I might add that there is respect for the laws of the land, and where domestic violence is not swept under the carpet for the sake of keeping families intact.
Hey you two. I'm going to start by saying I get your heart and intent here. I think your intent is great, but the premise has a problem. A healthy fellowship sounds like a beautiful thing, no? Unfortunately, from where I sit, it is simply travelling a path that will once again lead us to that very same spot we were in TWI, or CES.
What is a fellowship? See, right out of the gate we are back in TWI, using their terminology. One of the problems with a fellowship ala TWI, CES, whatever, is that it promotes an emotional dependence. Even the self-governing ones, the ones lacking in a MOG (Man of God), or charismatic leader, will lead to this. In fact, I suspect it is the intimate relationships so many of us had with each other that make a fellowship such an appealing thing.
There is nothing wrong with intimate relationships. There isn't even anything wrong with a small degree of emotional dependency (we all become emotionally dependant, to at least some degree, on the ones we entrust our hearts and intimate thoughts to).
However, when that intimacy is mixed with what is supposed to be objective research, eventually all objectivity will go out the window. In a sense, fellowship via TWI/CES is a microcosm of the problem I see with the set up for the BOD for those very same organizations. Human nature being what it is, we will eventually tend to stop questioning in an objective fashion and stop utlizing critical thinking skills, because we don't want to offend our friend. Or, becaue we can't imagine our friend leading us astray.
Eventually, someone new will come along, who hasn't yet developed that strong and intimate relationship with us, or someone will come up with a critical question, and before we know it, without even realizing it, we will begin the whole process all over again. We will become defensive on behalf of the one whose idea was critiqued. We may eventually tell the person they are spiritually immature. If they put up enough of a fight we may even mark and avoid them.
There are no healthy fellowships via TWI/CES. We need to lose that terminology and mode of thinking. Start with something fresh. Research with people who we respect, but are not intimate with, so objectivity is not lost. Develop intimate relationships with those who hold similar values, but also have opinions that differ from our own. Learn how to accept someone, love someone, be intimate with someone, without having to always be likeminded with them.
Abigail, I hear you. I posted with something of a sardonic tone in my heart, because I don't feel that I'll find "healthy fellowship" anywhere organized by people who want to impose their interpretation of what God wants for me onto my personal life. I'm not really interested in joining any group, I'd rather pick and choose the people I want to share my heart with.
healthy fellowship is established on a one by one basis, not in a group who dictates who I should respect and heed because their "prophesy" or "revelation" is more godly.
POSTED BY ABIGAIL - WHO ONCE AGAIN FORGOT TO LOG SUSHI OUT FIRST
Lets take this a step further and examine where the concept of fellowships ala TWI/CES really comes from, are they even biblical?
In the Old Testament days, as is still practiced among Jewish people today (and please lets not get into the whole 13th tribe thing, because DNA or no DNA it is what we practice and call ourselves), study was not done in large groups. Study was not even organized around a Rabbi or the temple. Oh sure, those who were training to become Rabbi's studied in large groups, but the general population did not. Study was personal, an individual and/or a family thing. The temple was for ceremony, it was the place rituals were performed. It was also a place to gather, but not for study, for worship. It was also a place to purchase goods needed for rituals and a place to visit with friends. Debate is highly valued among Jews. Today, there are books and books and books filled with Rabbinical debates that are centuries old and there is much that can be learned from them. Ultimately, that is what leads to a very personal relationship with God, the ability to learn through personal study and prayer - not by following leaders, who are merely men.
Then comes Jesus' life, death, and ressurection and Christianity is born. In TWI, and I'm betting in CES, we were taught all about how the first century church worshipped in homes. Hence, TWI/CES' version of "fellowship". We were taught that this was God's design, God's plan - for the "called out" to worship and study in homes instead of temples. But does the Bible actually say anywhere that home fellowships were His design or will? Or does it simply tell us that is what the people did.
Is it possible the people went the route of home fellowships because they had no other options? Think about it, they were a "new religion", they had no corner churches, no large buildings for large gatherings. Add to that, they were being persecuted, so a large gathering probably would have been a dangerous thing. Just because the Bible tells about how people gathered in small groups, in people's homes for a time, does not necessarily mean that was God's design, plan, or desire for the future.
As I said earlier, I don't believe there is such a thing as a healthy fellowship ala TWI/CES style. However, there can be a great deal of personal growth through personal study. There can be a great deal of growth from gathering to discuss what one has learned, a healthy debate (as opposed to fighting). Then, there can be gatherings within the community to worship, to gather necessary things for the needy (as those who sent money and things on to Paul during the famine in Jersalem), to visit with friends, etc.
Abigail, I think you have come up with some really good points in this post. Tremendous points, in fact.
Then comes Jesus' life, death, and ressurection and Christianity is born. In TWI, and I'm betting in CES, we were taught all about how the first century church worshipped in homes. Hence, TWI/CES' version of "fellowship". We were taught that this was God's design, God's plan - for the "called out" to worship and study in homes instead of temples. But does the Bible actually say anywhere that home fellowships were His design or will? Or does it simply tell us that is what the people did.
Is it possible the people went the route of home fellowships because they had no other options? Think about it, they were a "new religion", they had no corner churches, no large buildings for large gatherings. Add to that, they were being persecuted, so a large gathering probably would have been a dangerous thing. Just because the Bible tells about how people gathered in small groups, in people's homes for a time, does not necessarily mean that was God's design, plan, or desire for the future.
As I said earlier, I don't believe there is such a thing as a healthy fellowship ala TWI/CES style. However, there can be a great deal of personal growth through personal study. There can be a great deal of growth from gathering to discuss what one has learned, a healthy debate (as opposed to fighting). Then, there can be gatherings within the community to worship, to gather necessary things for the needy (as those who sent money and things on to Paul during the famine in Jersalem), to visit with friends, etc.
Just some food for thought.
The way the Catholics and the Orthodox are taught, the liturgy used was an outgrowth from the Jewish liturgy in use at that time.
The early believers in Christ continued in the traditions of their Jewish forefathers, worshiping as they had in both the Temple and the Synagogue . To this worship practice they added the distinctly Christian components which were, in fact, transformed Jewish worship practices. These included Baptism, the Eucharist, the Agape meal, and others. Baptism was also present in Jewish religious practice as a personal repentance for sin. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, was transformed in both meaning and content by our Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism became not only a repentance for one's sins, but being baptized in the name of the Trinity now also assured forgiveness and incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism was the once and for all initiatory rite whereby one received the Holy Spirit and came into the Church.
The early Christians with their transformed understanding of the central elements of Judaism had a practical problem: how to conduct worship? They wanted to carry on their old Jewish worship practices while at the same time incorporating this new meaning and content. They accepted the necessity for continuity with the old, and for the celebration of the new, but could not do both together. The result was doing both in parallel. The Temple hours of prayer and the Synagogue worship were kept, but were not centered in Christ. Each day of the week, those Christian believers in Jerusalem would attend the Temple for prayers during the daily cycle, and on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath — they would attend either Temple or Synagogue.
If folks take a look at the scriptures, they'd note some interesting things (if they could take off the TWI/CES/CFF/whatever blinders):
Acts 2:46 (RSV):
And day by day,
attending the temple together
and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,
Acts 5:41-42 (RSV):
Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.
And every day in the temple
and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
Acts 9:19-21 (RSV):
and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And
in the synagogues
immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God." And all who heard him were amazed, and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests."
Acts 13:13-44 (RSV):
Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphyl'ia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem; but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisid'ia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." So Paul stood up … As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next sabbath. And when the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.
The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God.
And so on and so forth.
Now this is, as you point out so well, not to say that there was not worship in the homes of believers...for one reason or another...but, looking at it with fresh eyes, I see no place where people are directed or even encouraged to have their worship services in their houses, vice in synagogues. Naturally, the existence of church buildings would be an outgrowth of the synagogue as the Church grew in size and in places where a synagogue did not pre-exist.
Bottom line is that the use of the "home fellowship" exclusive of other worship and learning does not, imho, appear to be the model set up in the Scriptures.
Several times while still in twi, and a few times when in an offshoot, either my husband or I were told that if we left 'the protection of the household' we'd die. In each case, our 'protection' was found in the particular twig/fellowship we were attending at the time. IOW, if we fellowshipped with anybody else (even other twigs) or anywhere else, we'd die.
A few years ago the thought hit me that this kind of mentality was akin to the mentality of covens during witch hunts.
So I went down to my local alchemy shoppe and asked the proprietor (who was head of a coven), "Why would my circle (means the same thing as 'twig' or 'fellowship') threaten death to us if we left?"
He cited the obvious about persecution. Then he also said that in magick, it is very important that participants in a circle/coven be loyal to the head so that the magick will be powerful. He said that magick depends on the energy flow of the body and mind, and then when a circle/coven is formed, it is a given that each individual will contribute his/her mind/body energy flow ONLY to that group.
But he added that such a circle/coven is dangerous because seeking such power will lead only to witch wars and dark practices and will, eventually, lead to insanity.
Well!
It's been very, very difficult for me to participate in 'fellowships' so closely knit that outsiders are looked at as morons or aliens or something.
Yes, all of us yearn for that special group we can belong to and fit in so well that we need nothing much else for social interaction and friendship fulfillment.
But mix that with a belief system and a hierarchy, that's no longer just a group of friends.
Bottom line is that the use of the "home fellowship" exclusive of other worship and learning does not, imho, appear to be the model set up in the Scriptures.
Excatly, Mark. I would point out also, that they way the weekly services in the temple are cyclical. Every week a portion of the Torah (the laws) and a portion of the Haftorah (rest of the writings are read). It is set up so that over the course of a year, the entire O.T. is read. I
In every temple around the world, the same portions are being read on the same night. For the week preceding the service, it is up to the individuals and families to study those portions in their homes, to come prepared. The services I have attended do not include some drawn out explanation of what those readings mean. It is between you and God, what you take away from the reading.
After the service, there is the breaking of bread (or bagels ). During that time, the people are free to discuss and even debate what they took away from the service. They are also free to discuss the current events of their lives, their government, or even the weather.
It is funny to me, in retrospect, how I once thought Judaism was so incredibilty legalistic that I completely shied away from studying it. I look back now and see that there was far, far more legalism within TWI. I don't know how much of that legalism has crept into CES, but it sounds like at least some of it has.
I'm betting the same could be said of Catholicism - that for all the claims of legalism, it is less so than TWI was.
WOW! No, right out of the gate YOU are back in TWI. I can call it group worship, I can it church, I can call it a barnyard with a dog barking. I have been other places where the word fellowship was used in the USA. It can be 6 people, it can be 6000 people, it can be a TV ministry. I never called it fellowship via twi/ces. You did. I am looking for positive attributes of ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP that is not dysfunctional, not another rant against twi/ces.
I never used the word Research - which is a word used primarily by twi and waybrain people which I have never heard used in other mainline churches - so where are YOU coming from? Just a question, not a slam.
You seem to be reading an awful lot of your bad experience into my list. So I just want to be clear, it is your assumptions, not my declaration.
What is up lady??? I put up a list of healthy attributes of any group fellowship and you wanna go back to twi. Been every where including a card carrying Methodist and a nothing at all whatsover for a long time. Had a real bad experience with some Assembly of God people locally who made twi look like professionals. But I have endeavored to be a friend throughout all of this.
Sorry to come on so strong but you seem to be reading an awful lot into a list. And a lot of it seems to have pushed your buttons, not mine. You also seem to be saying don't try to have a relationship like a marriage or a friendship because eventually a will happen, then b, then c then d and then it will all go wrong and you will leave me and hate me and I will feel bad. Uhhhh??? Wassup?
To semi-quote the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS - somewhere there is a family with the bean salad and the picnic at the beach where everyone gets along. Even Melvin Udall eventually becomes a human being with intimate relationships. Sooooo what can THAT possibly look like rather than ranting one more time about twi and VP?
Soooooo maybe fellowship/group worship/church/temple/friendship will have some intimacy with boundaries as clearly defined by each individual, with no group violation of people's autonomy? Probably didn't say it quite like Cloud and Townsend but you know the memory ain't what it used to be.
So are you now going to stop using the word Research??? I do not consider twi to actually have the copyright on words.
Hey you two. I'm going to start by saying I get your heart and intent here. I think your intent is great, but the premise has a problem. A healthy fellowship sounds like a beautiful thing, no? Unfortunately, from where I sit, it is simply travelling a path that will once again lead us to that very same spot we were in TWI, or CES.
What is a fellowship? See, right out of the gate we are back in TWI, using their terminology. One of the problems with a fellowship ala TWI, CES, whatever, is that it promotes an emotional dependence. Even the self-governing ones, the ones lacking in a MOG (Man of God), or charismatic leader, will lead to this. In fact, I suspect it is the intimate relationships so many of us had with each other that make a fellowship such an appealing thing.
There is nothing wrong with intimate relationships. There isn't even anything wrong with a small degree of emotional dependency (we all become emotionally dependant, to at least some degree, on the ones we entrust our hearts and intimate thoughts to).
However, when that intimacy is mixed with what is supposed to be objective research, eventually all objectivity will go out the window. In a sense, fellowship via TWI/CES is a microcosm of the problem I see with the set up for the BOD for those very same organizations. Human nature being what it is, we will eventually tend to stop questioning in an objective fashion and stop utlizing critical thinking skills, because we don't want to offend our friend. Or, becaue we can't imagine our friend leading us astray.
Eventually, someone new will come along, who hasn't yet developed that strong and intimate relationship with us, or someone will come up with a critical question, and before we know it, without even realizing it, we will begin the whole process all over again. We will become defensive on behalf of the one whose idea was critiqued. We may eventually tell the person they are spiritually immature. If they put up enough of a fight we may even mark and avoid them.
There are no healthy fellowships via TWI/CES. We need to lose that terminology and mode of thinking. Start with something fresh. Research with people who we respect, but are not intimate with, so objectivity is not lost. Develop intimate relationships with those who hold similar values, but also have opinions that differ from our own. Learn how to accept someone, love someone, be intimate with someone, without having to always be likeminded with them.
Excatly, Mark. I would point out also, that they way the weekly services in the temple are cyclical. Every week a portion of the Torah (the laws) and a portion of the Haftorah (rest of the writings are read). It is set up so that over the course of a year, the entire O.T. is read. I
Interesting. In the Catholic Church (as well as those Protestant denominations that use the Lectionary), we have a three year cycle (for Sundays...plus a two year cycle for weekdays) that takes us through the entire New Testament and the vast majority of the Old Testament throughout the cycle. In addition, we pray the entire Psalms every four weeks throught the Liturgy of the Hours. Interesting.
In every temple around the world, the same portions are being read on the same night. For the week preceding the service, it is up to the individuals and families to study those portions in their homes, to come prepared. The services I have attended do not include some drawn out explanation of what those readings mean. It is between you and God, what you take away from the reading.
After the service, there is the breaking of bread (or bagels ). During that time, the people are free to discuss and even debate what they took away from the service. They are also free to discuss the current events of their lives, their government, or even the weather.
It is funny to me, in retrospect, how I once thought Judaism was so incredibilty legalistic that I completely shied away from studying it. I look back now and see that there was far, far more legalism within TWI. I don't know how much of that legalism has crept into CES, but it sounds like at least some of it has.
I'm betting the same could be said of Catholicism - that for all the claims of legalism, it is less so than TWI was.
By the way, you'll be interested to learn (I think, at least), that I've been studying some stuff out of the Mishnah recently...particularly Seder Kodashim. Also the targum of the Torah. Fascinating stuff...helps explain a whole lof of context in the New Testament about the sacrifice of Christ.
Relax Rich. I think your buttons have been pushed far more than mine, based on how strongly you responded. Understable either way, be it mine or yours, these topics can be highly charged for a lot fo ex-Wayfers and/or ex CESers. Perhaps I can better explain where I am coming from in my responses to this thread.
"No, right out of the gate YOU are back in TWI. I can call it group worship, I can it church, I can call it a barnyard with a dog barking. I have been other places where the word fellowship was used in the USA. It can be 6 people, it can be 6000 people, it can be a TV ministry. I never called it fellowship via twi/ces. You did. I am looking for positive attributes of ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP that is not dysfunctional, not another rant against twi/ces."
No, I am not back in TWI. I think the topic of positive attributes of any relgions group that is not dysfunctional is a great one for discussion, too. Likewise, we could call it anything, church, the ecclesia, temple, community gathering, etc. However, we didn't call it anything, we called it fellowship.
Do other organizations use that term? Certainly they do. But we aren't here at the cafe because we came from other organizations, we are here because we came from TWI and/or CES. One of the things I learned to look at, post TWI, was the usage of words - but in a different light from how I learned it in TWI. TWI had a tendency to take a simple common word, such as "truth", "fellowship" "faith" and add a slightly different take or connotation to the meaning of the word. They also made up words, like believing, as in "I am believing for a good parking space."
The words we use, how we understand and interpret the words we use, effect the way we think. So, when you use the word fellowship among people who are from the background of TWI and CES, it has a connotation to it that probably doesn't exist among other groups.
I never used the word Research - which is a word used primarily by twi and waybrain people which I have never heard used in other mainline churches - so where are YOU coming from? Just a question, not a slam.
I didn't say YOU used the word research. I chose the word research. Why? Because TWI was supposed to be a research and teaching ministry. Likewise, CES, though using different wording, claims to be a research and teaching ministry. You asked for hallmarks of a healthy fellowship. In utilizing the term research (because both organizations claim to research and thus I deduct that many of their followers have an interest in research), I have some examples of what a healthy fellowship involving research is not.
See, I was doing two things here, I was suggesting we re-evaluate what the worship does and does not mean and respondinging to your initial topic at the same time.
I put up a list of healthy attributes of any group fellowship and you wanna go back to twi.
Nope, been there, done that, no plans of doing it again. What I do want to do, however, is put some food for thought out there, for those who have now been twice bitten, first by TWI and then by CES. I think you do as well. Our perspectives may be different, but I am guessing our goals and motives are not so very different.
"You also seem to be saying don't try to have a relationship like a marriage or a friendship because eventually a will happen, then b, then c then d and then it will all go wrong and you will leave me and hate me and I will feel bad. Uhhhh??? Wassup"
This is entirely your read on what I said - your "private interpretation", and not at all what I said. What I was saying is that there is a proper context for a healthy intimate relationship, propery boundaries - which really could be another thread altogether. What I said was, one attribute of an unhealthy fellowship, when that fellowship involves research, is overly intimate relationships. Why? Because it causes people to lose objectivity. No where did I say ALL intimate relationships are bad. No where di I say marriage or friendships are bad.
"To semi-quote the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS - somewhere there is a family with the bean salad and the picnic at the beach where everyone gets along. "
Sure there is. But that same family, if they are a healthy family, will also have disagreements. That doesn't mean they will be in each other's faces screaming, cussing, threatening. It simply means they will have different opinions, different perspectives, different ideas. In a healthy family, there will be mutual respect. That mutual respect will make it possible to calmly hear and consider the other person's perspective and then calmly and lovingly talk things through. Sometimes an agreement will be reached, sometimes a compromise, sometimes they will simply agree to disagree with no hard feelings. Obviously, spiders out the nose does not consitute healthy.
I think if youu look back at what I was saying, you will find that although I didn't respond in list form, I did offer a number of examples of what is and what is not healthy, in my opinion and from my perspective. Likewise, I think you will find my heart and motives in all of this are really not so very different from your own.
I would really like this thread to focus more on the positive attributes of healthy fellowships, churches, temples, AA groups, baseball teams, marriages, etc. and not just become another area to slam our past experiences with twi/ces, our parents, our 3rd grade teacher, etc. It seems to me there are enough other threads where one can slam if one wishes.
My intent is to look to the future and not focus on the past.
I would really like this thread to focus more on the positive attributes of healthy fellowships, churches, temples, AA groups, baseball teams, marriages, etc. and not just become another area to slam our past experiences with twi/ces, our parents, our 3rd grade teacher, etc. It seems to me there are enough other threads where one can slam if one wishes.
My intent is to look to the future and not focus on the past.
*********************************
Oh boy am I learning about this stuff right now!
First and foremost, in any group of people who come together more than once for any reason, personal boundaries need to be clearly defined and highly respected.
The first personal boundary to disappear in a group setting is self value.
Little hints show up indicating this decaying boundary...
You worry that your attire isn't quite up to snuff...
You worry that your personal situations are less than others...
You laugh at 'jokes' you find distasteful...
You agree to participate in things you don't enjoy because 'everybody enjoys it!'...
You begin asking others in the group for 'advice' because you feel they have a better handle on life...
And so many more little signs that self value is eroding.
But by the time these little signs add up in one's mind, there's a crisis.
So, imo, the very very very first thing a group must have is respect of the individual.
Now if a group is coming together for the discussion of doctrines, beliefs, etc., like in a fellowship, IF that group begins with clearly established doctrines, beliefs, etc., then that group automatically does not respect the individual.
Which is why all roads tend to lead to Mecca, so to speak, in this instance.
Hey Rich I think you have some good thoughts there as well. Speaking for myself only I have a major problem though with speaking/praying with Jesus. And yes I heard and get the whole CES thing Jesus is the head of the body we communicate with our head via neurons and so we should talk to Jesus as our head. It is a nice analogy but that and a quarter still won't get you a cup of coffee. Analogies are fine for a point but when carried to an extreme you end up in messes much like CES in now. That has been my observation with CES teachings in general tell a nice story then switch it over to” see the scripture works the same way”, not always the same .
It is a small step from a personal Jesus to personal prophesies to waving hands in the air. I believe the head can communicate with the body (another analogy) in other ways as in via the spirit. Throughout his life Jesus in many records directed people to his Father. I'll spare you the quotes as I'm sure you know them. I have seen no record where he instructed anyone to pray, talk to him. Isn't that the point of John 16:25, 26?
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
To ask the Father instead of him as they had been doing for direction. I also don’t see Paul practicing or directing people to do this practice either. Which leads to can Jesus appear and talk to people? Well it appears that he did to Paul so if he did it once then I’d suppose he could do it again. An interesting point in Paul’s case he (Jesus) instituted the event not Paul. That makes sense to me Jesus chose to do it,(maybe at the direction of his Father) not someone else requesting it, or praying it from him, a big difference. Just last week I met a lady at the dog park she told me that Jesus tells her dogs which one to breed with so that they don’t cross breed. :blink:
Thanks Abi - you woke me up this morning. Dove, thanks I will consider what you have shared.
Hey it hit me - Greasespot can a be a model for some attributes for those here who desire some form of Christian fellowship/ church/large/ small, at home, in a church.
This will pull from some things shared already by others here -
Paw is the leader - but he is just an administrative leader, keeping the Cafe up and running, cleaning up a few spills of software coffee, encouraging a few noisy parishioners to be civil once in a while, but not trying to run anyone's life.
People come and go freely.
People learn hopefully to tolerate and respect each others opinions.
People get to hear new and various opinions, learnings.
People can ask for and give prayer.
people can communicate in group, privately or go off the cafe and talk elsewhere.
People can share their gifts and learn to spread their wings and fly a little bit, and practice as often as they wish.
Friendship as shallow or as deep as people care to go.
Healthy families and healthy friendships allow for differences in belief/lifestyle while still maintaining the relationship. Respect, boundaries, equal footing,empathy, affection, care, concern, remain, but the individual might make changes...with out fear of losing their loved ones.
I don't know how one has a healthy fellowship.
I sometimes particpate in 'open circles' to which many are invited, which I enjoy, and what I get out of it might be completely different from the person next to me.I've been invited to a couple more intimate things...but I really prefer getting together with a couple of friends for a specific purpose--and our beliefs differ. And they have no 'power' over my personal life, no one obeys any one in the little group, we are all adults.For that time our purpose is the same. We discuss the purpose prior.
But the things I am involved with are all fluid. I suspect that is one of the appeals of mega churches--an outlet for worship, and an individual can walk away from a service with their own thoughts about it.
One of the positives of GS, is that people can disagree, or hold a different opinion about something, yet still be friends, and have relationships that are respectful and loving.
GSC, to the best of the abilities of the moderators, allows people to have their privacy.
If someone does not have specific permission and one posts private conversations, information, etc. at the cafe, well, SMACK! Not only by moderators, but nearly everybody who notices.
The threat of, "You really don't want such-and-such to get out into the open" played a huge part in people falling in line in twi.
Not having that to contend with...that's a big difference between healthy and unhealthy group participation.
I think one thing you'll find in the discourse between Abigail and myself is that we are showing through that discourse some healthy characteristics of fellowships we've found. Not bulleted, but there never the less.
You will note that in both cases, there is a liturgy used for the worship service. In her case, that liturgy is based upon thousands of years worth of experience. In my case, the liturgy is not nearly as old...it is only about 500 years old...but its lineage is directly based upon the liturgy used by her group.
Secondly, you will note that in both cases, there is a separation between the worship services and fellowship between members of the groups and religious education (theology, scripture, history, etc.).
Thirdly, although not directly stated, you will note that the same local leader is not directly involved in all aspects of the 'religious fellowship' for each person for whom he is responsible. That, in of itself, along with the long historical context of both traditions, minimizes the possibility of establishment of a "cult of personality" such as what can possibly develop in a new religious movement (be that movement TWI or some other larger group).
Fourth, as multiple people have pointed out, people are responsible for their own lives and are not micromanaged. This, too, was not pointed out directly, but you would note that in most cases, the only time that a public issue is made of a person's personal behavior is if it develops into a major distraction for the remainder of the members of that group (in the Catholic Church, we call that condition a "scandal."). Because of the size and the homogenous nature of the groups (as far as worship and beliefs are concerned), disfellowship (shunning, excommunication, etc.) is only required in the event of that person causing a scandal or if that person is directly responsible for actively attempting to undermine or split that group...thus putting other people at risk because of their heterodox beliefs or actions (again, in the Catholic Church, we call this attempt at splitting "schism" and undermining beliefs "heresy")
Fifth, there are multiple outlets, as have been alluded to, within traditional faith groups, to meet multiple needs of diverse members of the community. If members choose to simply worship on Saturday or Sunday, that works. However, there are additional opportunities out there: men's groups, women's groups, singles groups, teen groups, young adult groups, interest groups, sciprture studies, adult faith education, ministry opportunities with the sick, the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. Not that all faith groups (churches, synagogues) have all of these opportunities, but most have at least some. In most cases, though, these opportunities are voluntary. Not all members of the church/synagogue are required to participate in any or all of the functions out there.
I tried to lay the above out so that it is not particularly Christian centered. As I am familiar with some Christian churches and denominations, I know that there is a high degree of variance. I also know, from what I've seen in the area, Jewish groups that do a lot of the same thing. And some Muslim groups. As well as some Unitarian groups. Not all. But enough to make it worth mentioning.
Am I trying to paint a picture that all churches, all synagogues are good? No. Healthy? No. Are there differences between groups within a particular denomination? Absolutely. But the key part of what makes something "healthy", from what I've seen, is a diversity to meet the needs of the group members and the needs of the community. And something that is not so small that everybody in the group is guaranteed to know your business, while, if big, that there are tailored sub-groups so that individual attention and participation is possible (but not absolutely required).
Hope that helps explain some of the earlier discourse. But it's really hard to bulletize. Sorry for that.
I am going to assume from a comment you made that you are or are familiar with the Roman Catholic faith. I read a book called habits of the heart (sociology) about 10 years back. It pointed out that there was a statistically significant difference in the suicide rate between US Protestants & Catholics, with the Prods having the higher rate. The subjective discussion pointed to the stronger sense of community and less emphasis on individual productivity in the RC community. That darned Protestant work ethic led to more alienation, more emphasis on completing tasks and less on family & community intimacy.
Man, you are asking me to set myself up to be flamed massively!
But what the heck...
What you tell me doesn't really surprise me all that much.
The bit about Protestant individualism as opposed to Catholic collectivism is true, to a degree. Catholic theology is very big on the "mystical body" of Christ (cf 1 Cor 12). Each member of that "mystical body" has an inherent role within that Body. In addition, the Catholic Church also believes in the long-term view of the receipt of blessings and the salvific function of suffering while on this earth (cf Col 1:24, read the RSV for a better translation). It seems to me that the majority of Protestant groups teach a far more individualistic faith: me and God. It also seems that there is far more concentration on temporal matters. (But that's just my opinion)
The real cause, though, I believe of a lower suicide rate is because of a far more fundamental issue, though, in my mind. The vast majority of Protestant groups believe in a tenet called "sola fide" (salvation by faith alone). Catholics teach salvation by grace through the sacraments initiated by Christ. That is a fundamental difference. A person can be under a WHOLE LOT more pressure if he must depend upon the self-perceived strength of his beliefs for his salvation and justification. At least in my opinion.
But yours is an interesting observation one way or the other.
Recommended Posts
potato
I might add that there is respect for the laws of the land, and where domestic violence is not swept under the carpet for the sake of keeping families intact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Hey you two. I'm going to start by saying I get your heart and intent here. I think your intent is great, but the premise has a problem. A healthy fellowship sounds like a beautiful thing, no? Unfortunately, from where I sit, it is simply travelling a path that will once again lead us to that very same spot we were in TWI, or CES.
What is a fellowship? See, right out of the gate we are back in TWI, using their terminology. One of the problems with a fellowship ala TWI, CES, whatever, is that it promotes an emotional dependence. Even the self-governing ones, the ones lacking in a MOG (Man of God), or charismatic leader, will lead to this. In fact, I suspect it is the intimate relationships so many of us had with each other that make a fellowship such an appealing thing.
There is nothing wrong with intimate relationships. There isn't even anything wrong with a small degree of emotional dependency (we all become emotionally dependant, to at least some degree, on the ones we entrust our hearts and intimate thoughts to).
However, when that intimacy is mixed with what is supposed to be objective research, eventually all objectivity will go out the window. In a sense, fellowship via TWI/CES is a microcosm of the problem I see with the set up for the BOD for those very same organizations. Human nature being what it is, we will eventually tend to stop questioning in an objective fashion and stop utlizing critical thinking skills, because we don't want to offend our friend. Or, becaue we can't imagine our friend leading us astray.
Eventually, someone new will come along, who hasn't yet developed that strong and intimate relationship with us, or someone will come up with a critical question, and before we know it, without even realizing it, we will begin the whole process all over again. We will become defensive on behalf of the one whose idea was critiqued. We may eventually tell the person they are spiritually immature. If they put up enough of a fight we may even mark and avoid them.
There are no healthy fellowships via TWI/CES. We need to lose that terminology and mode of thinking. Start with something fresh. Research with people who we respect, but are not intimate with, so objectivity is not lost. Develop intimate relationships with those who hold similar values, but also have opinions that differ from our own. Learn how to accept someone, love someone, be intimate with someone, without having to always be likeminded with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Abigail, I hear you. I posted with something of a sardonic tone in my heart, because I don't feel that I'll find "healthy fellowship" anywhere organized by people who want to impose their interpretation of what God wants for me onto my personal life. I'm not really interested in joining any group, I'd rather pick and choose the people I want to share my heart with.
healthy fellowship is established on a one by one basis, not in a group who dictates who I should respect and heed because their "prophesy" or "revelation" is more godly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
POSTED BY ABIGAIL - WHO ONCE AGAIN FORGOT TO LOG SUSHI OUT FIRST
Lets take this a step further and examine where the concept of fellowships ala TWI/CES really comes from, are they even biblical?
In the Old Testament days, as is still practiced among Jewish people today (and please lets not get into the whole 13th tribe thing, because DNA or no DNA it is what we practice and call ourselves), study was not done in large groups. Study was not even organized around a Rabbi or the temple. Oh sure, those who were training to become Rabbi's studied in large groups, but the general population did not. Study was personal, an individual and/or a family thing. The temple was for ceremony, it was the place rituals were performed. It was also a place to gather, but not for study, for worship. It was also a place to purchase goods needed for rituals and a place to visit with friends. Debate is highly valued among Jews. Today, there are books and books and books filled with Rabbinical debates that are centuries old and there is much that can be learned from them. Ultimately, that is what leads to a very personal relationship with God, the ability to learn through personal study and prayer - not by following leaders, who are merely men.
Then comes Jesus' life, death, and ressurection and Christianity is born. In TWI, and I'm betting in CES, we were taught all about how the first century church worshipped in homes. Hence, TWI/CES' version of "fellowship". We were taught that this was God's design, God's plan - for the "called out" to worship and study in homes instead of temples. But does the Bible actually say anywhere that home fellowships were His design or will? Or does it simply tell us that is what the people did.
Is it possible the people went the route of home fellowships because they had no other options? Think about it, they were a "new religion", they had no corner churches, no large buildings for large gatherings. Add to that, they were being persecuted, so a large gathering probably would have been a dangerous thing. Just because the Bible tells about how people gathered in small groups, in people's homes for a time, does not necessarily mean that was God's design, plan, or desire for the future.
As I said earlier, I don't believe there is such a thing as a healthy fellowship ala TWI/CES style. However, there can be a great deal of personal growth through personal study. There can be a great deal of growth from gathering to discuss what one has learned, a healthy debate (as opposed to fighting). Then, there can be gatherings within the community to worship, to gather necessary things for the needy (as those who sent money and things on to Paul during the famine in Jersalem), to visit with friends, etc.
Just some food for thought.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abigail, I think you have come up with some really good points in this post. Tremendous points, in fact.
The way the Catholics and the Orthodox are taught, the liturgy used was an outgrowth from the Jewish liturgy in use at that time.
Source: Liturgia.com
If folks take a look at the scriptures, they'd note some interesting things (if they could take off the TWI/CES/CFF/whatever blinders):
And so on and so forth.
Now this is, as you point out so well, not to say that there was not worship in the homes of believers...for one reason or another...but, looking at it with fresh eyes, I see no place where people are directed or even encouraged to have their worship services in their houses, vice in synagogues. Naturally, the existence of church buildings would be an outgrowth of the synagogue as the Church grew in size and in places where a synagogue did not pre-exist.
Bottom line is that the use of the "home fellowship" exclusive of other worship and learning does not, imho, appear to be the model set up in the Scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
This is a most interesting thread!
Several times while still in twi, and a few times when in an offshoot, either my husband or I were told that if we left 'the protection of the household' we'd die. In each case, our 'protection' was found in the particular twig/fellowship we were attending at the time. IOW, if we fellowshipped with anybody else (even other twigs) or anywhere else, we'd die.
A few years ago the thought hit me that this kind of mentality was akin to the mentality of covens during witch hunts.
So I went down to my local alchemy shoppe and asked the proprietor (who was head of a coven), "Why would my circle (means the same thing as 'twig' or 'fellowship') threaten death to us if we left?"
He cited the obvious about persecution. Then he also said that in magick, it is very important that participants in a circle/coven be loyal to the head so that the magick will be powerful. He said that magick depends on the energy flow of the body and mind, and then when a circle/coven is formed, it is a given that each individual will contribute his/her mind/body energy flow ONLY to that group.
But he added that such a circle/coven is dangerous because seeking such power will lead only to witch wars and dark practices and will, eventually, lead to insanity.
Well!
It's been very, very difficult for me to participate in 'fellowships' so closely knit that outsiders are looked at as morons or aliens or something.
Yes, all of us yearn for that special group we can belong to and fit in so well that we need nothing much else for social interaction and friendship fulfillment.
But mix that with a belief system and a hierarchy, that's no longer just a group of friends.
Ya know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Excatly, Mark. I would point out also, that they way the weekly services in the temple are cyclical. Every week a portion of the Torah (the laws) and a portion of the Haftorah (rest of the writings are read). It is set up so that over the course of a year, the entire O.T. is read. I
In every temple around the world, the same portions are being read on the same night. For the week preceding the service, it is up to the individuals and families to study those portions in their homes, to come prepared. The services I have attended do not include some drawn out explanation of what those readings mean. It is between you and God, what you take away from the reading.
After the service, there is the breaking of bread (or bagels
). During that time, the people are free to discuss and even debate what they took away from the service. They are also free to discuss the current events of their lives, their government, or even the weather.
It is funny to me, in retrospect, how I once thought Judaism was so incredibilty legalistic that I completely shied away from studying it. I look back now and see that there was far, far more legalism within TWI. I don't know how much of that legalism has crept into CES, but it sounds like at least some of it has.
I'm betting the same could be said of Catholicism - that for all the claims of legalism, it is less so than TWI was.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
This is Richard
WOW! No, right out of the gate YOU are back in TWI. I can call it group worship, I can it church, I can call it a barnyard with a dog barking. I have been other places where the word fellowship was used in the USA. It can be 6 people, it can be 6000 people, it can be a TV ministry. I never called it fellowship via twi/ces. You did. I am looking for positive attributes of ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP that is not dysfunctional, not another rant against twi/ces.
I never used the word Research - which is a word used primarily by twi and waybrain people which I have never heard used in other mainline churches - so where are YOU coming from? Just a question, not a slam.
You seem to be reading an awful lot of your bad experience into my list. So I just want to be clear, it is your assumptions, not my declaration.
What is up lady??? I put up a list of healthy attributes of any group fellowship and you wanna go back to twi. Been every where including a card carrying Methodist and a nothing at all whatsover for a long time. Had a real bad experience with some Assembly of God people locally who made twi look like professionals. But I have endeavored to be a friend throughout all of this.
Sorry to come on so strong but you seem to be reading an awful lot into a list. And a lot of it seems to have pushed your buttons, not mine. You also seem to be saying don't try to have a relationship like a marriage or a friendship because eventually a will happen, then b, then c then d and then it will all go wrong and you will leave me and hate me and I will feel bad. Uhhhh??? Wassup?
To semi-quote the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS - somewhere there is a family with the bean salad and the picnic at the beach where everyone gets along. Even Melvin Udall eventually becomes a human being with intimate relationships. Sooooo what can THAT possibly look like rather than ranting one more time about twi and VP?
Soooooo maybe fellowship/group worship/church/temple/friendship will have some intimacy with boundaries as clearly defined by each individual, with no group violation of people's autonomy? Probably didn't say it quite like Cloud and Townsend but you know the memory ain't what it used to be.
So are you now going to stop using the word Research???
I do not consider twi to actually have the copyright on words.
Edited by richnchrispyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Interesting. In the Catholic Church (as well as those Protestant denominations that use the Lectionary), we have a three year cycle (for Sundays...plus a two year cycle for weekdays) that takes us through the entire New Testament and the vast majority of the Old Testament throughout the cycle. In addition, we pray the entire Psalms every four weeks throught the Liturgy of the Hours. Interesting.
By the way, you'll be interested to learn (I think, at least), that I've been studying some stuff out of the Mishnah recently...particularly Seder Kodashim. Also the targum of the Torah. Fascinating stuff...helps explain a whole lof of context in the New Testament about the sacrifice of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Relax Rich. I think your buttons have been pushed far more than mine, based on how strongly you responded. Understable either way, be it mine or yours, these topics can be highly charged for a lot fo ex-Wayfers and/or ex CESers. Perhaps I can better explain where I am coming from in my responses to this thread.
"No, right out of the gate YOU are back in TWI. I can call it group worship, I can it church, I can call it a barnyard with a dog barking. I have been other places where the word fellowship was used in the USA. It can be 6 people, it can be 6000 people, it can be a TV ministry. I never called it fellowship via twi/ces. You did. I am looking for positive attributes of ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP that is not dysfunctional, not another rant against twi/ces."
No, I am not back in TWI. I think the topic of positive attributes of any relgions group that is not dysfunctional is a great one for discussion, too. Likewise, we could call it anything, church, the ecclesia, temple, community gathering, etc. However, we didn't call it anything, we called it fellowship.
Do other organizations use that term? Certainly they do. But we aren't here at the cafe because we came from other organizations, we are here because we came from TWI and/or CES. One of the things I learned to look at, post TWI, was the usage of words - but in a different light from how I learned it in TWI. TWI had a tendency to take a simple common word, such as "truth", "fellowship" "faith" and add a slightly different take or connotation to the meaning of the word. They also made up words, like believing, as in "I am believing for a good parking space."
The words we use, how we understand and interpret the words we use, effect the way we think. So, when you use the word fellowship among people who are from the background of TWI and CES, it has a connotation to it that probably doesn't exist among other groups.
I never used the word Research - which is a word used primarily by twi and waybrain people which I have never heard used in other mainline churches - so where are YOU coming from? Just a question, not a slam.
I didn't say YOU used the word research. I chose the word research. Why? Because TWI was supposed to be a research and teaching ministry. Likewise, CES, though using different wording, claims to be a research and teaching ministry. You asked for hallmarks of a healthy fellowship. In utilizing the term research (because both organizations claim to research and thus I deduct that many of their followers have an interest in research), I have some examples of what a healthy fellowship involving research is not.
See, I was doing two things here, I was suggesting we re-evaluate what the worship does and does not mean and respondinging to your initial topic at the same time.
I put up a list of healthy attributes of any group fellowship and you wanna go back to twi.
Nope, been there, done that, no plans of doing it again. What I do want to do, however, is put some food for thought out there, for those who have now been twice bitten, first by TWI and then by CES. I think you do as well. Our perspectives may be different, but I am guessing our goals and motives are not so very different.
"You also seem to be saying don't try to have a relationship like a marriage or a friendship because eventually a will happen, then b, then c then d and then it will all go wrong and you will leave me and hate me and I will feel bad. Uhhhh??? Wassup"
This is entirely your read on what I said - your "private interpretation", and not at all what I said. What I was saying is that there is a proper context for a healthy intimate relationship, propery boundaries - which really could be another thread altogether. What I said was, one attribute of an unhealthy fellowship, when that fellowship involves research, is overly intimate relationships. Why? Because it causes people to lose objectivity. No where did I say ALL intimate relationships are bad. No where di I say marriage or friendships are bad.
"To semi-quote the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS - somewhere there is a family with the bean salad and the picnic at the beach where everyone gets along. "
Sure there is. But that same family, if they are a healthy family, will also have disagreements. That doesn't mean they will be in each other's faces screaming, cussing, threatening. It simply means they will have different opinions, different perspectives, different ideas. In a healthy family, there will be mutual respect. That mutual respect will make it possible to calmly hear and consider the other person's perspective and then calmly and lovingly talk things through. Sometimes an agreement will be reached, sometimes a compromise, sometimes they will simply agree to disagree with no hard feelings. Obviously, spiders out the nose does not consitute healthy.
I think if youu look back at what I was saying, you will find that although I didn't respond in list form, I did offer a number of examples of what is and what is not healthy, in my opinion and from my perspective. Likewise, I think you will find my heart and motives in all of this are really not so very different from your own.
Peace.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
I would really like this thread to focus more on the positive attributes of healthy fellowships, churches, temples, AA groups, baseball teams, marriages, etc. and not just become another area to slam our past experiences with twi/ces, our parents, our 3rd grade teacher, etc. It seems to me there are enough other threads where one can slam if one wishes.
My intent is to look to the future and not focus on the past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
*********************************
Oh boy am I learning about this stuff right now!
First and foremost, in any group of people who come together more than once for any reason, personal boundaries need to be clearly defined and highly respected.
The first personal boundary to disappear in a group setting is self value.
Little hints show up indicating this decaying boundary...
You worry that your attire isn't quite up to snuff...
You worry that your personal situations are less than others...
You laugh at 'jokes' you find distasteful...
You agree to participate in things you don't enjoy because 'everybody enjoys it!'...
You begin asking others in the group for 'advice' because you feel they have a better handle on life...
And so many more little signs that self value is eroding.
But by the time these little signs add up in one's mind, there's a crisis.
So, imo, the very very very first thing a group must have is respect of the individual.
Now if a group is coming together for the discussion of doctrines, beliefs, etc., like in a fellowship, IF that group begins with clearly established doctrines, beliefs, etc., then that group automatically does not respect the individual.
Which is why all roads tend to lead to Mecca, so to speak, in this instance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Hey Rich I think you have some good thoughts there as well. Speaking for myself only I have a major problem though with speaking/praying with Jesus. And yes I heard and get the whole CES thing Jesus is the head of the body we communicate with our head via neurons and so we should talk to Jesus as our head. It is a nice analogy but that and a quarter still won't get you a cup of coffee. Analogies are fine for a point but when carried to an extreme you end up in messes much like CES in now. That has been my observation with CES teachings in general tell a nice story then switch it over to” see the scripture works the same way”, not always the same .
It is a small step from a personal Jesus to personal prophesies to waving hands in the air. I believe the head can communicate with the body (another analogy) in other ways as in via the spirit. Throughout his life Jesus in many records directed people to his Father. I'll spare you the quotes as I'm sure you know them. I have seen no record where he instructed anyone to pray, talk to him. Isn't that the point of John 16:25, 26?
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
To ask the Father instead of him as they had been doing for direction. I also don’t see Paul practicing or directing people to do this practice either. Which leads to can Jesus appear and talk to people? Well it appears that he did to Paul so if he did it once then I’d suppose he could do it again. An interesting point in Paul’s case he (Jesus) instituted the event not Paul. That makes sense to me Jesus chose to do it,(maybe at the direction of his Father) not someone else requesting it, or praying it from him, a big difference. Just last week I met a lady at the dog park she told me that Jesus tells her dogs which one to breed with so that they don’t cross breed. :blink:
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I have a regular fellowship group... we meet every Saturday morning (weather permitting) on the first tee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
Thanks Abi - you woke me up this morning. Dove, thanks I will consider what you have shared.
Hey it hit me - Greasespot can a be a model for some attributes for those here who desire some form of Christian fellowship/ church/large/ small, at home, in a church.
This will pull from some things shared already by others here -
Paw is the leader - but he is just an administrative leader, keeping the Cafe up and running, cleaning up a few spills of software coffee, encouraging a few noisy parishioners to be civil once in a while, but not trying to run anyone's life.
People come and go freely.
People learn hopefully to tolerate and respect each others opinions.
People get to hear new and various opinions, learnings.
People can ask for and give prayer.
people can communicate in group, privately or go off the cafe and talk elsewhere.
People can share their gifts and learn to spread their wings and fly a little bit, and practice as often as they wish.
Friendship as shallow or as deep as people care to go.
Anyone else see any other positives about GS?
OK someone type in tongues and interpret.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Healthy families and healthy friendships allow for differences in belief/lifestyle while still maintaining the relationship. Respect, boundaries, equal footing,empathy, affection, care, concern, remain, but the individual might make changes...with out fear of losing their loved ones.
I don't know how one has a healthy fellowship.
I sometimes particpate in 'open circles' to which many are invited, which I enjoy, and what I get out of it might be completely different from the person next to me.I've been invited to a couple more intimate things...but I really prefer getting together with a couple of friends for a specific purpose--and our beliefs differ. And they have no 'power' over my personal life, no one obeys any one in the little group, we are all adults.For that time our purpose is the same. We discuss the purpose prior.
But the things I am involved with are all fluid. I suspect that is one of the appeals of mega churches--an outlet for worship, and an individual can walk away from a service with their own thoughts about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
One of the positives of GS, is that people can disagree, or hold a different opinion about something, yet still be friends, and have relationships that are respectful and loving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
GSC, to the best of the abilities of the moderators, allows people to have their privacy.
If someone does not have specific permission and one posts private conversations, information, etc. at the cafe, well, SMACK! Not only by moderators, but nearly everybody who notices.
The threat of, "You really don't want such-and-such to get out into the open" played a huge part in people falling in line in twi.
Not having that to contend with...that's a big difference between healthy and unhealthy group participation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
WhiteDove, I'm in complete agreement with you regarding CES/STF "talking to Jesus" doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rich,
I think one thing you'll find in the discourse between Abigail and myself is that we are showing through that discourse some healthy characteristics of fellowships we've found. Not bulleted, but there never the less.
You will note that in both cases, there is a liturgy used for the worship service. In her case, that liturgy is based upon thousands of years worth of experience. In my case, the liturgy is not nearly as old...it is only about 500 years old...but its lineage is directly based upon the liturgy used by her group.
Secondly, you will note that in both cases, there is a separation between the worship services and fellowship between members of the groups and religious education (theology, scripture, history, etc.).
Thirdly, although not directly stated, you will note that the same local leader is not directly involved in all aspects of the 'religious fellowship' for each person for whom he is responsible. That, in of itself, along with the long historical context of both traditions, minimizes the possibility of establishment of a "cult of personality" such as what can possibly develop in a new religious movement (be that movement TWI or some other larger group).
Fourth, as multiple people have pointed out, people are responsible for their own lives and are not micromanaged. This, too, was not pointed out directly, but you would note that in most cases, the only time that a public issue is made of a person's personal behavior is if it develops into a major distraction for the remainder of the members of that group (in the Catholic Church, we call that condition a "scandal."). Because of the size and the homogenous nature of the groups (as far as worship and beliefs are concerned), disfellowship (shunning, excommunication, etc.) is only required in the event of that person causing a scandal or if that person is directly responsible for actively attempting to undermine or split that group...thus putting other people at risk because of their heterodox beliefs or actions (again, in the Catholic Church, we call this attempt at splitting "schism" and undermining beliefs "heresy")
Fifth, there are multiple outlets, as have been alluded to, within traditional faith groups, to meet multiple needs of diverse members of the community. If members choose to simply worship on Saturday or Sunday, that works. However, there are additional opportunities out there: men's groups, women's groups, singles groups, teen groups, young adult groups, interest groups, sciprture studies, adult faith education, ministry opportunities with the sick, the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. Not that all faith groups (churches, synagogues) have all of these opportunities, but most have at least some. In most cases, though, these opportunities are voluntary. Not all members of the church/synagogue are required to participate in any or all of the functions out there.
I tried to lay the above out so that it is not particularly Christian centered. As I am familiar with some Christian churches and denominations, I know that there is a high degree of variance. I also know, from what I've seen in the area, Jewish groups that do a lot of the same thing. And some Muslim groups. As well as some Unitarian groups. Not all. But enough to make it worth mentioning.
Am I trying to paint a picture that all churches, all synagogues are good? No. Healthy? No. Are there differences between groups within a particular denomination? Absolutely. But the key part of what makes something "healthy", from what I've seen, is a diversity to meet the needs of the group members and the needs of the community. And something that is not so small that everybody in the group is guaranteed to know your business, while, if big, that there are tailored sub-groups so that individual attention and participation is possible (but not absolutely required).
Hope that helps explain some of the earlier discourse. But it's really hard to bulletize. Sorry for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark,
Thank you for so beautifully summarizing what I could not. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
Mark
Thanks - all very good points to ponder.
I am going to assume from a comment you made that you are or are familiar with the Roman Catholic faith. I read a book called habits of the heart (sociology) about 10 years back. It pointed out that there was a statistically significant difference in the suicide rate between US Protestants & Catholics, with the Prods having the higher rate. The subjective discussion pointed to the stronger sense of community and less emphasis on individual productivity in the RC community. That darned Protestant work ethic led to more alienation, more emphasis on completing tasks and less on family & community intimacy.
Any viewpoint you would care to share about this?
Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rich,
Man, you are asking me to set myself up to be flamed massively!
But what the heck...
What you tell me doesn't really surprise me all that much.
The bit about Protestant individualism as opposed to Catholic collectivism is true, to a degree. Catholic theology is very big on the "mystical body" of Christ (cf 1 Cor 12). Each member of that "mystical body" has an inherent role within that Body. In addition, the Catholic Church also believes in the long-term view of the receipt of blessings and the salvific function of suffering while on this earth (cf Col 1:24, read the RSV for a better translation). It seems to me that the majority of Protestant groups teach a far more individualistic faith: me and God. It also seems that there is far more concentration on temporal matters. (But that's just my opinion)
The real cause, though, I believe of a lower suicide rate is because of a far more fundamental issue, though, in my mind. The vast majority of Protestant groups believe in a tenet called "sola fide" (salvation by faith alone). Catholics teach salvation by grace through the sacraments initiated by Christ. That is a fundamental difference. A person can be under a WHOLE LOT more pressure if he must depend upon the self-perceived strength of his beliefs for his salvation and justification. At least in my opinion.
But yours is an interesting observation one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
MarkO: might the whole "mortal sin" thing have something to do with a lower suicide rate as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.