|
|
Post by Gene on May 10, 2016 19:26:19 GMT -5
You are one sick puppy. Takes things out of context, then claims to have discovered something. I'm done with you.  |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2016 22:34:41 GMT -5
Ok look, you are never going to convince me or anyone else on this forum that 2x2ism is a good thing. We've all been there, done that. We know a lot about it and we don't like it. If you are going to converse with me, at least have the decency to try to understand what I am offering you. I am trying to help you. I am trying to help your church. Your church is dying, it has a tiny fraction of the members it once had, and those will all be gone very soon. All of the problems that made people leave your church, all of them, are the result of having this horrible org structure that your church has. It would behoove you to stop trying to fight with me, and instead try to understand that your church has problems and try to figure out WHY it has those problems.
You think that you can speak for all the rest of us.
You believe that you know everyone's mind here on TMB!
You even use the term "WE" as if all of us agree with you!
You make absolutes statements about the rest of us, so here are some about you.
You have a Psychological Complex, a Superiority Complex; a GOD complex.
GOD complex:
"is an illusion where the person is convinced that they are very powerful in influence and will constantly try to display their abilities.
Such people are so narcissistic that they refuse to consider an alternate opinion.
They often ignore the opinion of others as a result"
You also have a Messianic complex as well:
You say,
"... understand what I am offering you,
I am trying to help you.
I am trying to help your church. "
"Your church" is no better nor more apt to survive that the 2x2's.
Only way "you church" might be more apt to survive is that they have very good money making machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2016 22:39:27 GMT -5
You are one sick puppy. Takes things out of context, then claims to have discovered something. I'm done with you. 
I do hope that you get better soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2016 22:48:10 GMT -5
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. How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? Who decides which minister is to be hired and who is to be fired? What is the process? Who decides what sort of personal behavior is not permissible by 2x2s (former examples included wearing makeup, pants on females, etc)? Who decides who will be an elder? Do the local 2x2 people vote? Who decides that a person is to be removed from the 2x2s? Who do the elders report to? Can they be fired? Who do the workers report to? How are decisions made at worker meetings? etc? All of the answers to these questions will tell you what the organizational structure of 2x2ism. And you do have a structure, otherwise you would have no answer to these questions. And the org structure of 2x2ism is exactly how I described it in my first post - despotism. Like i said, if you think it's such a great system, why do you use that same system for every organization in your daily life - your municipality, your state, your school, your community center, your country. Thank goodness there are smarter people than you around that don't let your ridiculous ideas about how to organize people spread.
Simpleton,
If you think "your church's system" is such a great system, why do YOU use that same system for every organization in YOUR daily life -YOUR municipality YOUR state, YOUR school, YOUR community center, YOUR country?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 22:50:53 GMT -5
How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? Who decides which minister is to be hired and who is to be fired? What is the process? Who decides what sort of personal behavior is not permissible by 2x2s (former examples included wearing makeup, pants on females, etc)? Who decides who will be an elder? Do the local 2x2 people vote? Who decides that a person is to be removed from the 2x2s? Who do the elders report to? Can they be fired? Who do the workers report to? How are decisions made at worker meetings? etc? All of the answers to these questions will tell you what the organizational structure of 2x2ism. And you do have a structure, otherwise you would have no answer to these questions. And the org structure of 2x2ism is exactly how I described it in my first post - despotism. Like i said, if you think it's such a great system, why do you use that same system for every organization in your daily life - your municipality, your state, your school, your community center, your country. Thank goodness there are smarter people than you around that don't let your ridiculous ideas about how to organize people spread.
Simpleton,
If you think "your church's system" is such a great system, why do YOU use that same system for every organization in YOUR daily life -YOUR municipality YOUR state, YOUR school, YOUR community center, YOUR country?
I do. Follow my thread, I explicitly stated as such. But that's not your game is it? You just like to fight - something is wrong with your noggin'. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2016 23:08:44 GMT -5
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.
Why is it, I wonder, that when I read your description of your "large" "growing a lot" parish, that the picture of "Goliath" comes to my mind? ehum....
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 10, 2016 23:54:21 GMT -5
Simpleton,
If you think "your church's system" is such a great system, why do YOU use that same system for every organization in YOUR daily life -YOUR municipality YOUR state, YOUR school, YOUR community center, YOUR country?
I do. Follow my thread, I explicitly stated as such. But that's not your game is it? You just like to fight - something is wrong with your noggin'.
Ah, so, -Simpleton, -you mean that "your church's system" should be the model for "running" MY daily life , MY municipality MY state, MY school, MY community center, MY country?
Haven't you ever read of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution?
Here is the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Do you believe that all OTHER churches as well as I, in MY daily life , MY municipality, MY state, MY school, MY community center, MY country should have to use "your church's system?"
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 11, 2016 9:53:58 GMT -5
Ok look, you are never going to convince me or anyone else on this forum that 2x2ism is a good thing. Is anyone trying to convince you? I see people explaining why they feel the F&Ws work for them. You do not seem to share their beliefs.You can speak for yourself and I am sure there are some who will agree with you. I am sure there are others who will not agree.What you are offering them is not something they are looking for. They seem to be happy with what they have.Those sound as realiery soon. All of the problems that made people leave your church, all of them, are the result of having this horrible org structure that your church has.[/quote]Let's see what you have claimed in the past. The F&W is losing members at what you say is a high rate because of its organizational structure but your church, selling the same basic product, is losing members because of changing market conditions. Odd that the same market conditions are responsible only for your church and not others. Face it, members are leaving all religious organizations at a high rate. Average of about 1.2% per year. Of course, some of the parishes of you church have seen membership losses of over 70% in a year. Due, I assume, to market conditions. And perhaps the fact that the organization of your church has allowed some things that the many of the members did not agree with but have little say in how to reverse the changes other than voting with their feet. Just like other denominations.Disagreeing with your claims is not trying to fight you but simply pointing out how your claims do not make sense. It appears that many churches have realized these changing market conditions and have moved their focus to areas where people are more receptive for the product being sold - much as the people in the US, Canada, Australia, etc. were in the first part of the 1900s. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 11, 2016 11:56:02 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. Well... I want to say that I appreciate the kind tone of your reply in this and other posts you've made recently. To clarify my interpretation of "exclusivity": I object strongly to the commonly held sentiment in our fellowship that we are the only saved people and the default position held by professing people that anyone that isn't professing lacks the Holy Spirit. The merits of other people's salvation is not what I think about (that is for God alone to judge) but rather the outright disregard for the possibility of their salvation outside our fellowship. Every Sunday morning meeting it seems that God's blessing is asked in prayer "for others met in similar manner this morning" or something similar. Think about it. There is a total disregard in this and many similar prayers for the visitation of the Holy Spirit on other Christians world wide who would seek Him. The unspoken implication here is that the Holy Spirit is only present or invited in professing people. There are many other similar examples of similar language that express, in unspoken words, that "we" only acknowledge God's blessing for those who meet as we do. So now back to your reply. It appears that you are somewhat open minded and maybe could acknowledge the presence of God's blessing on people outside our fellowship. But that is one man's opinion and does NOT represent the sentiment that we are supposed to hold in this fellowship as subtly and obviously spoken from the platform, so to speak. THIS is the context in which I ask "how can we show that WE do not hold to exclusive sentiments? We as individuals can express our open mindedness but we cannot really represent the fellowship by expressing these things. I have observed in many people that this concept of exclusivity has created in them traits the very opposite of humility. It promotes feelings of superiority that remind me of the Pharisees pride in their ability to keep the old testament law. This is distressing and many times I feel that I don't even want to be associated with people that have that spirit about them. It's NOT a spirit of thankfulness but rather one of looking down on others. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 11, 2016 12:54:00 GMT -5
Well... I want to say that I appreciate the kind tone of your reply in this and other posts you've made recently. To clarify my interpretation of "exclusivity": I object strongly to the commonly held sentiment in our fellowship that we are the only saved people and the default position held by professing people that anyone that isn't professing lacks the Holy Spirit. The merits of other people's salvation is not what I think about (that is for God alone to judge) but rather the outright disregard for the possibility of their salvation outside our fellowship. Every Sunday morning meeting it seems that God's blessing is asked in prayer "for others met in similar manner this morning" or something similar. Think about it. There is a total disregard in this and many similar prayers for the visitation of the Holy Spirit on other Christians world wide who would seek Him. The unspoken implication here is that the Holy Spirit is only present or invited in professing people. There are many other similar examples of similar language that express, in unspoken words, that "we" only acknowledge God's blessing for those who meet as we do. So now back to your reply. It appears that you are somewhat open minded and maybe could acknowledge the presence of God's blessing on people outside our fellowship. But that is one man's opinion and does NOT represent the sentiment that we are supposed to hold in this fellowship as subtly and obviously spoken from the platform, so to speak. THIS is the context in which I ask "how can we show that WE do not hold to exclusive sentiments? We as individuals can express our open mindedness but we cannot really represent the fellowship by expressing these things. I have observed in many people that this concept of exclusivity has created in them traits the very opposite of humility. It promotes feelings of superiority that remind me of the Pharisees pride in their ability to keep the old testament law. This is distressing and many times I feel that I don't even want to be associated with people that have that spirit about them. It's NOT a spirit of thankfulness but rather one of looking down on others. What I meant about "exclusivity" is that there are various types of positions that might be interpreted as exclusivity and it is not always clear (or maybe it's rarely ever clear) what exact position a speaker believes. Here are some examples of beliefs that some might have. Many here might lump several of these all together as exclusivity and label them as cultic. In representing these possible positions I do not mean to argue either for or against any of them, but I do mean to argue against being too quick to judge precisely what others' beliefs are or too ready to lump others together. One might believe that only the people that belong to this one, specific group who meet together in specific ways and so on can possibly be saved. One might believe that only the people that belong to the one specific group can be saved and that all people who belong to the group can be saved. One might believe that this group is right, and that all other church groups are wrong, in very important ways, because they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible, but that true Christians who love God may be found in those other groups, and God calls some of them to stay in those other groups and work to serve him faithfully even within a flawed system. One might believe that this group is right, and that all other church groups are wrong, in very important ways, because they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible, and that true Christians who love God may be found in those other groups, but that those Christians, if they continue to seek God's will, etc., will be led by God toward our form of meeting and will join (but they are Christians even before, because they believe and love God). One might believe that this group and its practices in general are closer to the original New Testament church established by Jesus and his apostles than most other churches, but acknowledge that there may be other groups out there that have a similar degree of faithfulness. (And this position might be combined with some of the others.) One might believe that there are some very good qualities of this group and its practices that are missing or deficient in the great majority of other churches, and that a few other church groups have some very good qualities that are missing or deficient within this group. One might believe that there are true Christians in a great many different churches even though some of those churches are corrupt to the extreme, and that those true Christians, while having true faith, are very weak in their understanding, are not getting much spiritual food in their settings, and are not growing deeper in their faith and walk with Christ. One may add that the position of those Christians in such corrupt churches is very tentative. One might believe that there are true Christians in some other churches and also within this group and that all true Christians should seek fellowship with one another and unite their practices and standards. One might believe that there are true Christians in some other churches and also within this group and that all true Christians should seek fellowship with one another, even if they do not adopt precisely the same practices and standards. One might believe that there are true Christians in some other groups, because what defines a Christian is the relationship with Jesus, but be very cautious about expressing support of other groups who claim to be Christian, because one believes that some of them are wrong and one does not want to give the impression that all church groups are equal in value. One might not be sure exactly who is a true Christian but desire to live as faithfully to God as possible in his own life, and believe that God has called him personally to do that within this specific group. One might not be sure exactly who is a true Christian but desire to live as faithfully to God as possible in his own life, and believe that God doesn't necessarily call all Christians to the same group. One might believe that anyone who believes a specific set of doctrines about God and Jesus are saved, regardless of how the person lives in practice. One might believe that any and all groups and people who claim to be Christians are true Christians. One might believe that anyone who holds any form of belief he considers more "exclusive" than his own beliefs cannot be saved, reasoning that anyone more exclusive is trying to add man-made requirements for salvation. I'm sure there is room for a lot more nuances of beliefs and various ways of stating those beliefs. My point is that the vast majority of expressions among people in these meetings do not clearly indicate a belief that noone can be saved without joining the specific group in their specific way. I don't doubt that there are people within the group whose believes on this subject are in error. Maybe our focus is not quite right if we are too concerned about representing the fellowship or expressing that others within the group do or do not believe in a specific way. In general, I cannot represent others of the group. Nor, in the body of Christ in general, can one member necessarily represent another member. Can the hand "represent" the foot? Can the eye represent the knee? I'm not even sure what that would mean. What we should do is represent Christ by his life lived in us and through us. Being one member, led by the Head, which is Christ, and while not putting undue focus on what the other members are doing, still, being an example to them of being fully led by the Holy Spirit and Christ within us, and exhorting them patiently in the truth. Maybe getting a little closer to the specific intention of your question, when you fellowship with other Christians (outside this specific group) and they see the way you live, hopefully upholding godly standards and living faithfully from repentance and love, that can be an encouragement to them. And when you spend time in fellowship with them in ways consistent with brotherly love, i.e. acknowledging them by your words and deeds as brothers and sisters in Christ, then they hopefully will not get the impression that your beliefs are exclusive about a specific group. And in a certain sense you may be said to "represent" the entire group, because people will learn by speaking with you about the specific forms of church meetings you attend and the general practices of that group, and they will see that a member of that group is able to find Christian fellowship with others. However, I want to be wary as I do not believe that the way we live is irrelevant and that all that matters is a profession in words or thoughts only. Nor would I want to give the impression that it's not necessary to seek God's will in all areas of our lives or that it's acceptable for Christians to allow themselves to be like the world and to seek the things the world seeks as long as they avoid specific "big" sins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 13:11:07 GMT -5
Ah, Gene, I am soo sorry that you are "one sick puppy!"
I do hope that you get better soon.
Well if you are so sorry and concerned, then at least offer to take him to a vet.Bow wow wow, woof woof.  |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 11, 2016 13:13:27 GMT -5
One might believe that anyone who holds any form of belief he considers more "exclusive" than his own beliefs cannot be saved, reasoning that anyone more exclusive is trying to add man-made r Maybe our focus is not quite right if we are too concerned about representing the fellowship or expressing that others within the group do or do not believe in a specific way. In general, I cannot represent others of the group. Nor, in the body of Christ in general, can one member necessarily represent another member. Can the hand "represent" the foot? Can the eye represent the knee? I'm not even sure what that would mean. What we should do is represent Christ by his life lived in us and through us. Being one member, led by the Head, which is Christ, and while not putting undue focus on what the other members are doing, still, being an example to them of being fully led by the Holy Spirit and Christ within us, and exhorting them patiently in the truth. Maybe getting a little closer to the specific intention of your question, when you fellowship with other Christians (outside this specific group) and they see the way you live, hopefully upholding godly standards and living faithfully from repentance and love, that can be an encouragement to them. And when you spend time in fellowship with them in ways consistent with brotherly love, i.e. acknowledging them by your words and deeds as brothers and sisters in Christ, then they hopefully will not get the impression that your beliefs are exclusive about a specific group. And in a certain sense you may be said to "represent" the entire group, because people will learn by speaking with you about the specific forms of church meetings you attend and the general practices of that group, and they will see that a member of that group is able to find Christian fellowship with others. I believe you are correct in mis-placed focus relating to representing the fellowship, especially as it pertains to the emphasized outward appearance of our women. But I somewhat sarcastically digress on that point... We are all individuals before God. But at some level we do "join" into fellowship with each other and as such do identify with our fellowship in such a way that we represent it before others, as well as representing our own individual relationship with God. Let's call it a family membership, characterizing our joining to a familial fellowship. So here's the issue: Would I be comfortable as a member inviting a non-member to a gospel meeting? The honest answer is that it depends on who the workers are! In most cases I would not be comfortable representing our fellowship with this kind of invitation because I know the underlying theme (that only comes by "revelation") is that THIS is the way of God on earth. ( I digress again to point out that recently there have been some younger and very open minded workers pass through our area that are encouraging to me in this matter). I like your second paragraph that I have tried to copy above, but again, this is unsanctioned per norms in our fellowship. THEY are supposed to come to US, not that we would find fellowship with them, because, after all, they don't have the Spirit. And conversely, I try to speak in kind terms about "outsiders" to others in our fellowship so as to demonstrate a softer and kinder view of others than have been traditionally held by our fellowship. I often get eyebrows raised in my direction in this regard. Anyway, this is how I try to live and pray God's grace that I can continue in that effort. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 11, 2016 14:21:52 GMT -5
Obviously you realize you completely ignored my comments there, but here: Recognizing the importance of the appearance of women and men does not equate with trying to represent the fellowship. Fallacious reasoning would lead one to believe that God doesn't care about what we put on our bodies, but the holy scriptures tell us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. God cares very much what we do with our bodies and since they belong to him, since our whole existence belongs to him, we should seek to please him.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 11, 2016 14:51:12 GMT -5
One might believe that anyone who holds any form of belief he considers more "exclusive" than his own beliefs cannot be saved, reasoning that anyone more exclusive is trying to add man-made r Maybe our focus is not quite right if we are too concerned about representing the fellowship or expressing that others within the group do or do not believe in a specific way. In general, I cannot represent others of the group. Nor, in the body of Christ in general, can one member necessarily represent another member. Can the hand "represent" the foot? Can the eye represent the knee? I'm not even sure what that would mean. What we should do is represent Christ by his life lived in us and through us. Being one member, led by the Head, which is Christ, and while not putting undue focus on what the other members are doing, still, being an example to them of being fully led by the Holy Spirit and Christ within us, and exhorting them patiently in the truth. Maybe getting a little closer to the specific intention of your question, when you fellowship with other Christians (outside this specific group) and they see the way you live, hopefully upholding godly standards and living faithfully from repentance and love, that can be an encouragement to them. And when you spend time in fellowship with them in ways consistent with brotherly love, i.e. acknowledging them by your words and deeds as brothers and sisters in Christ, then they hopefully will not get the impression that your beliefs are exclusive about a specific group. And in a certain sense you may be said to "represent" the entire group, because people will learn by speaking with you about the specific forms of church meetings you attend and the general practices of that group, and they will see that a member of that group is able to find Christian fellowship with others. I believe you are correct in mis-placed focus relating to representing the fellowship, especially as it pertains to the emphasized outward appearance of our women. But I somewhat sarcastically digress on that point... We are all individuals before God. But at some level we do "join" into fellowship with each other and as such do identify with our fellowship in such a way that we represent it before others, as well as representing our own individual relationship with God. Let's call it a family membership, characterizing our joining to a familial fellowship. So here's the issue: Would I be comfortable as a member inviting a non-member to a gospel meeting? The honest answer is that it depends on who the workers are! In most cases I would not be comfortable representing our fellowship with this kind of invitation because I know the underlying theme (that only comes by "revelation") is that THIS is the way of God on earth. ( I digress again to point out that recently there have been some younger and very open minded workers pass through our area that are encouraging to me in this matter). Yes, but are you judging the speakers as to specifically what type of belief they hold, beyond what they say? Perhaps the speaker might believe that there are Christians but that they are caught up in institutional systems that are wrong and that they should come out of, without actually meaning that absolutely noone who happens to attend an institutional church can be saved. Someone believing that way might sound a whole lot like what you do actually hear, even with phrases like "false churches", "worldly churches", etc., but recognizing that an organization's structure is conformed to the world in dangerous ways and that some of the official doctrines of that organization are wrong, etc., does not imply a judgment about the worth of the faith of every individual member in that group. Do you know for sure that everyone who speaks in meetings about such things, appreciating what we have specifically in these meetings, etc., believes that there is no value whatsoever in any other group and that noone in any other group is saved? If we have some manifest aspects of the simplicity of Christ Jesus, need we be ashamed of those things or should we be honest in representing to others what we believe is right? I say all this but I really don't know what your position is on these issues, beyond what you've said about exclusivity. For example, I don't know what your thoughts are about home churches. Perhaps you see no distinction whatsoever between meeting in a home and building and maintaining a separate structure. Perhaps you see no value in a small local church as opposed to a church with 500 or 5000 members. Or perhaps, like me, you see great value in those things, and great danger in institutionalizing and aggregating people; which opinions would not imply any judgment about whether those who attend other forms of churches can be saved. I'm interested in what kinds of terms you speak and what kinds of comments or questions you get about it, if anything beyond the raising of the eyebrow itself. For instance, do you share something of value that was shared with you by another Christian friend? Do you mention something good that was preached in another church's meeting on a day that you visited? Do you ask people specific questions when they mention some "outsider" in a meeting, with the aim of questioning whether that person was really an unbeliever? Maybe you don't want to answer in specifics; that would be understandable. Such things are really not simple to judge. Some people truly have had very bad experiences in another church or several other churches and perhaps they generalize too readily. Another person might not have had any experience with other church groups whatsoever. Everyone in these meetings has probably heard various stories of some sort of problem or alleged problem. And there are problems, serious problems, so some scepticism toward other groups is perhaps understandable. People do tend to overgeneralize and overcategorize other people, though, and in my opinion taking small measures such as you suggest, in patience and gentleness, is one way that we can express charity and truth. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 11, 2016 14:55:58 GMT -5
Obviously you realize you completely ignored my comments there, but here: Recognizing the importance of the appearance of women and men does not equate with trying to represent the fellowship. Fallacious reasoning would lead one to believe that God doesn't care about what we put on our bodies, but the holy scriptures tell us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. God cares very much what we do with our bodies and since they belong to him, since our whole existence belongs to him, we should seek to please him. I apologize for re-directing your comment towards appearance, I know that's not how you intended the statement when you wrote it. But your reply here brings us to a good point: I have sat through too many meetings where appearance was stressed, and heard one to many sister workers stress that "we may not have a rule book, but we do have standards!" to agree with your statement that appearance does not relate to representing the fellowship. By specific teaching it does correlate, and if you think it doesn't then you really don't know the collective understanding of the fellowship very well in this matter. In a way you are illustrating my point for me that there is a disconnect between what some of us feel is right and what actually IS in the fellowship. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 11, 2016 15:33:43 GMT -5
Do you believe dress, hair, etc. do not matter? I think we would be hypocrites to preach the gospel while willfully dressed immodestly (male or female), because we wouldn't be practicing the obedience to God that we preach follows faith in Christ. I say "willfully", acknowledging both limitations of understanding and extreme situations such as might be forced on us by others, but those who love God should seek to uphold godly standards and not scorn them. And this applies to all Christians, not only preachers, and not only when preaching, for we are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Do you believe this? Do you believe that a fellowship of believers should not have standards?
|
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 12, 2016 8:43:00 GMT -5
Do you believe dress, hair, etc. do not matter? I think we would be hypocrites to preach the gospel while willfully dressed immodestly (male or female), because we wouldn't be practicing the obedience to God that we preach follows faith in Christ. I say "willfully", acknowledging both limitations of understanding and extreme situations such as might be forced on us by others, but those who love God should seek to uphold godly standards and not scorn them. And this applies to all Christians, not only preachers, and not only when preaching, for we are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Do you believe this? Do you believe that a fellowship of believers should not have standards? No, I honestly do not believe that my calling in Christ greatly informs my manner of dress. In my parenting responsibilities I steer my children away from suggestive clothing but in the context that any concerned common sense father would have for their children. I want my children's inner character to draw people to them, not their dress. To me this is matter of simple decency, not spirituality. And I would add that we get absolutely glowing reports from teachers, children and parents alike as to the kindness and character of each of our children at school. None of them dress in an overtly conservative manner and this is absolute proof to me that the attention on the exterior is mis-placed. Jesus would often walk through a crowd, totally unnoticed. His appearance must have been very very similar to the fashions of his day. What separated him from the crowds what his character, kindness, etc. This should be an example to believers guiding us towards inner substance with style being a footnote at best. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 12, 2016 9:07:48 GMT -5
I don't know what everyone who speaks in meeting feels on this point, I can only evaluate/guess as to their feelings based on the words they use. Using their words as a gauge, it's hard to deny that there is widespread disregard for the quality or purity of faith in people outside our fellowship.If we have some manifest aspects of the simplicity of Christ Jesus, need we be ashamed of those things or should we be honest in representing to others what we believe is right? I say all this but I really don't know what your position is on these issues, beyond what you've said about exclusivity. For example, I don't know what your thoughts are about home churches. Perhaps you see no distinction whatsoever between meeting in a home and building and maintaining a separate structure. Perhaps you see no value in a small local church as opposed to a church with 500 or 5000 members. Or perhaps, like me, you see great value in those things, and great danger in institutionalizing and aggregating people; which opinions would not imply any judgment about whether those who attend other forms of churches can be saved. I do see great value in the home church model. However Jesus did touch the multitudes in great number (think, miracle of the bread and loaves when the thousands of people were sitting) so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of help being given by a helpful minister in a large church by saying Sunday gatherings HAVE to be in a small home setting. But generally, and not by interpretation of scriptures per se, I do appreciate the humble, personal and accountable manner in which we meet with each other and express what God has meant to us. I'm interested in what kinds of terms you speak and what kinds of comments or questions you get about it, if anything beyond the raising of the eyebrow itself. For instance, do you share something of value that was shared with you by another Christian friend? Do you mention something good that was preached in another church's meeting on a day that you visited? Do you ask people specific questions when they mention some "outsider" in a meeting, with the aim of questioning whether that person was really an unbeliever? Maybe you don't want to answer in specifics; that would be understandable. Such things are really not simple to judge. Some people truly have had very bad experiences in another church or several other churches and perhaps they generalize too readily. Another person might not have had any experience with other church groups whatsoever. Everyone in these meetings has probably heard various stories of some sort of problem or alleged problem. And there are problems, serious problems, so some scepticism toward other groups is perhaps understandable. People do tend to overgeneralize and overcategorize other people, though, and in my opinion taking small measures such as you suggest, in patience and gentleness, is one way that we can express charity and truth. Here's a recent example I am comfortable sharing. A couple in our meeting recently stopped attending the meetings. They made their departure quietly and without fanfare. I have appreciated them for quite a few years and we have have exhaustively discussed many of the topics that frequent this board. As a result I feel I have or had a decent understanding of their concerns with the fellowship. But to the best of my knowledge no one else in our meeting understood their motivations for leaving the meetings. The default position of some in our meeting and in surrounding areas is "Well, we sure hope that XXXYYY get help again sometime", or "It's so sad that there is a great falling away", etc. You see, the default position of people, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING those who made their graceful exit, is that persons XXXYYY are at fault because they aren't in fellowship with any longer. So my reply is "Why do you think they don't have help now, absent from us?" To which I get the raised eyebrow, communicating (again, without understanding them) "well, they aren't with us anymore, that's why they need help!". It is this default position of superiority that I identify as a character flaw in our fellowship in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 10:27:38 GMT -5
I do see great value in the home church model. However Jesus did touch the multitudes in great number (think, miracle of the bread and loaves when the thousands of people were sitting) so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of help being given by a helpful minister in a large church by saying Sunday gatherings HAVE to be in a small home setting. But generally, and not by interpretation of scriptures per se, I do appreciate the humble, personal and accountable manner in which we meet with each other and express what God has meant to us. Here's a recent example I am comfortable sharing. A couple in our meeting recently stopped attending the meetings. They made their departure quietly and without fanfare. I have appreciated them for quite a few years and we have have exhaustively discussed many of the topics that frequent this board. As a result I feel I have or had a decent understanding of their concerns with the fellowship. But to the best of my knowledge no one else in our meeting understood their motivations for leaving the meetings. The default position of some in our meeting and in surrounding areas is "Well, we sure hope that XXXYYY get help again sometime", or "It's so sad that there is a great falling away", etc. You see, the default position of people, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING those who made their graceful exit, is that persons XXXYYY are at fault because they aren't in fellowship with any longer. So my reply is "Why do you think they don't have help now, absent from us?" To which I get the raised eyebrow, communicating (again, without understanding them) "well, they aren't with us anymore, that's why they need help!". It is this default position of superiority that I identify as a character flaw in our fellowship in general.
Couple of items: 1) Perhaps you are not aware that many non-home based churches (99.9999% of all churches) offer simple bible study sessions for small groups which are remarkably similar in structure, content, and spirit to the 2x2 home-meetings. My point is that 2x2ism does not have a monopoly on home-churches. Not only are there many other groups offering this. The only difference that the other groups DO NO think that non-home-churches are 'false churches' - unlike 2x2 doctrine. 2) The comments from 2x2s about ex-2x2s as 'falling away', 'lost out', etc are all comments coming straight from PRIDE. Pride that they the 2x2s have a monopoly on THE TRUTH, and everyone else is LOST. Just the fact that anyone would call their church 'The Truth' is a blatant psychological attempt to paint everyone else as in 'The False'. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 14:48:06 GMT -5
No, I honestly do not believe that my calling in Christ greatly informs my manner of dress. In my parenting responsibilities I steer my children away from suggestive clothing but in the context that any concerned common sense father would have for their children. Do you not believe that God as a loving Father has a concern for how his children dress? When people do not dress modestly, then the way they dress does draw people to them: people interested in what is exposed physically, not their inner character. I don't think glowing reports from teachers, etc. say anything whatsoever about whether or not modesty is important or what godly standards of modesty are. If your children dress modestly, then that obviously does not prevent people from seeing their kindness and other good qualities. Many people dress to high standards of modesty and this does not prevent people from seeing their inner kindness, character, etc., and other good qualities. Neither does dressing modestly somehow soil a person's inner character. On the contrary, those who are wholly committed to God should seek his will in all things and acknowledge him as Lord of their bodies and of what they put on. Other people have used this argument on this board recently. Please realize that the fashions of his day were not the fashions of our day. Dressing in the same way as most people in that part of the world at that time may not have been in conflict whatsoever with modesty, but in our day there is a great conflict. If we had dressed by the standards of AD 50 Judea, we would probably have been dressing modestly. That doesn't mean that godly standards change with the times or that there are no godly standards and God's people should simply dress the same as the world. If the world turns away from that which is good, then we must not follow the world. Modesty was valued in much of the world for many centuries. The fashions of the world are very changeable and at our present time they are very ungodly. As the world's standards have become looser over the last 120 years, many concerned people have observed this trend and refused to be dragged along into it. Others had been caught up in it but have learned to dress more modestly. Those who belong to God do not have to follow the ways of the world, whether in dress or in any other aspect of life. It would be a fatal mistake to pursue modesty of dress while ignoring the truth and love of God. But that is not what I or other Christians who are concerned about modesty are talking about. It is also a very great mistake to think that we should seek to serve God in kindness, helping others, good character, etc. while saying that it matters not to God whether we dress modestly. Jesus and the apostles taught clearly that the good things of God that are in the heart proceed outward. A commitment to God is not something that merely stays in our heart with no outward signs. It is expressed in so-called "outward" ways, such as helping other people with their needs, being gentle in speech, dressing modestly, respecting others' property, honoring our parents, exhorting our brethren, and other good works. We cannot say that the inner qualities are important but the outward expressions are merely footnotes. If there are no outward works, the inner qualities are thereby shown to be wrong because "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.". |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 12, 2016 15:00:59 GMT -5
People have different ideas of what it is to dress Godly or modestly. As i said before i do not think female workers bring any credit to the God they serve by their manner of dress or hair. Looking dowdy and out of date is not modesty. It is trying to appear religious of which Jesus pointed out that the pharasees did but their hearts were far from him. As said above the majority of people in the world dress modestly. I consider pants on women more modest than a skirt. The way professing women have dressed has not shown modesty but religiosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 15:12:41 GMT -5
Couple of items: 1) Perhaps you are not aware that many non-home based churches (99.9999% of all churches) offer simple bible study sessions for small groups which are remarkably similar in structure, content, and spirit to the 2x2 home-meetings. My point is that 2x2ism does not have a monopoly on home-churches. Not only are there many other groups offering this. The only difference that the other groups DO NO think that non-home-churches are 'false churches' - unlike 2x2 doctrine. I'm aware that some churches have separate small meetings in homes. I think it would be misleading to imply that most of those are "remarkably similar in structure, content, and spirit to the 2x2 home-meetings", but there are probably some that come close enough to qualify. Some other churches have small groups within that meet for other purposes. Some meet to watch movies and talk about them. Some meet and study non-Biblical books and talk about them. Others people and simply have conversation and a meal in fellowship. Some meet and study the Bible. These subdivisions are often topical, with people signing up to be in one or the other for a period of time. None of these are small churches that meet in homes. They are sub-divisions of large churches which meet in separate buildings. By the way, there are also some churches that meet in homes but are not associated directly with or a part of what you call "2x2". Some of these are isolated local churches and others have associations with one another. It's not only "2x2s" and sub-divisions of large churches that meet in homes. There's probably some truth in that, especially if people are said to have "lost out" with no reference to whether those people have faith in God and continue to seek to live faithfully to him, of how those people are living. On the other hand, some who leave do reject God, either becoming atheists or rejecting his claim as Lord of their lives. Others may profess faith and perhaps even have an inward desire to obey him in some things, but become confused and conform themselves to the world. Whether they are or remain part of what you call "2x2" or not, it would be correct to say that they have lost something important. Regarding calling a group of people "the truth", this is a very egregious thing. However, I'm not convinced that everyone who uses it is making "a blatant psychological attempt to paint everyone else as in 'The False'.". Most people use and accept language forms that they're accustomed to hearing, unfortunately with little questioning or thought as to what they really mean or imply. That is essentially how we learn language as children. When we are mature we ought to question the manners of speech that are inconsistent or imply falsities, but many people often do not. |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 12, 2016 15:23:47 GMT -5
Your idea of conforming to the world and mine are different, anytoll. Those in meetings conform themselves to the world by their manner of striving for expensive houses and cars which was a big part of those in meetings lives. The in group based on money and power. As for having lost something i believe the workers certainly have lost something and lack greatly the power of God to lead people to him. The meetings are dead and the spirit being mostly the spirit of conformity and belonging to a closed family type group in which people try to convince themselves that they have something special. Not sure if you read my previous post above yours as you may have been typing yours when i posted it. Didn't want you missing my pearls of wisdom  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 15:38:03 GMT -5
Regarding calling a group of people "the truth", this is a very egregious thing. However, I'm not convinced that everyone who uses it is making "a blatant psychological attempt to paint everyone else as in 'The False'.". Most people use and accept language forms that they're accustomed to hearing, unfortunately with little questioning or thought as to what they really mean or imply. That is essentially how we learn language as children. When we are mature we ought to question the manners of speech that are inconsistent or imply falsities, but many people often do not. I agree that not everyone, in fact hardly any average 2x2, has it even dawn on them that 'The Truth' is an incredibly egregious thing. However, someone or some group of folks at some point in 2x2 history DID decide to call 2x2ism 'The Truth', and it certainly dawned on them at that point what an incredible psychological tactic this was. And there were certainly every adopters of this 'The Truth' language who saw the egregiousness of it, but went along with it anyways. These people are all morally culpable of deception. Furthermore, quite frankly any adult with any reasonable amount of brainpower should be able to see that saying "We belong to The Truth" is the height of pridefulness. Getting back to the OP of this thread about org structure. It is exactly because of the org structure of 2x2ism that is there is a huge deficit of liberty of speech and thought within 2x2ism. As mentioned in the OP, there is no mechanism to ensure that controversial ideas can voiced without fear of reprisal (expulsion or shunning). There's no question in my mind that if 2x2ism had complete liberty of speech and thought, exclusivism would die in a week or two. And conversely without that liberty various prejudices, notions and wrong ideas can grow because corrective strategies prevent their destruction. The desire to purge outside or destructive influences is done with the best motives in mind. But that end justifies what kind of means? The justified means should only be counter-argument, counter-preaching. Idea versus idea. Not the complete shutdown of discussion which might be considered controversial. Read J.S. Mill's On Liberty about why freedom of speech is so important - it's not so that everyone gets a say, it's instead to ensure that all ideas get a chance to be heard and weighed for their merit by all. It's also to get one to defend their beliefs against the new idea, and in the process get a better and deeper understanding of their own beliefs. Thirdly, it is to fire up passion for your own beliefs as unchallenged beliefs become dead beliefs. Again, 2x2ism is despotism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 15:45:20 GMT -5
People have different ideas of what it is to dress Godly or modestly. As i said before i do not think female workers bring any credit to the God they serve by their manner of dress or hair. Looking dowdy and out of date is not modesty. It is trying to appear religious of which Jesus pointed out that the pharasees did but their hearts were far from him. As said above the majority of people in the world dress modestly. I consider pants on women more modest than a skirt. The way professing women have dressed has not shown modesty but religiosity. 2x2 women dress the way they do with pride. Pride that they belong to the 'Chosen Group'. It's exactly the same with Jews dressing in their unique outfits so as to set themselves apart because they belong to the 'Chosen Ones". The two most common sins which 2x2s commit are pride and ignorance. Pride in belonging to what they consider 'The chosen group", "The Truth", 'The Way",etc all of it completely farcical. Just calling yourselves such a thing demonstrates how prideful you are. The sin of ignorance in 2x2 is manifest in their absolute refusal to consider that they might be wrong in their religious beliefs, to never consider that others, others whom they consider 'worldly', might be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 15:48:46 GMT -5
People have different ideas of what it is to dress Godly or modestly. As i said before i do not think female workers bring any credit to the God they serve by their manner of dress or hair. Looking dowdy and out of date is not modesty. What do you call insults directed at others' appearance? Perhaps some might want to uncover more of their bodies in order to look less "dowdy" and more pleasing to the eye but I do not believe that would please God. How would it be if we dressed by the world's standards, to be seen and accepted by them? Jesus had something to say about those who dressed to be seen by men. Matthew 23:5: But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, Did Jesus teach an inward goodness with no outward manifestations? Christian modesty is a work coming from faith and submission to God.  What does "modestly" mean to you? Please answer the following question, then. Why do women's pants tend to be tighter than men's pants? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 12, 2016 16:15:10 GMT -5
Please answer the following question, then. Why do women's pants tend to be tighter than men's pants? Potentially to accommodate the greater differential between the waist and hip measurements found in females vs. males. Of course.......  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 16:22:24 GMT -5
Please answer the following question, then. Why do women's pants tend to be tighter than men's pants? Way off topic, but i'll help out. Pant tightness is function of use. Men's pants are primarily used in situations where the male requires minimal restrictions to their leg movements. Tight pants are by their very nature restrictive to movement. Notice that no one wears tight pants to run in. Of the two sexes Men are disproportionately involved in daily activities (mostly in their work lives) in which restrictive clothing is a hindrance. Females are disproportionately involved in activities where clothing restriction is not such a hindrance. Notice that aristocratic males of a bygone age did have restrictive clothing, particularly of the leg and groin area - and these men were most certainly not frequently involved in activities where freedom of body movement was of great concern. |
|
