure so that there are enough checks and balances in the system to catch the mistakes of the human decisions and actions. The most famous of this is of course how the US governing structure is set up with a balance of power between 2 legislative branches, 1 executive branch, and 1 judicial branch. Your problem with this is that you don't accept that the 2x2 org structure was set up by men. You actually think that God set it up - which God most certainly did not. Or you might believe that the org structure is irrelevant since 2x2s are 100% driven by the Holy Spirit and so make no mistakes. Both of these claims (and you most certain hold at least one of them) are incredibly arrogant and naive. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 13:49:28 GMT -5
"I wear a dress because its an indicator of the Holy Spirit's work of modesty in a woman's life to wear a dress." does not mean "I believe the Holy Spirit only works in women who wear dresses" or "I believe only women who wear dresses are saved". anytoll, are you in 2x2 now? I am associated with it, and was raised in it. I'm a man, by the way, so I'm speaking somewhat fictitiously in the first person. But I have heard workers say what I wrote and women re-state what i wrote many times. Almost verbatim. It's the line given by 2x2 powers that be (and some genuinely believe it) to herd or assemble a people together and appears as a proof that we are unique and separate from the world. However you are correct, I have never heard those statements made that you wrote. But those two lines don't need to be SAID to be COMMUNICATED. I wouldn't call it "2x2", but I attend this form of meeting, yes. But you didn't directly address my comment. Believing and saying those things does not directly imply that noone else is a true Christian. You can believe that as a Christian you should dress a certain way and that the Holy Spirit influences how you dress without believing that noone who does differently has the Holy Spirit. You can even believe that those who believe or practice differently than you do are WRONG without believing that none of them can be Christians unless they come to your position, even if you believe your position is firmly right and led by the Holy Spirit. Another example is that two brethren can disagree over the interpretation or proper application of a Bible verse without forsaking fellowship with one another. Not every disagreement is such that it can or should imply division and not every division necessarily implies a belief that the other people cannot have salvation without coming to your group or position. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 9, 2016 14:01:32 GMT -5
anytoll, are you in 2x2 now? I am associated with it, and was raised in it. I'm a man, by the way, so I'm speaking somewhat fictitiously in the first person. But I have heard workers say what I wrote and women re-state what i wrote many times. Almost verbatim. It's the line given by 2x2 powers that be (and some genuinely believe it) to herd or assemble a people together and appears as a proof that we are unique and separate from the world. However you are correct, I have never heard those statements made that you wrote. But those two lines don't need to be SAID to be COMMUNICATED. I wouldn't call it "2x2", but I attend this form of meeting, yes. But you didn't directly address my comment. Believing and saying those things does not directly imply that noone else is a true Christian. You can believe that as a Christian you should dress a certain way and that the Holy Spirit influences how you dress without believing that noone who does differently has the Holy Spirit. You can even believe that those who believe or practice differently than you do are WRONG without believing that none of them can be Christians unless they come to your position, even if you believe your position is firmly right and led by the Holy Spirit. Another example is that two brethren can disagree over the interpretation or proper application of a Bible verse without forsaking fellowship with one another. Not every disagreement is such that it can or should imply division and not every division necessarily implies a belief that the other people cannot have salvation without coming to your group or position. I only call it 2x2 because in the context of this forum I don't know what else to call it, as evidenced by cult vs sect vs fellowship discussion in this very thread! I am among the people in the fellowship that believe (I can't believe I have to write this) that the Holy Spirit does work in women that don't wear dresses. I think that directly addresses your statements? However... people like me (and maybe you?) are in a very small minority in believing this to be true. And it remains a fact, whether you or I agree with it, that many many women are counselled or allowed to believe that the Holy Spirit would not lead one woman to wear a skirt and another UP THE STREET to wear pants and a necklace. (Note "UP THE STREET", meaning in the same culture, day and age, etc) So yes, this essentially means that WE have the spirit but THEY do not. Again, speaking in the first person to make a point, not saying that I agree with the statement. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 14:04:37 GMT -5
learning,
So, what if others outside the group can be saved, and what if many are? We cannot say that ALL who claim to be Christian are truly his disciples and be consistent with either his teachings or common sense. Neither should we set our own standards and claim that they determine salvation. Who is and who isn't? God sees the heart and God is the judge. He knows who belongs to him.
We don't have to change the way we dress, meet, or anything else to prove we don't hold an "exclusivist" position. You are still associated, perhaps in part because though you see problems, you also see much of worth that is not commonly found elsewhere?
We can and should maintain high standards and let them serve as both lights to the world and examples to other Christians who may be weaker than we are. This can be applied on the level of the group and individually. Individually, we can and should be examples to others within the same church group and outside it, and as a group we can and should be examples for other believers, and we should be willing to recognize when others' examples better represent the high standard that God calls us to. This of course goes far beyond the topic of dress-wearing but their is no area of our life that should be separate from our faith in God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 14:26:06 GMT -5
We can and should maintain high standards and let them serve as both lights to the world and examples to other Christians who may be weaker than we are. This can be applied on the level of the group and individually. Individually, we can and should be examples to others within the same church group and outside it, and as a group we can and should be examples for other believers, and we should be willing to recognize when others' examples better represent the high standard that God calls us to. This of course goes far beyond the topic of dress-wearing but their is no area of our life that should be separate from our faith in God. I can't believe you can honestly say that 2x2s have high standards of behavior. You lie about the origin of your church for starters - well, you either lie or you pridefully ignorant, either way it is not a high standard. You have a gross amount of child sexual assault among your membership. You have a gross about of child abuse among your members. You have an excessive amount of unhealthy social pressure for conformity and obedience to 'the letter of the 2x2 law' as opposed to the spirit. None of this is a high standard. And then there are the multiple ridiculous misinterpretations of the Gospels to suit your own warped needs ( Matt 10, Grace, Trinity), all of which are not even close to a high standard. This is flat out lying. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 9, 2016 14:46:54 GMT -5
learning, So, what if others outside the group can be saved, and what if many are? We cannot say that ALL who claim to be Christian are truly his disciples and be consistent with either his teachings or common sense. Neither should we set our own standards and claim that they determine salvation. Who is and who isn't? God sees the heart and God is the judge. He knows who belongs to him. We don't have to change the way we dress, meet, or anything else to prove we don't hold an "exclusivist" position. You are still associated, perhaps in part because though you see problems, you also see much of worth that is not commonly found elsewhere? We can and should maintain high standards and let them serve as both lights to the world and examples to other Christians who may be weaker than we are. This can be applied on the level of the group and individually. Individually, we can and should be examples to others within the same church group and outside it, and as a group we can and should be examples for other believers, and we should be willing to recognize when others' examples better represent the high standard that God calls us to. This of course goes far beyond the topic of dress-wearing but their is no area of our life that should be separate from our faith in God. I've considered all these things you write ... for many hours in past days. These forums make for difficult communicating on topics like this, there's much lost when there are just words on a screen. I totally agree with your first paragraph. The problem is that the sentiment in your first paragraph does not often jive with what is preached from the platform. How do you propose "we" communicate to the "world" that positions of exclusivity aren't held in our fellowship? It's difficult to communicate this when it is preached through inference, and ultimately "revelation", in nearly every meeting. I don't know what value there is elsewhere. I do find value in our fellowship meetings, enough to outweigh the negatives as I see them. But there are times when the negatives are all that I can see and that is discouraging. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 14:53:18 GMT -5
learning, So, what if others outside the group can be saved, and what if many are? We cannot say that ALL who claim to be Christian are truly his disciples and be consistent with either his teachings or common sense. Neither should we set our own standards and claim that they determine salvation. Who is and who isn't? God sees the heart and God is the judge. He knows who belongs to him. We don't have to change the way we dress, meet, or anything else to prove we don't hold an "exclusivist" position. You are still associated, perhaps in part because though you see problems, you also see much of worth that is not commonly found elsewhere? We can and should maintain high standards and let them serve as both lights to the world and examples to other Christians who may be weaker than we are. This can be applied on the level of the group and individually. Individually, we can and should be examples to others within the same church group and outside it, and as a group we can and should be examples for other believers, and we should be willing to recognize when others' examples better represent the high standard that God calls us to. This of course goes far beyond the topic of dress-wearing but their is no area of our life that should be separate from our faith in God. I've considered all these things you write ... for many hours in past days. These forums make for difficult communicating on topics like this, there's much lost when there are just words on a screen. I totally agree with your first paragraph. The problem is that the sentiment in your first paragraph does not often jive with what is preached from the platform. How do you propose "we" communicate to the "world" that positions of exclusivity aren't held in our fellowship? It's difficult to communicate this when it is preached through inference, and ultimately "revelation", in nearly every meeting. I don't know what value there is elsewhere. I do find value in our fellowship meetings, enough to outweigh the negatives as I see them. But there are times when the negatives are all that I can see and that is discouraging. Have you ever seriously researched another church? Like had long chats with the priests, enrolled in their adult education class, attended services regularly? You could really benefit from seeing just what exactly the 'otherside' is like. I can assure you that you will be very shocked - in a good way. And remember, all money and housing support you give to 2x2ism only perpetuates it. You cannot reform it. Until the org structure is changed radically, reform is impossible. With chops to Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 16:38:15 GMT -5
Have you ever seriously researched another church? Like had long chats with the priests, enrolled in their adult education class, attended services regularly? You could really benefit from seeing just what exactly the 'otherside' is like. I can assure you that you will be very shocked - in a good way. No, you cannot assure him of that -- not honestly anyway. Many of us who have researched other churches have not been shocked "in a good way". You could make that into an argument against giving money or other support to the Roman Catholic Church and many others and it would fit better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 16:43:45 GMT -5
Have you ever seriously researched another church? Like had long chats with the priests, enrolled in their adult education class, attended services regularly? You could really benefit from seeing just what exactly the 'otherside' is like. I can assure you that you will be very shocked - in a good way. No, you cannot assure him of that -- not honestly anyway. Many of us who have researched other churches have not been shocked "in a good way". You could make that into an argument against giving money or other support to the Roman Catholic Church and many others and it would fit better. Yes, I can honestly assure him of that. And I know for a fact that you haven't spent much time if any actually learning much about mainline Christian churches. Why do I know that? From your posts it is obvious. Oh please, enough already with 'The Catholics are worse than us so leave us alone'. Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 17:22:30 GMT -5
I've considered all these things you write ... for many hours in past days. These forums make for difficult communicating on topics like this, there's much lost when there are just words on a screen. I totally agree with your first paragraph. The problem is that the sentiment in your first paragraph does not often jive with what is preached from the platform. How do you propose "we" communicate to the "world" that positions of exclusivity aren't held in our fellowship? It's difficult to communicate this when it is preached through inference, and ultimately "revelation", in nearly every meeting. I don't know what value there is elsewhere. I do find value in our fellowship meetings, enough to outweigh the negatives as I see them. But there are times when the negatives are all that I can see and that is discouraging. There are many levels of what one might term a 'scale' of exclusivity-inclusivity. The ideal would be that we represent the truth *. We should not want to deceive anyone with the idea that anyone can be saved regardless of what he believes or does. Ideally we would not neglect to have fellowship with true brethren in Christ who are sincerely seeking his will outside of this specific group, as well. You can look to that yourself in your own life and (if applicable) family. One question to consider is what do people here mean by exclusivity and what types of exclusivity are really believed by those within the meetings? If there are good things of value in the ways we do things, we don't want to belittle those by calling them irrelevant and suggesting that everyone else's way is just as good. We don't want to suggest that humility before God or living apart from the world don't matter, for instance. I wouldn't want to suggest that it's perfectly acceptable for a church to spend millions of dollars on enormous fancy buildings to hold their meetings in, even if I do believe that many of the people who enter those buildings love God. So what is the right approach to uphold that which is true and right without confusion or misunderstanding? I do not have a complete answer to that. Charity, humility, patience, truth. I believe those are among the keys. We are all ministers to one another and for us, in our meetings, one of the ways we minister to one another is through our speech. Our focus should be in the right place and we should speak the truth in love and gentleness and be patient with our brethren. We also minister to one another in our deeds and the example we set for one another. We should not reject the important yet "non-essential" things in order to try to prove the point that they are not essential. That type of thing will only make the opposite point. Even if we do believe some practice is not important at all, we should proceed with care, considering that we may be wrong and that even if right, we should respect and love one another, taking care lest we offend. We are also ministers to Christians outside of our group. How can we show that we do not hold exclusivity, you ask? For one, that depends on what means by exclusivity. The important thing is serving God faithfully and upholding the truth. For one, we can make efforts to visit and find fellowship with other believers. Have meaningful conversations about faith and service to God in brotherly fellowship. Recognize what is of value and consistent with the truth in their practices. But do not pretend that their practices are equal to ours, if theirs are built on or infested with institutionalism, worldiness, carelessness, or other faults. Hold up a godly standard to encourage other believers and humbly exhort them by their example of ours lives and by our gentle words to serve God more faithfully. Learn from them and be willing to allow God to change us to better conform to his will when we see examples of faithfulness in others. Lastly, we are ministers before the world. The disciples of Christ are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Let us not lower our standards in order to be accepted by the world. If we do that, they might accept us, but they will see nothing of true value to inspire them to seek after higher things if we are just like them. Practice humility and gentleness and charity everywhere. Seek peace with all people. Avoid pride. * 'Truth' means that which is true, or more specifically the one who is the way, the truth, and the life. For anyone who uses that term as if it were an appropriate label for a group of people or their particular practices, that should be one of the first things to go. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 17:33:12 GMT -5
Oh please, enough already with 'The Catholics are worse than us so leave us alone'. Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. The Roman Catholic Church was your top recommendation and you admitted that several others were little different from it in doctrine. Any argument you can make against contributing money within the "2x2s", if valid, would apply far more aptly to most of what you call the 'mainline'. One would certainly be ill-advised to contribute toward the perpetuation of Anglicanism or Lutheranism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 17:38:17 GMT -5
Oh please, enough already with 'The Catholics are worse than us so leave us alone'. Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. The Roman Catholic Church was your top recommendation and you admitted that several others were little different from it in doctrine. Any argument you can make against contributing money within the "2x2s", if valid, would apply far more aptly to most of what you call the 'mainline'. One would certainly be ill-advised to contribute toward the perpetuation of Anglicanism or Lutheranism. You are one confused puppy. My point, clearly made if you reread it again with open eyes, is that 2x2ism has a despotic organizational structure which facilitates all sorts of problems, and by contributing money to 2x2ism you are perpetuating this horrible organizational structure and all the problems it creates. Giving money to say for example the Episcopal Church does not contribute to perpetuating a horrible organizational structure, because the Episcopal Church has a very healthy org structure (modeled on the US Constitution). In other words, before giving money, check the org structure to make sure it is not despotic. Reread my first post on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 17:59:33 GMT -5
Yes, I just read your other thread in which you tell us that your church's organizational structure is modeled after one of the kingdoms of the world. As God's people, who follow a Lord whose kingdom is "not of this world", we have a higher standard to follow, one which will far outlast any of the kingdoms of the world. We have no need nor desire for a fancy theoretical organizational structure which has failed in practice and was desired for the management of earthly things of which God's people have no part.
Neither your organizational structure nor that which it is modelled after will survive the day of judgment. Nor will your organizational structure save your soul. True Christianity is not about an organizational structure. It's about worshipping God in spirit and in truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 19:27:14 GMT -5
Yes, I just read your other thread in which you tell us that your church's organizational structure is modeled after one of the kingdoms of the world. As God's people, who follow a Lord whose kingdom is "not of this world", we have a higher standard to follow, one which will far outlast any of the kingdoms of the world. We have no need nor desire for a fancy theoretical organizational structure which has failed in practice and was desired for the management of earthly things of which God's people have no part. Neither your organizational structure nor that which it is modelled after will survive the day of judgment. Nor will your organizational structure save your soul. True Christianity is not about an organizational structure. It's about worshipping God in spirit and in truth. The 2x2 organizational structure was designed, setup, and maintained by human beings - you do admit that Workers/Overseers are human beings don't you? That means that your 2x2 org structure is just as worldly as the org structure of the Episcopal Church - both designed and implemented by human beings. And since they are human beings, then it naturally follows that they are fallible - that is they can make mistakes. Do you not think it would be in everyone's interest to have an organizational structure which provided checks and balances to mitigate those mistakes of the human beings? Here is your problem: 1) You assume that 2x2s, especially workers, are infallible - this is obviously wrong as given the evidence of all the workers caught diddling little kids. 2) You assume that God created the organizational structure of 2x2ism - check your Bible, Jesus never said a darn thing about how the church was to be organized. That's why you think there is no need for changing your org structure. But unfortunately you are dead wrong - just the child sexual abuse proves that, let alone all the other misdealings and crimes of the 2x2s. I'm not talking about an organizational structure to 'save your soul', I'm trying to help you change your org structure so that you 2x2s don't commit any more crimes, doctrine mistakes, and other spiritually abusive actions. Face it, you've had workers and friends running around for 100 years claiming that only ministers traveling in pairs is the right way, yet any idiot can read Matt:10 and see that this is complete nonsense. You tell me how this idiotic idea has been going around for 100 years - you are standing on very shaky ground. If 2x2s like their org structure so much, why don't they advocate it as the org structure for governing their country? The checks and balances that were expressly written into the US Constitution? Toss them out. The Constitution itself? Toss it out - no need for 'rule of law', let's have rule of the Overseers. Appeal Courts? Toss them out - the judges never make mistakes. Trial by Jury? Throw it out. Again, why involve the common people in the process, they don't know anything. Let's just get rid of courts altogether, better to just have informal meetings of the leaders to decide who should live or die. The meetings of the leaders? Definitely keep that secret, never print any meeting minutes or allow it to be recorded. Travel abroad? Prohibited. Visitors from abroad? Prohibited, except if paired with a 'minder'. Books, TV, Films, etc from abroad? Never, we have all we need here, do not need to learn from anyone else. What if someone gets asking questions that we don't like? Exile them. Seriously, this is exactly what the 2x2 organizational structure results in if it were used to govern a country. North Korea. And you think this is a good system? Whether at a country level, a state level, a municipal level, or a church level, this is a terrible system. Only a person would agree to live their lives with such a system. That's why I seriously wonder if 2x2s suffer from some sort of mental illness. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 19:27:46 GMT -5
Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 19:37:58 GMT -5
Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... Again with the red herrings. For someone who touts themselves are rational, you sure do throw out a lot of logical fallacies. A good org structure does not guarantee success, but it does remove a lot of unnecessary risks. Perhaps you might enjoy learning a bit about some excellent org structure - from Ray Dalio, owner of the world's largest hedge fund. He sure thinks the org structure is responsible for his success. www.bwater.com/home/culture--principles/culture-videos.aspxI attend the richest church in the Diocese. You might be surprised to know that the Episcopal Church is one of the largest private landowners in Manhattan - doesn't need to pass the plate. Some of our brother parishes aren't so lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 9, 2016 19:56:24 GMT -5
Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... Again with the red herrings. For someone who touts themselves are rational, you sure do throw out a lot of logical fallacies. A good org structure does not guarantee success, but it does remove a lot of unnecessary risks. Perhaps you might enjoy learning a bit about some excellent org structure - from Ray Dalio, owner of the world's largest hedge fund. He sure thinks the org structure is responsible for his success. www.bwater.com/home/culture--principles/culture-videos.aspxI attend the richest church in the Diocese. You might be surprised to know that the Episcopal Church is one of the largest private landowners in Manhattan - doesn't need to pass the plate. Some of our brother parishes aren't so lucky.  )
Of course "your" rich church doesn't need to pass the plate!
By being a church, -even though it is one of the largest private landowners in Manhattan, -it still doesn't have to pay property tax!
Unlike we poor non-church owners of even the smallest hut!
Equality? Hardly! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 19:58:53 GMT -5
Again with the red herrings. For someone who touts themselves are rational, you sure do throw out a lot of logical fallacies. A good org structure does not guarantee success, but it does remove a lot of unnecessary risks. Perhaps you might enjoy learning a bit about some excellent org structure - from Ray Dalio, owner of the world's largest hedge fund. He sure thinks the org structure is responsible for his success. www.bwater.com/home/culture--principles/culture-videos.aspxI attend the richest church in the Diocese. You might be surprised to know that the Episcopal Church is one of the largest private landowners in Manhattan - doesn't need to pass the plate. Some of our brother parishes aren't so lucky.
Of course "your" rich church doesn't need to pass the plate!
By being a church, -even though it is one of the largest private landowners in Manhattan, -it still doesn't have to pay property tax!
Unlike we poor non-church owners of even the smallest hut!
Equality? Hardly! I can't help it if we are better investors than you. Christianity is not about equality, though charity is part of it. You are one confused fellow. Better take a read of Harrison Bergeron again. |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 9, 2016 20:04:49 GMT -5
Compare yourselves the best in class, not the worst or second worst in class. It shames you. Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... In light of 2T2*, a decrease in Sunday attendance may be a good sign. * 2T2 = 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (not to be confused with I55) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 20:39:17 GMT -5
Yes, I just read your other thread in which you tell us that your church's organizational structure is modeled after one of the kingdoms of the world. As God's people, who follow a Lord whose kingdom is "not of this world", we have a higher standard to follow, one which will far outlast any of the kingdoms of the world. We have no need nor desire for a fancy theoretical organizational structure which has failed in practice and was desired for the management of earthly things of which God's people have no part. Neither your organizational structure nor that which it is modelled after will survive the day of judgment. Nor will your organizational structure save your soul. True Christianity is not about an organizational structure. It's about worshipping God in spirit and in truth. The 2x2 organizational structure was designed, setup, and maintained by human beings - you do admit that Workers/Overseers are human beings don't you? That means that your 2x2 org structure is just as worldly as the org structure of the Episcopal Church - both designed and implemented by human beings. And since they are human beings, then it naturally follows that they are fallible - that is they can make mistakes. Do you not think it would be in everyone's interest to have an organizational structure which provided checks and balances to mitigate those mistakes of the human beings? Here is your problem: 1) You assume that 2x2s, especially workers, are infallible - this is obviously wrong as given the evidence of all the workers caught diddling little kids. 2) You assume that God created the organizational structure of 2x2ism - check your Bible, Jesus never said a darn thing about how the church was to be organized. That's why you think there is no need for changing your org structure. But unfortunately you are dead wrong - just the child sexual abuse proves that, let alone all the other misdealings and crimes of the 2x2s. I'm not talking about an organizational structure to 'save your soul', I'm trying to help you change your org structure so that you 2x2s don't commit any more crimes, doctrine mistakes, and other spiritually abusive actions. Face it, you've had workers and friends running around for 100 years claiming that only ministers traveling in pairs is the right way, yet any idiot can read Matt:10 and see that this is complete nonsense. You tell me how this idiotic idea has been going around for 100 years - you are standing on very shaky ground. If 2x2s like their org structure so much, why don't they advocate it as the org structure for governing their country? The checks and balances that were expressly written into the US Constitution? Toss them out. The Constitution itself? Toss it out - no need for 'rule of law', let's have rule of the Overseers. Appeal Courts? Toss them out - the judges never make mistakes. Trial by Jury? Throw it out. Again, why involve the common people in the process, they don't know anything. Let's just get rid of courts altogether, better to just have informal meetings of the leaders to decide who should live or die. The meetings of the leaders? Definitely keep that secret, never print any meeting minutes or allow it to be recorded. Travel abroad? Prohibited. Visitors from abroad? Prohibited, except if paired with a 'minder'. Books, TV, Films, etc from abroad? Never, we have all we need here, do not need to learn from anyone else. What if someone gets asking questions that we don't like? Exile them. Seriously, this is exactly what the 2x2 organizational structure results in if it were used to govern a country. North Korea. And you think this is a good system? Whether at a country level, a state level, a municipal level, or a church level, this is a terrible system. Only a person would agree to live their lives with such a system. That's why I seriously wonder if 2x2s suffer from some sort of mental illness. One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 20:42:44 GMT -5
Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... In light of 2T2*, a decrease in Sunday attendance may be a good sign. * 2T2 = 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (not to be confused with I55) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, I don't know what goes on exactly in the other parishes of the Episcopal church, we are after all quite autonomous. I know that our parish is very large and has been growing a lot. For major feast days we have to distribute tickets to the paying members as we don't have enough seats in our 1200 seating cathedral. It is widely believed that the fall in the other Episcopal parishes is due to the more liberal stances they took on female ordination and in particular on gay marriage - lots of people left after those decisions. |
|
)