PreacherPrescott: Your experience in the "assemblies"

Monday, June 05, 2006

Your experience in the "assemblies"

Feel free to move the conversation over here. I'll be posting on that topic in short order here myself.

86 Comments:

At 4:09 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

My experiences suck. End of story.

I aced the "Brethren" adjective from my blog byline today. It felt good. Clean. Like I was starting over again.
At 5:27 PM, Shawn Abigail said…

For those who are curious, and article I wrote has been published in the May 2006 issue of Uplook. You can download the full issue as a .pdf from http://www.uplook.org/web/images/pdf/2006_04.pdf
At 7:15 PM, John said…

I'll start off by saying I am not a "learned brother" by any stretch of the imagination. So maybe I haven't challenged the status quo enough to encounter the problems you did Blake. I grew up in a traditional Catholic church, if you want to go somewhere and be encouraged not learn this is a good place to go. I'll skip forward a number of years to when I was done school, was working, and finally made a decision to seek Christ (I'm simplifying here). I went to a number of different churches in the area and finally stumbled onto a brethren assembly. This was the first place I visited which actually encouraged people to look up things for themselves and not "take the preachers work for it." This appealed to me so I didn't leave, though I have visited other churches from time to time.

I like the fact that not all the preachers we have are brethren and that not all the brethren preachers we get tow the party line. We do get the "my view is correct because my mother's uncle's cousin's great aunt Shirley heard Darby speak once" kind of preacher but those are thankfully few and far between.

Another thing that I like is that our elders do not see themselves at the top of the food chain. They understand that their role is to serve and uplift the assembly not be spiritual rulers or know-it-alls.

Oh, and if I have a question, the elders are not adverse to having a beer and discussing it ;)

Now, take all this with a grain of salt. I go to this church because I like it, therefore I must be biased towards it.

Now, to answer some of your questions;

I have been encouraged to read the bible first, then anything else that comes my way. The elders have not been adverse to discussing anything I have brought to them to date, they don't always agree with what I have read and have told me so. But they have never suggested that I not read something or that read something is a waste of time.

Our elders believe we have the truth, but not THE TRUTH. We can not ever fully understand the mind of God, therefore we will not always "get it right." The only thing we can do is try to understand as best we can and be prepared to adjust our thinking when we get it wrong.

Your description of an assembly sounds like the one my father-in-law left. It was not that way when he joined, it just became that way after thirty odd years. A small bit of background, my father in-law was considered a responsible brother at that assembly (they do not believe in elders), he would often preach, ran the Sunday school program, and mediated disputes both within and between assemblies. His leaving left a large hole and should have been a wakeup call. I don't think it was.

I have a theory about churches like this. People who want positions of authority but can't get it in their jobs take positions of authority in the church. After they reach their goal of being (in their minds) the biggest fish in a small pond they then try to maintain their position. This leads to personalities and conflict (or conflict avoidance) being the primary driver and the church goes adrift, forgetting to do the will of God. Such churches will eventually die, but they will damage a lot of people when they go down.
At 8:27 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Shawn:

I'd like you to read an article I just wrote as perhaps giving you a better idea as to where I'm coming from. You might likely view it as being rebellious or blasphemous, but I'd suggest that you'd be best advised to pay really, really close attention.
At 8:55 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"This was the first place I visited which actually encouraged people to look up things for themselves and not "take the preachers work for it.""

That's only a noble sentiment when there's a possibility the preacher might well say something they disagree with (and I don't mean on some minor issue - I mean on a big one.) It's great to say, "we look into it for ourselves" when you're being subject to a wide variety of opinions, and a full and fair hearing is given to opinions considered wrong, ranging from "somewhat incorrect" to "downright heretical". Ever heard a preacher in your church deny the Trinity? The Resurrection? Everlasting punishment of the non-elect? It's not terribly exciting to question the viewpoint of a person you already know has the approval of the assembly and is going to mostly agree with you. Getting Joe Baptist to preach at a Bible Chapel is about as controversial as wearing a Toronto Blue Jays' sweater to a Leafs' game. Wearing an Ottawa Senators' jersey or a Canadiens' jersey is a lot more brave.

But have you ever gone back to a Roman Catholic homily and done the same thing, and not in a reactionary way? Opened your Bible, listened to the priest, and tried to learn as much as possible from that lesson? Now, that's hard for me to suggest, because I'm an incurable Protestant, more orange than the contents of a Tropicana container. But have you tried it from that approach? Would your elders encourage you to?

Again, what would be really meaningful is for there to be uncoerced, free discussion on majorly controversial themes with people who disagree, and the people are expected to think, engage, interact with, and present a meaningful and cogent response. I'm not confident that will ever happen.

"Oh, and if I have a question, the elders are not adverse to having a beer and discussing it ;)"

That's good. Those in any of the 4 assemblies in my firsthand experience (Guelph Bible Chapel, Westside Bible Chapel, Arkell Road Bible Chapel, and Markham Bible Chapel) would only do so if they thought I could be "straightened out" in so doing.

"Our elders believe we have the truth, but not THE TRUTH. We can not ever fully understand the mind of God, therefore we will not always "get it right.""

Do they believe it's within the scope of possibility that they don't have either the truth or THE TRUTH? That would mean something to me. And again, I'm not talking about some minor side issue.

"I have a theory about churches like this. People who want positions of authority but can't get it in their jobs take positions of authority in the church."

At Guelph Bible Chapel, where I attended, three of the five elders were self-employed with yearly earnings either above or just hovering below 6 digits per year. Two of them are multimillionaries. One is a maintenance worker in a Bible camp who maintains a comfortable existence, and another one is an executive in a large company, whose wife has no need to work, and he and his children drive around in BMWs.
At 8:44 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

My last comment was vague. Let me clarify.

Elder 1: self-employed, multimillionaire.
Elder 2: self-employed, multimillionarie.
Elder 3: self-employed, annual income just under 100K.
Elder 4: Executive in large company.
Elder 5: maintenance worker in Bible camp (as well as having plumbing/maintenance gig on the side)
At 5:10 PM, Anonymous said…

"Ever heard a preacher in your church deny the Trinity? The Resurrection? Everlasting punishment of the non-elect? It's not terribly exciting to question the viewpoint of a person you already know has the approval of the assembly and is going to mostly agree with you."

It's true, the preachers we invite preach what we consider to be true. Topics like denying the Trinity are usually handled in home studies. I think you would be hard pressed to find any organization teaching what they don't believe. We don't have public schools teaching the merits or racism or slavery.

I have been back to a Roman Catholic church a few times to hear a friend preach. I still find the sermons as nourishing jello.

"what would be really meaningful is for there to be uncoerced, free discussion on majorly controversial themes with people who disagree, and the people are expected to think, engage, interact with, and present a meaningful and cogent response"

I don't know if you will ever find that in any institution. It is no longer acceptable to disagree in this country (and others). Disagreement is taken as an attack, not as an inquiry. This is what universities used to be for, I now doubt that you could raise any issue without checking for political correctness first.

"Do they believe it's within the scope of possibility that they don't have either the truth or THE TRUTH?"

I don't know. I'll raise over lunch it and see what happens.

Maybe we should rename this thread "jgriffin's and Blake's Assembly Experiences." No one else seems to want to share.
At 5:29 PM, Spitfire said…

HI CC, just wondering if you got my email re: my paper on SSM. Thanks
At 7:21 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"I think you would be hard pressed to find any organization teaching what they don't believe. We don't have public schools teaching the merits or racism or slavery."

I'm going to leave the assertion alone for a second, that other organizations don't teach what they don't believe, to explore a little better elsewhere, for the time being. All I'm saying it's not terribly meaningful to say, "we're openminded and look into things for ourselves" when that experience is, in fact, quite narrow in range. I'm not saying assemblies should or should not diversify their exposure to different theologies; what I'm saying is, until they do, they shouldn't claim for a second that they're open-minded and willing to search things and challenge themselves.

"I don't know if you will ever find that in any institution."

Funny, it happens all the time in schools. In my NT Greek class at U of W, it happened all the time; in my Russian lit classes, it happened all the time, same with my French lit classes.

"It is no longer acceptable to disagree in this country (and others). Disagreement is taken as an attack, not as an inquiry."

That depends upon how you disagree and how you present your case. If you present your case in a respectful and academic manner, defend your points in a way that demonstrates you're not acting as though you've been vested with some truth nobody else has, it will never be a problem. I've criticized the Russian Orthodox church in Russian classes, and nobody objected, because I was specific, balanced, respectful, and had a good presentation on my side. I've had my beliefs criticized in classes by people who did the same, and I never took offense to it.

The offense comes when you're saying, "I'm right and you're wrong, end of story." The offense comes when you misrepresent your opponent's beliefs. I alluded to it on Andrew's other blog, where I had to sit through a preacher condemn the entire Church of Christ to hell, while naturally completely misrepresenting their beliefs. Now, my wife was sitting beside me, whose father is a Church of Christ minister, whose whole family is in the C of C, but that wasn't the problem. The problem comes that this individual thinks it's acceptable conduct to preach untruths from the pulpit, that his hold on "truth" is so great that he doesn't even have to speak the truth, and lastly that nobody in the congregation stood up and said, "close your Bible, and get off the platform RIGHT NOW." But, he's Brother So-And-So, a commended worker, so we both know that'll never happen.

I was saying before about how Brethren thinking is not robust enough to stand up to today's life. People today do not take kindly being told to sit back and accept a line they're being fed. And people generally want to know that religious thought doesn't privilege itself, assume itself to be correct, and is capable of interaction with what they see in the world, and provides some hope of being able to survive meaningful scrutiny. Who wants to adapt a "worldview" that is always on the defensive and has to rely upon elaborate conspiracy theories and logical atrocities to be able to be believed? Eventually that wears a little thin.

What assemblies are going to have to do, in my opinion, J-Griff, is to start actually acting like there's a possibility they might be wrong. They're going to have to start acting like others might be right. And they're going to have to start encouraging people to think properly, and not just within the narrow confines of Brethrenism.

Let me just use myself as an example. The minute thoughtful people get exposed to good quality thought, they will recognize it. They will recognize the narrowness and hopelessness of poor thought, and will generally rebel against what is deemed to be inferior thinking. I had so many beliefs common to evangelicalism, like thoughts on sexuality, etc. challenged in school, and when I saw what people were actually saying, I was angry at having heard such things misrepresented so horribly. i.e. sex education in schools, to which evangelicals are almost unanimously opposed. When I read one perspective on it from the pro side, from the Soviet time period, and why they thought it was important, and what was happening without it, it all of a sudden made a lot of sense, and I got very angry at how I was told for so long how evil and pro-promiscuity the pro people were.

I use myself as an object lesson: Brethrenism needs to learn how to think, and a positive first step would be encouraging its younger people in exploring and pushing against barriers and limits of Brethrenism. Only from that kind of environment will emerge somebody who can take Brethrenism back to a place it once enjoyed, where its leaders were renouned Biblical scholars. Now, they're pretty much all laughingstocks.
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous said…

Blake,

You made to many good points to address at one time. I am going to confine myself to the last paragraph since it seems more relevant to the topic of this thread.

"a positive first step would be encouraging its younger people in exploring and pushing against barriers and limits of Brethrenism. Only from that kind of environment will emerge somebody who can take Brethrenism back to a place it once enjoyed"

From this fragment of what you typed would I be correct in assuming that you feel that Brethrenism has "lost its way?" I am not saying this in defense of the Brethren movement, I'm asking this because I think that Brethren assemblies fall into a cult-of-personality trap. This is what I was trying to articulate before, that a few people get positions of responsibility within the church and then put themselves forward as some sort of "ultimate authority." The churches then become subject to the will of man rather than the will of God. Most people follow along for whatever reasons and eventually the church withers and dies because it is cut off from the will of God.

We had a preacher a few months back that advocated a maximum term an elder. At the end of his term the elder shouldn't just resign but should be sent out of the church to do evangelism. I wounder if this guy was proposing a solution without actually suggesting there was a problem. It would certainly solve some of the cult-of-personality issues.
At 10:00 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"From this fragment of what you typed would I be correct in assuming that you feel that Brethrenism has "lost its way?""

Yes, but I'm of a mixed mind as to when that happened. It might have been almost immediately after the inception of the movement when the clashes of personalities and the plethora of excommunications began. It might have been after WWII, when so many people had seen and triumphed over so much hardship and difficulty, and the Brethren were acting like a bunch of pansies, fluttering around whining about people drinking alcohol and wearing lewd clothing, etc. when people were already miles beyond that kind of thinking in their own lives. It might have been in the 1960s, when the assemblies just demonstrated themselves to be completely incapable of relating to the next generation at all and rather reach out, react negatively. But whenever it happened, the aseemblies switched from being a progressive and inquisitive movement into a reactionary and intellectually static one, and the stasis eventually transformed itself into an intellectual prison. So, yes, given the fact that Brethrenism started as a new populist movement and metamorphisized into a reactionary one, I'd say in that regard it lost its way. As for its theology, I'd agree with a good deal of Brethren thinking (if not necessarily presentation and methodology).

"The churches then become subject to the will of man rather than the will of God. Most people follow along for whatever reasons and eventually the church withers and dies because it is cut off from the will of God."

And I'd simply respond by stating that the Church does not possess the will of God in any absolute fashion, and the second it does, it's just become an intellectual jailhouse. God is bigger than the Church, the Church's ethics, and the Church's theology. The Church seldom keeps this in mind.

As for the will of God, I'll just stipulate that God is absolutely sovereign and nobody is ever outside of God's will for a nanosecond. Whether the church is facing judgement now or not is a discussion left for another day.

"We had a preacher a few months back that advocated a maximum term an elder."

That's tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Brethrenism has already struck a philosophical iceberg, has probably already slipped beneath the waves. The only question is, how many people will be rescued from it and by whom?

What I'm saying simply is that Brethrenism's problem is conceptual and philosophical. So often, Brethren folks lament the status quo and say, "oh, if only we had more contemporary music," or, "if only we were more active evangelistically", or, "if only we'd be better Christians, they'd be attracted", or some other attempt at beautifying the funeral hall. The point is, Brethrenism is dying because its thinking is too backwards, too narrow, too absolutist, and too passé for it to be able to survive. I've outlined some approaches in my posts here that would likely assist in it catching its breath and perhaps gaining some positive momentum again. I don't see any other hope for it other than what I've just laid out.

Ultimately, we're back at square one: either Brethrenism becomes an avant-guard, theologically and philosohpically vibrant movement, or it will be dead before 2020, and good riddance to it.
At 7:04 PM, Anonymous said…

So,

Is there any movement you would consider an "avant-guard, theologically and philosohpically vibrant movement"?
At 7:43 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Firstly, my apologies on the misspelling of "avant-garde". As well, I also need to clarify:

"And I'd simply respond by stating that the Church does not possess the will of God in any absolute fashion, and the second it does, it's just become an intellectual jailhouse."

That should say, "...the second it believes it does... I don't know if that threw you for a loop or not.

The second answer to your question is probably "very few", but that's not the point. What I'm worried about in this thread is the lack of interaction - not from you, though. I'd love to hear more Brethren people really chew what I'm saying. If they disagree, fine, I don't have all the answers, but I've been saying this for a while.

Apparently, the elders of one chapel in Ontario ordered a Brethren discussion forum administrator to ban me because of me saying similar things. So at this point my patience is just about worn out. Not to put him on the hot seat (or pretend like your opinion doesn't matter), but I'd love to hear what Mr. Abigail thinks about what I'm saying, and I'd like to have a meaningful dialogue about it.

The fact is, I think I'm correct when I'm saying if Brethren folks don't change their theological approach, Brethrenism will die. Simple answers and simplistic thinking just doesn't satisfy people, and even when it isn't smugly assuming itself to be true, it comes off that way. And I'm not even saying Brethrenism has to change much of what it believes, really, just the way it views truth, views those who disagree, and its hostility towards academia.
At 7:48 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Why am I not surprised by the total and complete lack of interaction here? Again!

It's like Brethrenism wants to bury its collective head in the sand and pretend like I have nothing of worth to say and nothing more can be learned at all.

Oh, well, I guess people like me are just doomed to be perpetually personae non grata.
At 8:48 PM, Christian Conservative said…

No so Blake... I get an e-mail from each posting, but I haven't had the hour or so I need to do a proper read, examination and reply... which is what they deserve, not the regular five minute snatches I get at work. (or home this week, we've been out every night)

I'm hoping to do so tomorrow.
At 9:20 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Andrew:

Really wasn't talking to or about you. But thanks for the response.
At 5:04 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Still no responses. Nada.

Kinda making a weak show for "absolute truth", isn't it?
At 5:46 PM, Anonymous said…

Or maybe, Blake, people are smart enough to know the difference between an honest and open discussion from which all parties can at least potentially learn and profit, and merely giving you further opportunity to heap abuse on "Brethrenism" and everyone involved with it. You really expect to stand there firing off your conversational AK-47 in all directions and have us meekly line up to hand you more ammo?
At 5:57 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"You really expect to stand there firing off your conversational AK-47 in all directions and have us meekly line up to hand you more ammo?"

I have been begging for somebody to have an open, complete, and honest interaction with me. All I've gotten to date is mistrust and now, "you're not worth it" kind of comments. Classy!

If somebody is so convinced that they are right about this kind of stuff, let's have it. I'm no troll, I'm not trying to drag-net anybody, in fact, I'm more open to Brethren ideas than anybody. Hell, I'm even a (former) Brethren preacher, and apparently still in demand. So can somebody here please explain to me why Brethren, or even evangelical, thought cannot possibly accept or express the possibility that they might be wrong and start taking differing opinions more seriously? Anybody?

Unfortunately, anonymous, your comments - courageous though they were - are not helpful. They only make me shake my head and wonder if there really is the extent of intellectual dearth in the assemblies that I fear. Plus, it just makes me throw my hands up in the air and say, "okay, you guys don't want me? Your loss."
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous said…

While my time in the Brethren wasn't as bad as Blake's was, I did find it to be a waste of time to a large extent.

First of all, there are only so many "gospel messages" that one needs to hear, and I'm not convinced that a gathering of the church (which, by definition, is supposed to be a gathering of those who already are believers) is the place for continuous gospel messages.

Second, the few non-gospel-message sermons were pretty useless for the most part. Sure, there was the occasional entertaining speaker, but I can't tell you the last time I actually learned something new or was at least asked to consider something controversial in a Brethren sermon (controversial to typical Brethren theology, anyway).

Which brings me to my next point. The whole idea of not having one man giving all the messages in the assemblies is supposedly so we're not only hearing one man's perspective, but I've never heard any perspective that wasn't traditional Open Plymouth Brethren doctrine from a Bible Chapel pulpit, to the point that they may as well just get one pastor to give all the sermons in any given assembly. Ignoring the fact that I couldn't preach to save my life, I can't imagine that I'd ever be asked to give a message on the reason I believe Scripture teaches Universal Reconciliation in Christ for instance.

I could get into other various nitpicky issues (there are various other issues I have with Brethren traditions, not to mention the Brethren worship of tradition in general), but over-all I actually didn't have a bad time in the Plymouth Brethren. Even when I was "living in sin" before I got married I never felt too judged (though it wouldn't surprise me if there was plenty of gossip going on behind my back), but on the other hand I got the impression that I was more or less just ignored by the majority of Brethren I knew so that could have been why ("it's that wacky Drew again, just nod your head and smile," was the impression I got from most Brethren I knew). Of course I wasn't trying to participate in the Lord's Breakfast, er, Supper, at that point, so that was likely a large factor as well.
At 11:57 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Funny how the dialogue instantly dries up when the avenues for begging the question, misrepresentation, and simplistic formulaic appeals to faith are blocked off, isn't it, Drew?

Nothing in the way of dialogue since J-Griff's first attempts (for which I applaud him). Not a syllable. Ничего.
At 10:05 PM, Anonymous said…

"Funny how the dialogue instantly dries up when the avenues for begging the question, misrepresentation, and simplistic formulaic appeals to faith are blocked off, isn't it, Drew?"

Heh. But I am used to being ignored when I question the status quo so this is no surprise to me.
At 11:51 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

That's not a small club at all, my friend.

Drop by my blog later today for a satire piece on that. I doubt it will make people howl with laughter the first time they read it, but it might hit hard.
At 9:26 PM, Anonymous said…

Blake,

I had lunch with one of my elders today and raised the question of "being wrong". My elder had a couple of points in his reply:
1. Nobody has or should claim to have "a lock" on the truth.
2. Elders are arbiters not authorities.

I am taking this, along with the tone of the conversation, to mean that they believe that they (the elders in my church) don't believe that they have THE TRUTH and are willing to adjust their thinking if given a compelling reason to do so (i.e. a very good argument).

Like I said before, my experience in my assembly is much different than yours. Hopefully it will continue to be.
At 9:21 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

Good to hear. As further follow-up, I would ask your elders as to what "truth" is, i.e. how do we know that what we believe to be truth is in fact, truth? But that starts to delve into serious issues of epistemology.

Frankly, most of the epistemic errors of Brethrenism are more subtextual than overt, anyhow. You can tell a lot more about how people think about these things by their conduct over time than by direct questioning. Maybe your assembly is more thoughtful and less absolutist than others; who am I to say? I've never been there. And I hope for your sake it is.
At 12:17 PM, Anonymous said…

Hey rey,

I have been to a few North Easters myself, though not in the United States. I always thought (hoped) that they were isolated incidents. Considering what you said I am beginning to wonder if this is a general trend. Any thoughts on how these types of assemblies come about?
At 8:38 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Good luck with that, Rey. "Finesse" and "subtelty" aren't really known Brethren strengths.
At 3:44 PM, Anonymous said…

Hi! I'm a customary Anonymous that posts on Blake's site a good bit.

My experience in "The Brethren," which is not what I'd call it, has been extremely varied, and I've gone from, you know, agony to ecstasy or something like that, depending on the moment or on the assembly.

I've been in around 20 or such for any significant time, I guess, mostly in Canada, but also in the USA and in another country, though not for long at a time, there.

Now, about, you know, bringing out topics and having debates and whatnot on vital metaphysical themes -- I think that, privately, or in specific places, many of us in the assemblies DO deal with these. Occasionally, and only that often, are they dealt with in a single assembly. I think the reason is that:

1. An assembly is a, well, nursery as well as a grown-up place. Well, you might have a postmodern discussion, and I think that if there's preaching, sure, it should be addressed to the questions of postmodern people a portion of the time -- the answers might well be the same as those addressed in another context, but they will zero in on where many people are coming from. Of course, one might also bear in mind that in a postmodern era, not all in the audience are completely postmodern.

2. However, I'd like to go back to that observation made by one poster, and I apologize for not remembering which one it was -- the idea that the assembly is really the gathering place for believers. It's a nurturing situation, and I guess PARENTING is the source for my analogy.

As a teacher, I deal, say, with people who are drug-addicted daily; I might, if I were a counselor, deal with those who are child molesters, on a daily basis; were I a policeperson, I might deal with those who are criminal and murderous and so on, on a daily basis. I might do a great deal with these persons, and I might try to identify ways in which I and others might be helpful.

While one of these ways might be that of getting personally involved as a family, it would a way that would not be adopted by me as a general rule, and, especially, during the early childhood of my children.

As a parent, I know that there are stages in which my child's mind cannot deal with, say, the abstract; there are stages in which he has magical thinking; there are stages in which he has not developed much critical thinking. And there are stages in which his experience is small, and he hasn't a mental peg upon which to hang a novel idea.

I think that possibly the reason that the deal about having one's family, you know, in obedience and so on as a criterion for eldership has something to do with having developed a feeling for what would be appropriate as a nourishing environment for people.

MANY OF US HAVE DONE LOTS OF CRITICAL THINKING, but we do not choose the assembly arena for much of it.

There might be a mis-understanding of it by elders [we're in a time when there is a gap between opportunities for, you know, higher education between the older and younger, AND also, between those with the privilege to get it and those without] and we do not wish to be in a position of, well, going beyond them. Our turn will, undoubtedly, come, but if it doesn't, there are arenas out there that we can utilize. There's the private sphere, for example. There is the academic sphere, and so on.

But, even if our elders, in a number of cases, are QUITE highly educated in theology, and I could name one right off the bat, they would NOT, unless the maturity of their flock was up to it, bring in items that were currently undigestable.

They would present these to those in the throes of such questions, or such.

I can think, for example, of one elder who was a professor of religious studies. In general, he presents the regular diet, although more accurately. However, there are those with sensibilities for more piercing topics, who'd be mentored by him on the side, or whatever, or who'd be encouraged into a class he might give.

As people mature, their questions do, also, but it's generally dealt with in an academic class that he'd encourage a person into, or in a discussion in a small group.

I do think that this has to be borne in mind.

Also, we have a kind of 'fear of God' aspect, which means we never want to violate the anointing oil on a person who IS a guide, or elder, and, by the way, the idea of GUIDE is sort of brought across to us, not that of a ruler, by those teaching.

So, maybe, sometimes, we go a bit far in that way.

There may be five elders, and two of them have a larger framework within which to discuss things. They will tend not to override another elder who sees things a bit more elementally, but will help a person in private.
At 4:05 PM, Anonymous said…

Further to the "gospel meeting" theme -- while I realize that gospel meetings, and some other functions, are not necessarily a part of the assembly actitivities, as such, am surprised at the non-enjoyment of them.

I mean, have heard this from a lot of people, but I really don't understand it.

The explanation or whatever else of the gospel sends thrills down mah spahn -- I don't think I'll ever get over hearing stuff about the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ! Wow! Yippee! Hallelujah!

And, um, I'm not usually considered charismatic, although my general emotionality and enthusiasm does confuse some "charismatics," since I am "other" to some of them, eh?
At 4:31 PM, Anonymous said…

As for the response to comments on Calvinism, or on Church of Christ and whether they'd all be consigned to Hell, or whatever, I think you'd have to inject a bit of assertiveness into the conversation, Blake, old chap!

I mean, don't ask me, because I am fairly mealy-mouthed, meself, at times, but, you know, you could probably say something like:

[I'll use the Calvinist example]:
Yes, I'm sure there are numbers of Calvinists who are professors only, as opposed to those who are true believers, who will find themselves with those who "never knew Him,"

or, "Which particular aspect of Calvinism do you expect would consign its proponents to Hell, Sir?" Well, that might be worthy of a longer conversation, or such.

or, "Yes, I suppose that many people who call themselves Christians are only intellectually into Christianity, and don't really know the Lord, don't you think? It's easy, when there's an intellectual belief, to simply subscribe to Christ in the head, without really resting on His finished work, eh?"

It might be wise to try to identify WHY the gentleman [I don't think GOd makes clods, you know -- thought He made 'saints' actually, or, at least, homo sapiens, image-bearer, eh?] said that.

Is he concerned because he thinks that you are not saved?

Then you might reassure him giving the reasons why you are. He might think you just subscribe to a belief system, eh?

I said you should maybe not take him seriously, but, then, afterwards, I thought it important to identify why HE said that, and why it hurt YOU.

I think I was wrong in suggesting that you not take him seriously -- what I meant is that if God has saved you, how can you let a remark by someone affect how you might feel about your salvation?

On the other hand, you might feel very bad at being misunderstood. Or, on the other hand, it might have affected your feeling about your salvation.

I thought that it wouldn't hurt me much, since I feel complete assurance about my salvation. On the other hand, well, maybe I'd feel rather completely misunderstood if someone said that.
I might feel that the person did kind of consign me, in their thinking, to an outside category.

Although, just the same, I wouldn't be, in God's eyes, outside, but inside, but maybe they'd not realize that, at that moment. There are a lot of misunderstandings, for sure, between people, eh?

If you feel completely misunderstood, as if you are one not having part in the group, as if you are one consigned outside, then EXPLAIN to the man your reason for knowing that you are born again.

If you can't, then, probably, examine yourself, if you're in the faith or not.

But, if you have complete assurance, then explain, maybe, to him why you do, and why there will be many people from MANY groups, including from the assemblies, who will be found to be professors, and not possessors of being born again. Certainly, there'll be persons within those groups who will not be saved. And there'll be persons who will be.

He might be worried about the Calvinists, because one can be an 'ist of any type just by mentally subscribing to it, same as 'brethrenism.' He might be worried about the Church of Christ because people identify baptism as a necessary element for salvation.

IT's kind of like people who trust, not in the Lord, really, but in having said, say, 'the sinner's prayer,' or having 'gone down the aisle,' however helpful these practices might have been in terms of what they might have done.
He might be worried that a person would have trusted in what THEY did rather than in exactly what God did, even though obeying Him in the waters of baptism is a very, very important thing and very closely associated with one's salvation.
At 2:05 PM, Shawn Cuthill said…

Good discussion guys, I linked it to the "brethren assembly news - here, so hopefully others can join in.
At 7:56 AM, Wikkid Person said…

My experience is limited (Ottawa Valley assemblies, and their some of their sister assemblies in PA, Toronto, Montreal, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Nobody who wasn't "in fellowship" with them.

The assemblies in my area were pretty much all white, with uneducated people speaking in meeting, a lot of fussing over alcohol, clothes, television and movies and stuff like that, and a huge group of younger people who had little reason to buy into whatever it was the old people were talking about. The young approached all of the doctrine and rules and so on purely as threats to their freedom, wierd stuff that was probably correct, but they weren't willing to deal with it. They mostly left. Especially after the divisions in which modern or dissenting voices were kicked out.

I, on the other hand, heard and believed what was said, then took it for a test drive as I grew up and found it completely undrivable, went to the elder type people (they weren't officially designated) and generally fussed aloud over it, which made everyone extremely uncomfortable, so they said I was "confused," forbid their children talking to me, lest they get confused as well, forbid my attending youth group activities, and eventually kicked me out for writing a satirical parody of their Message Of God's Love pamphlet.

My view of them is rooted in looking at prophecy, particularly old testament prophecy. You know? Where a group has bad practices and thoughts and spirit, and God gets someone to say "Hey! God thinks your incense stinks, that you remind him of unrepentent whores, that you look like lepers with your noses falling off, in his eyes! If you repent of serving other gods rather than him, if you stop sacrificing your children to them, if you return to him, he will bless you like never before. If you do not, he will wreak havoc with your little group and raze it to the ground." My belief is that the error of the Brethren movement, to speak in a generalization of the kind necessary to prophets, is that it has indulged in idolotry, making hymn books or doctrine, teaching, old writers, bible translations, lifestyle guidelines, and even the bible and "the gospel" itself take a place that should rightly only belong to God Himself in their hearts.

My parents have graduated from "Our gathering is the only right place for Christians to worship" to "It is very prideful and wrong to say that out loud."

The modern mores of our society in general do not allow exhortation or disagreement, unless people are having a friendly play-fight of a disagreement. Mockery and satire is ok, but serious criticism? Not so much. You can make a flash cartoon of George Bush dancing in his own feces, and people will probably like it and think you're clever. If you write a thing about what you think is wrong with his running of the country, a lot of people (even ones who agree with you in principle) will tend to say "Oh, stop that! We don't want to bring politics into this. That's private stuff and controversial. Don't be that guy."

(my flash cartoon using South Park characters to illustrate the silliness of the first Plymouth Brethren division that occured in Ottawa in my life is here at http://wikkidwebsite.mine.nu/Flash/DWS1.htm )

I always expect the Brethren movement to die. It doesn't seem to, any more than astrology, or latter day Saturday Night Live.

To gather, you need a balance between "we can discuss anything" and "we have to agree on everything." Everything isn't a discussion. Sometimes agreement is needed and useful, but of course it can't be forced. Two can't walk together unless they be agreed, even if only agreeing to discuss something they disagree about and not dis each other. I guess people need something to hold them together, otherwise they walk off.
At 12:31 PM, Anonymous said…

Yes, I agree that people in the assemblies often go one of two ways, meaning, probably, that they are reacting to whatever seems to be too much the other way to them at that time.

At the same time, there are also mature people amongst assembly people. It's perhaps that they are a little, well, unvocal, and tend to keep their [balanced, maybe] thoughts to themselves and to intimates.

It sometimes happens that in one type of group, even to have a viewpoint of whatever type on whatever, is looked at askance, as tending towards disunity.

On the other side, is the kind of idea that if you have a STRONG viewpoint of any type, then you're maybe right or whatever.

There IS that.

What's this 'wicked kid' idea? I think you probably don't fit the profile.
At 6:34 AM, Anonymous said…

Hi! This is long, boring anonymous, not AK-47 Anonymous. I've posted a few, here, and on Blake's blog from time to time, and the one about the parenting analogy and so on.

I DO think it important to bear in mind that an assembly is not an elitist place.

Individually, we can be as outstanding as anything in any field we are in -- I don't have that problem or privilege, but anyway...

Say, though, I were a Metropolitan opera singer. WHile my contributions at my home assembly might bring up a bit the quality of the music there, it would be odd of me to expect that the people there would sing in the way the people at work did, right?

They might, in fact, not even happen to choose me to be in the music, but, rather, in another thing. I know that in my assembly life, some places choose me to do something that I do, and others never choose me to do that at all. That's cool with me. Whatever. I don't HAVE to be utilized in that thing, really. I just look for a place to remember the Lord and to meet with his people.

I have friends who think this and think that. Some have magical thinking -- "If you say 'Praise the Lord' ten times, then your problem will be gone," but that's a stage of growth, maybe. Others don't know the Bible too well -- I had a friend who thought the seven seals, well, never mind.... Some like long skirts and long sleeves. Others, not. So, it's family, anyway.

We get to hear the Word of the Lord. If I want to hear an exegete, I'll go to a college, usually, or read a book, maybe. Sometimes, I'll hear one in the assembly, but probably not. HOwever, one thing I WILL realize, and that is, that like me, these people usually love the Lord. And that's pretty good for me. I have fellowship with that.

And, they have bad days, too, and bad years, and sometimes don't have that much love in them. SO do I.

Or, sometimes, they have it and are embarrassed to show it. But, anyway, we mosey along.

Say I'm a fabulous intellectual. I'd not expect that the people in my home church would be exactly like that.

The qualities of an elder do NOT include those of being brainy, eh? They are moral and experiential qualities, and we all know, don't we, that the bright boys are not ALWAYS the good boys!

AMongst the twelve apostles, we might look at, say, Paul, as being the intellectual.

If I think there is lack of logic in my assembly, or in the assemblies in general, then the first thing might be to pray to the Lord about it.

He answers our prayers and supplies our needs.

Not necessarily with the scenario that we'd imagine, but He does, no?

He did tell us we could ask.

I hear us all bemoaning the stuff. I don't hear anyone, including myself, asking or suggesting we'd ask....
At 10:08 AM, Anonymous said…

I guess I'm off the topic. My experience in the assemblies:

1. At the age of five or six, remember preachers elucidating the need for salvation. They were quite emphatic and articulate, and the verses went mentally into my thinking, although I did not yet understand them. Remember shovelling snow into a child's pail, and reciting "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

2. I remember a rumbly-voiced Scottish brother giving thanks for the bread.

3. I remember a faithful Sunday School teacher giving a flannelgraph story that awakened my heart to understand the gospel much more than before, and, before the end of the day, with the help of family members, I had received the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

I LOOK BACK TO THAT DAY, and yes, say, "Oh, happy day!" and I also remember that, truly, at that time, "Heaven came down and glory filled my soul." It's still there. I, in my small and weak way, love Him because He first loved me.
3. I remember another one, and I was still around seven, drawing an analogy between the offering up of Isaac and the offering up of Christ on Calvary.
4. I remember baptisms and preachings that made the Lord Jesus Christ very real and immediate to me.
5. I remember moving far and wide and finding those who believed in my Lord and Saviour.
6. I remember being in an assembly in which it was not popular to be overt about the Lord, not in my generation. It scared the living daylights out of me, as a teenager, to ask for baptism, sincee it wasn't the done thing at my age. The only candidate at that moment, I was kind of glad afterwards that that was the case, since I had not just gone only with the crowd, evidently, since the crowd was movin' in another direction.

7. I remember becoming critical about assemblies at that time, vis-a-vis the Word of God. Some of them appeared to 'stack up' better than others, or, at least, do that in certain areas. Enjoyed preachers who came and SAID that!

8. Entered university. Had to acknowledge competing ideas. Little help at that time from preaching brothers, except for remembering one I'd heard at age twelve, who'd said that WHEN that happened [didn't say 'if'] to keep on attending the meetings and reading one's Bible, presumably until one had gotten that sorted out by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

9. Got a fairly good job. It went, a bit, to my head, that Iwas with REGULAR people. In my mind, I'd kind of critique the ideas and presentations in the assembly meetings, wish they were more, I don't know, TIDY or logical or whatever.

10. Wasn't allowed into one assembly, but the reasons weren't personal, but, you know, institutional. Still, it was my social life that wouldn't happen, also, in that place.

11. Intellectual doubts gradually resolved.

12. Went through lots of years and experiences, I guess. various assemblies, depending on where one was.

13. One assembly was made up largely of teenagers when we began going there. Some notable lacks in that assembly, BUT some strengths, as well. Certainly not an old boys' club -- I'm not saying that others were, but you know what I mean. Well, it was more like a house church. I liked that aspect. However, since that church had developed from Bible clubs and the like, I think that there should have been a kind of instructional mode in between, to know that the local church is not ONLY a club, and it's not just about what we wanna do, today; well, not ALL of the time, that is. It's about what God might want us to do, or might have instructed us to do. Pretty good, on the whole, however. Strong individuals came out of that church in a number of cases.

14. Other assemblies. Some kind of blase about the things of the Lord. Others, quite earnest. In general, the ones who had maintained a Bible class for adults in some form or other, either as a midweek function, a long function at some point in the month, or as something going on during Sunday School, tended to have a more biblical emphasis, as opposed to only a social one, and tended, ironically, to be closer and less discriminatory, socially, in my view, but I may be wrong.

During some of these years, the Family Bible Hour had come into practice. Some assemblies still maintained a Bible study emphasis, chapter by chapter, at some other time. Others seemed to leave it to a preacher in the FBH.

The intellectual critique of assemblies kind of went away when I had a broader intellectuality, in worldly terms, myself; at a certain point, also, I met numerous people in an institution that dealt with such concerns.

Mostly, though, I appreciate the God who saved me, His SOn who died for me, and the HOly Spirit who comforts me.

I wonder, as a parent, if I'd be terribly as keen on the one of my children who KNEW most accurately the things about me, or the one who showed love to me. True, the first child might KNOW these things because he loved me, so that could be fine, also.

However, I can imagine him scorning out, say, my other children, because HE knew I had four buttons on my coat -- from memory, perhaps -- and they had thought I had had THREE. Actually, while I like the interest, and it's a part of things, I like the love from all of my children.

And, as for the buttons, I have EIGHT, since they appear not to be aware that my coat is a reversible one -- there's the deep truth that all missed.

Actually, I suppose, it's not in the order of DEEP truth, in a way, since, well, the deeper one is to maybe abide in my love, in that human sense.

Like, when I hear that brethrenism 'sucks,' well, I should think it might, since, 'brethrenism' on its own is a very poor menu, despite all I've said.

If there were no Saviour, well, the rest would just be a lot of hot air.

Now, I know a lot of intellectual people, some of them amongst the assemblies, and, well, most think that the Lord's the focus.

THEN -- work really hard on the rest, being a good workman, as was suggested, eh?

I guess what DID come to me was a kind of joke that we have about a dear friend of ours who says something like this:

"I'm sick and tired of all this theology; I just want to talk about God."

We know, of course, that that is more or less what the word theology means. HOwever, having said that, we must always ensure, no? that the "theo-" is pre-eminent; before the "-logy," eh?

Our "-logy" sometimes proves to be very earnest, but a bit out. ANd that's all right, to some degree. He knows that we are dust and have our limitations.

Yes, I LOVE discussions about the assemblies, but, at the same time, I like to hear about the Lord, during them, also.

NOw, I've taken up much too much electronic space, so "je vais ceder la parole a mon voisin," as they used to tell us in the French classes in high school, and so on, eh?
At 1:41 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Wikkidperson because I was kicked out of my assembly, with the verse "put ye out from among yourselves that wicked person" and will not be allowed back in. I wrote a parody of their "Message Of God's Love" paper, which they described as "nothing less than sacrilege." Though this verse is advice to put someone out from among themselves, they claimed they were putting me "away from the Lord's Table" which is quite a larger thing.
At 8:55 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

Wikkid:

Very, very creative video. Enjoyed it tremendously, although there should have been just a little more farting with Terrence and Phillip. The Cartman, "Respect my authoritay!" was superbly timed. I knew it was coming, and waiting for it, but it was absolutely perfect.

Overall good satirical effort.
At 5:33 PM, Anonymous said…

Glad you have people like that in you assembly, it means they're not in mine.
At 6:17 AM, Anonymous said…

Re; people in your asembly, etc., etc.

One thought that has come to me is the following:

What if "the people in one's assembly," let's say, well, the ones that would be more negative towards oneself, were the ONLY people in one's world -- ALL that one had, or such?

WOuld one not have to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to bridge that gap that separates>?

WOuld one not have to entreat them with all of one's heart, do, if necessary, an apologetic for one's view, one's self, perhaps, even?

If they were the only people that cared about one?

Even with almost abuse, at time, sometimes, well, people DO care about us, eh?

I was just looking at the twentieth anniversary of "All in the Family," and there's that scene with Archie a little drunk and he's relating his relationshp with his father, and re-iterating the theme about "How can your FATHER be wrong, since he's the one who loved you, took you to the park [locked Archie in the closet for seven hours, also], held you by the hand," and so on.

I KNOW there are lots of offenses and so on -- hey! people live and whatnot, maybe get around in their own sphere to some extent and so on, but, it's also possible, in some cases, to make I-statements, no? and to entreat people personally, to reveal the hurt that we may feel.

Wouldn't we do that in the FAMILY? We, surely, wouldn't tell the things only to other people, eh?

Maybe people don't know HOW they hurt people?

I mean, I don't think it's possible to be completely RIGHT all of the time, even when holding the correct view, eh?
At 8:01 AM, Wikkid Person said…

(more farting. Check)

Fortunately "being right" and "doing good" are very different things. Also "I didn't do anything wrong" and "I didn't do any harm."

How often has someone in a religious (or military) setting claimed to be "doing the right thing" and "not doing anything wrong" (or "just following orders") yet they haven't done any good, and, in fact have done harm?

Right/wrong and good/evil are different. I think we tend to focus on the first one to the exclusion of the second, and misquote scripture to try to make it fit that preoccupation.

Doing something to "be right" or "one of the right people in the right place doing the right thing" isn't a spiritual motive for doing anything. Doing something so you can be right is like doing something so you can be rich. It is for one's own benefit.
At 11:50 AM, Anonymous said…

Which is why comments should be made, not to just be in the 'right' but to speak the truth in love, eh?

I do believe, also, that if comments are made that are 'intellectual' ones, they should stick to the discipline of that, and not get into invective, sarcasm and other such matters.

Sometimes people get into ad hominem attacks and so on.

I am thinking, also, that art forms, such as satire, and so on, are extremely helpful, but given that the medium is so often the message, one has to ascertain whether the message given is the one that will be received, eh?

I feel that the reaction you got from your parody is not at all the one you had expected.

Would be of interest to know what reaction you envisioned when you first put it forth?

Also, would be interested in how others came to know that you had made this parody.

By the way, I have not seen it, so am not talking from some knowledge o of it
At 3:16 PM, Anonymous said…

Just feel thoroughly kind of bad that I was kind of taking broadsides at things today.

I do have those views, you know, but I should state, perhaps, where I am coming from, or it'll sound like mere crankiness, or something like that.

I DO think that, yes, humour is extremely helpful in showing anomalies in a way that helps us all to laugh at our foibles, and possibly then correct them. So, please do not misunderstand.

In terms of communication, though, I've often been EXTREMELY surprised, shocked, in fact, at how some of my 'messages' written or spoken, have been taken, even by persons of great good will, eh?

For example, many people are USED to thinking about things in the abstract, of using analogies, of quickly hopping from a hypothetical example to a real situation and not necessarily confusing the two. Not all of us all of the time, you know.

Life has been so literal for some that they've not had this opportunity. In the case of others, they've done that from time to time, elsewhere, but have forgotten such types of communication. Especially in their chapels, eh?

Definitely, not everyone has had this experience. All people do not know what a parody is [what is it? ha, ha] and do not recognize that there may be an art form or literary form that may state a thing in a certain way, not in order to harm someone, or not because it is LITERALLY or EXACTLY the thing under criticism, but in order that something afresh may be discovered by looking at a phenomenon on another front.

I, for example, being, again, a bear of little brain, used to kind of view FICTION as a rather iffy thing, and maybe that wouldn't be all that wonderful for a Christian unless, maybe, that Christian was studying for a necessary literature exam, you know, or something like that.

Then, one day, I was waiting for a relative in a library and started to browse the nearby books. They were about literary criticism or something like that. One of them defined fiction, and somewhere in that definition said something about the suppression of one aspect of truth in order to bring out more clearly another aspect of the truth.

I then began to think about the Lord's parables. You know, different ones, such as the various brothers who had married, successively, the same woman.

Ordinary specifics, such as many brothers in many families, gave place to an example that all could understand quickly. The ordinary specifics would distract.

I mean, at the time I read that, I was a person who had already graduated from high school or sucht -- it wasn't that I'd never been in school. It's just that I'd never thought about it.

A person with a talent must have mercy on the others who may not exactly immediately understand his 'drift.' Is THAT the problem with that parody?

We're not all brainy, you know!!!!!!!
At 7:20 AM, Wikkid Person said…

I guess I did the parody to amuse myself. The underlying message was "That pamphlet they pass out is loony-sounding, but it is one of those things you can't speak out against, because it's in a position of superstitious veneration (idolotry)." I imitated the style of it quite easily. Reading my parody gave people a glimpse into what reading the real thing was like for me. Many were so upset that I'd dare mock it (it having been given a place equal to that of God in their hearts) that I really think that's all they could see.

One guy online recently was all "I don't know what you did, but no one deserves to be treated as you were" and when he found out what I'd written, he changed to "I have faithfully handed out that pamphlet my whole life and my father before me. You deserve everything you got!"

I showed what I'd written to a few close friends, and one young troublemaker. He was 20, and he decided it would be funny to leave the parody pamphlet lying around at church and so on. Eventually he saw that it got into the right hands that it was soon turned in to those who felt they were in authority. He was trying to get me into trouble, and he succeeded.
At 7:31 AM, Anonymous said…

On the theme of literary forms and whatnot, I think that, to some degree, denominations, because of the fact that they require, in most cases, a formal education in Bible or other related subjects, will have an aspect of "learned society" to them.

Assemblies are not so, really, and, even if you meet someone with learning of a formal nature within them, you are not likely to find it out except as an incidental matter, eh? Only if the person is medical are you likely to hear a title or such.

I think we still do value 'book learning,' in its own right, sure, but find it useful in certain factual and conceptual ways, only. It's a little corner of things, sure, and a highly helpful one in getting things of that nature straight.

Because we've met people who've used 'book learning' to 'prove' the faith is a fallacy, I guess people's tentacles are a bit ready.

Another thing that is valued is the application of the knowledge that has been gained, and that's a difficult area. The exhortations seem to go in waves along pastoral lines, you know, since, as Jay Adams once put it, we sometimes tend to fight the battles of 25 years before. You know, apologetics along lines helpful to people 25 years ago are taught and the new problems are not perhaps yet addressed, or something like that. Stuff like that.

It's interesting that in the area in which Blake dwells, the geographical area, one of the most widely influential testimonies decades ago, was that of a person with an extreme learning disability. Name was Ann Preston, and the nickname became "Holy Ann," and the book celebrating her life is "An Irish Saint."

This servant girl did have so little mental ability available, not a lot of ROM or RAM or whatever it is, that she had to depend on the Lord just to remember whatever it is she needed to remember to remember, if you know what I mean.

Her influence got wider and wider, until at the time of her funeral, the mayor of Toronto was present and hundreds of others.

SO, that's THAT whole other aspect, as well.

Now, I'm not saying that lack of mental acuity is a virtue, of course. I am just saying that people who don't get things have access to the grace of GOd, and CAN be our leaders, I think, and stuff like that.

But, when I mention 'application,' above, I don't mean about people just looking at the Scriptures and woodenly applying them -- of course, you know those legal attitudes. THERE a person might have a bit of a difficulty, because a not-so-spiritual person will maybe just look at applications of Scriptures that have been part and parcel of his community and apply them as 'rules.' He might not listen to the voice of God.
Well, that applies also to a spiritual person who, while knowing there might be a different way to perceive something, just goes along with others.

Still, a lot of good calls are made, even despite that particular possibility, eh?

I think that Ann Preston was a spiritual person, and in her communion with God found the answers, and most likely would have had a good discernment, as was evident on certain occasions, eh? when people tried to fool her.

So, that's another area that perhaps comes before others, and that's to be in a relationship with the Almighty that is a dependent one and close enough so that one can see things clearly. To see oneself as God sees one, and to see others as God sees them, and to discern situations, you know, like in the epistle about pulling some people out of the fire; knowing who's REALLY not meaning to go the wrong way, and who really could be, and so on. Who needs encouragement, who needs a slap on the hand, who needs a warning, and who is to be out of there.

In our leaders, I'm sure that's maybe what we should pray for, eh? That they'd understand us and see us as God sees us, rather than as might present at first, eh?

This is not to be construed as any opinion at all about your own situation, since I really don't know a thing about it, never having read your parody, never having, you know, known your environment or anything, eh?

I'm sure it must have been absolutely devastating to have experienced being "read out." Is there any way in which things could be straightened up in that? Are there things that the people THINK you meant that were intended quite differently? Is there a way to explain where you are truly, truly coming from?

What do you think?
At 7:51 AM, Anonymous said…

So YOU had not chosen THAT audience, but, unfortunately, had mentioned it to a person who had proved to be unreliable who tossed it, in effect, to all and sundry.

Hmm. Had you explained that it was not really the CONTENT of the gospel or its expression in an earlier language form that had been your intent in writing that, that it had not been meant for distribution to the assembly, but for your own amusement, and also to see what would happen if you used that form of language now on some other front?

I believe that it might have been more helpful to have taken the essential biblical message of the tract, with which, I would think, you'd agree, and to have written a contemporary language version of the same.

I think you might then have forwarded it to the publishers.

The problem about what you consider idolatry is that it is in this case, confused with the issue of going against past things. The reason that people cling to the OLD tracts and so on, is partly that they fear the kinds of inroads that have SOMETIMES been made by forward-looking persons who have been, well, less spiritual, and some kinds of movements of that nature that did not really last have made incursions in the past.

I've kind of lived through some of those times, so I know that there's a fear, and the idolatry aspect won't be seen. It'll be seen on other fronts, but not there.

So, there's a confusion of issues there, and there's a problem there, too.

Also, the people who are jingoistic about the past have come nose to nose with folks who are jingoistic about, say, trends, the trendism folks, and that sets reactions into place, I guess. I don't know, but I've lived fairly thoroughly with the elderly, and I think it's important for you, IF you agree with this, to iterate that it is not the MESSAGE of the tract that concerns you, but, perhaps, that you were not all that keen on the way in which it was worded, or such.

I think you could apologize for hurting people [I don't think they're all idolaters totally about it -- there's a reaction maybe to a history, there -- am aware of that history] and, especially, point out that there was some wanton carelessness in the distribution, not intended.

IF
At 12:07 PM, Anonymous said…

IF, however, you were against the historic gospel and/or faith, it'd be a different picture altogether, no?
At 1:34 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Yes. A serious criticism or a "I can do better" would have been much more mature than mockery, but I was 23 and didn't dare do that. I'm sure even that would have been a turd in the punch bowl.

The tract was lame. It was called "Wild Whipped Cream" (which sounded porny enough that the whole teenaged group who it had just been handed it were in titters and whispering, which is what gave me the idea that it was a poor choice of title for a religious tract in 1993) and was about a mother and daughter who had a defective can of aerosol whipped cream. They tugged, shook and pulled and pressed the stem on the can which way and that, but no cream would come out.

Eventually, in direct disobedience to the instructions on the label, they punctured it, and whipped cream erupted forth majestically, and dripped from the ceiling, their faces, their hair...

you get the idea. What followed was a very tacked-on reminder that there are rules to follow and that we've all broken them, but that Jesus died for us.

This weekly pamphlet (Messages of God's Love) is mainly written by extremely old women, and the slightly cracked, very cobwebby and out of touch feeling is obvious. I talked to one woman who "only writes bible stories" for the pamphlet. She doesn't like those "attention getting story with helpful scripture tie-in" submissions. This one got all the wrong sort of attention, but I'm sure it's been so long since the writer thereof saw semen that she would have been shocked and appalled at the first thing that entered the minds of the guys and girls upon even reading the title of it.

I aplogized to the elder and was told that it was God, not christians who'd been offended, so they couldn't accept my apology. They kicked me out. I wrote the publishers, who accepted my apology and said it was no biggie, as far as they were concerned, but also said it was "God who was offended." The elders refused to tell me who I was in trouble for showing this parody to, so I phoned the homes of those in the church with teens, to apologize, just in case. It turned out to be a 20 year old who had no job and smoked a lot of hash. I was put out of fellowship for "attempting to corrupt" him with writing that was "nothing short of sacriledge and profane."

It was an excuse. They wanted me out, and once they got me out, it was clear I wasn't coming back in anytime in this lifetime. They've been happily kicking people out ever since, too.

For a comparison of the two tracts (the original and mine) go here:

http://wikkidwebsite.mine.nu/whipped_cream.htm
At 4:13 PM, Anonymous said…

Thanks for the explanation. And for the link.
MAy take time, but will get back.

I had thought it was "God's Way of Salvation," or such, that had been the tract, so that's why I wondered whether it was a mere stylistic thing or a content thing. I'd thought, in the case of content, that the difference might have been substantive, and in the case of style that it might have been a taste matter. Seems to be more in the latter direction, perhaps.
At 10:03 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Yes, "Wild Whipped Cream" left an odd...taste in my mouth, I guess.
At 8:26 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

Wikkid:

Suffice it to say I'm more than a little impressed with the amount of balls you've shown. Huge ups!

I've been known to write a little satire myself; if you're even in the market for a collaborator on some project or other, look me up. I converted to Christ at the age of 17, to Brethrenism at 20 or so, and away from Brethrenism this year. Long, painful story.

I'm sure people here can vouch that I'm funny as hell and perhaps a tad more irreverant than you are.
At 12:13 PM, Anonymous said…

"I'm sure people here can vouch that I'm funny as hell and perhaps a tad more irreverant than you are."

Yup, and all things considered a pretty decent guy (the fact that he's evil aside). :D
At 1:56 PM, Wikkid Person said…

I've seen the White Russian posts on Shawncuthill.com. Amusing. Vicious.

Thanks for the props. I don't see why everyone doesn't speak out every day, all the time, but then, that's just me. I don't get why brethren and exBrethren people think it's wonderful and courageous to actually be honest and open and sincere.

I have found, however, that if your goal is communication and bettering someone's day (as opposed to just making them look stupid) then mockery and satire usually aren't your best choice of tools.

Zealots of any stripe tend to be characteristically lacking a sense of humour (which goes hand in hand with lacking a sense of perspective) and they just might be right in feeling that someone bringing a sense of humour (and perhaps a sense of perspective) into a discussion might be completely unfair to them, as they can't play, and you definately have the upper hand.

A lot of times they can't even hear and agree with their OWN beliefs, unless they're worded in the "special language" so it is no surprise that other people thoughts, not so worded, just don't seem...sanctified...enough, and don't give them that magic little feeling of warmth (yup. We're still the right ones doing the right thing.) in the pits of their stomachs.
At 4:56 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"I have found, however, that if your goal is communication and bettering someone's day (as opposed to just making them look stupid) then mockery and satire usually aren't your best choice of tools."

It depends upon how you approach the fundamentalists; I view myself as less a person to do serious and honest dialogue with them for the simple reason that I've tried, over and over, to zero result. I can couch my language, I can be somewhat diplomatic, but to the absolutist mindset very little in the way of dialogue and considered reflection is possible. So my strategy has evolved, based on what worked for me: hard-hitting attacks and outrageous humour.

I'm serious. I have decided that the talking heads of the movement don't deserve the time of day and are using their influence to intimidate people into blindly following them around. So I've decided to become a human scathe, if you will, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think some of the leaders of the catastrophe need to be sent up, I really do. That is the only way that the people under their influence will loosen up and realize their cows aren't so sacred and might even once in a while produce some manure - especially the male cattle. ;) I personally have found it the best strategy so far, but maybe that's just because I haven't come up with anybody in any of the golden thrones in Brethrenism that can withstand a "Chuck Boris" verbal onslaught. Granted, half of them couldn't withstand an Ann Landers dressing-down, so I guess that doesn't make me out to be all that impressive.

You're right in that there is a certain way to approach dialogue; but since I have been told in no uncertain terms that I'm going to hell in one such exchange, when I tried to provide actual biblical exegesis, I see no more purpose for it. For honest brokers, people who are honestly thoughtful and willing to think outside the jail, yes, fine - for the jailers, no way. No mercy, no remorse, no refusal to twist the blade once I send it in. For the people under these people, I do have a tremendous amount of compassion and concern and desire to be friendly, so that's fine by me.

I will admit that I am not a perfect discerner between the two types; sometimes I might have somebody pegged as one when really they're the other, but that's learning curves for ya.
At 5:07 PM, Wikkid Person said…

scythe. Like a sickle, but with the two-handed handle.

Interesting. I'm glad you explained all of that. Your "jailers" comment is kinda like what I worked out about "deal fairly and kindly with people who care, and not with people who don't."

Here's the latest silliness I came up with on shawncuthill.com to make a point about lack of accountability among closed brethren:

GUY (phoning the police): the elders of my church had me shot twice through the liver Sunday morning for reading from the NIV!
COP: what church is that sir?
GUY: well, they don't have a name
COP: what Christian group are they affiliated with?
GUY: they're just a small group of believers gathered by the power of the Holy Spirit on scriptural ground, as per the Lord's dying request until he come...
COP: who are the elders?
GUY: well, there are no official elders named
COP: no name for the church, no names for the elders. Who shot you?
GUY: well, it was an assembly action
COP: so, who am I charging with this?
GUY: well, the whole assembly, I should think
COP: can I have a membership list?
GUY: there isn't one
COP: so just anyone can be a member?
GUY: no, of course, the assembly decides who can break bread and who can't
COP: who's in charge of that?
GUY: no one person.
COP: I'm going to have to come out next Sunday and investigate this incident further
GUY: Well, ok, but you'll have to sit at the back
COP: can you give me a street address?
GUY: well, the group had a division (shortly after discharging the firearm), over whether it's acceptable for Christian people to deviate from using the traditional revolver to shoot saints through their livers, or whether the much more modern and liberal automatic pistol is permissible, so there are three distinct street addresses now, all claiming to be right, one that uses revolvers, one that uses automatics, and one that leaves it up to the conscience of the assembly on a case by case basis.
COP: this is ridiculous
GUY: I KNEW you wouldn't understand. Are you even a Christian?
COP: umm, I'm a Catholic...
GUY: that doesn't count. I have nothing further to say to you! (dies)
At 6:19 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Thanks for the typo correction...it's been an inordinately long day. Just on the starting end of an 86 hour work week, here...

Fantastic parody. Again, I'm totally digging your sense of humour.
At 7:20 PM, Wikkid Person said…

I am a high school English teacher with no marking and spelling corrections to do for a few months, so very few things I read are likely to get by me unscythed.

I'm divided as to humour. Sometimes it's just a way of feeling good about one's self and making the others look stupid, just 'cause you can, not necessarily because they did anything specific. On the other hand, what I just wrote is an example of something I don't know how to convey as well any other way...
At 8:09 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

English teacher? Good man. I'm a languages student, myself. Sometimes my English suffers, especially when I'm all up in Russian like I am right now.

I frankly enjoy outrageous humour. I love it when God and the prophets use it in the Bible. Elijah is always my favourite. "What? Is your god asleep? Perhaps he's out taking a crap*, and you've just got to give him a few minutes to finish." (*Most translations render it "out pursuing", or, "hunting" or something, but that's actually what Elijah said.) There's a time for it, and a time not for it. But I find I can be far kinder in my humour than when I really unleash it and let it out in straight, heavy, critical prose. I'm pretty brutal when I play it straight, but I find my sarcasm and humour has more of an effect on others in terms of leadership than my straightforward approach. I'm just a pretty polarizing personality.
At 5:55 PM, Wikkid Person said…

I'd like to hear an indepth account of your brethren experiences. Does the blog adequately cover that in past entries? Could you email me the basics?
At 6:18 PM, Christian Conservative said…

So, you're saying it could be rendered, "On a journey... to the loo"? LOL

I love the sarcasm of the Tower of Babel... "But the LORD CAME DOWN to the city and the tower..." LOL
At 7:46 PM, Anonymous said…

PS to the 5:55 Wikkid Person request of Blake -- would also like, Blake, to hear an in-depth account of your coming to Christ experience -- read something in which you alluded to it, about being seventeen or such, briefly, but then diverged to another aspect or such.

Re: Wikkid Person

You DO, in fact, love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, no?

I think that this might be so, given that you had a desire to clear up things that had happened, and so on.

Maybe, while, sure, realizing that there are moments in which people address subjects in tracts in ways that may provoke mirth or other such reactions in certain populations, such as the teenage one, there would be a possible aspect of attempting to look at the older members of His flock, for whom He died, as being very precious to Him.

Like, if a guy, for instance, had a favourite collie, I don't think, really, that he'd view it as less lovable when it aged and deteriorated, but would kind of take care of it for old times' sake, still. Like, maybe, that tattery animal in "Of Mice and Men" that one chap had.

It occurs to me that the electric beater that whipped things was the latest technology in the days of these ancient gals, and, probably, that'd be as good an example as any.

And we all know about, you know, the example-from-nature thing that was popular in the days of people like the late Jimmy Stewart.

So, maybe those tracts would be suitable for folks in a specific age group, who like those kinds of analogies.

And, as mentioned, most probably, if a person could parody a tract, he/she could probably WRITE one, as well. I know I once did, you know, not necessariloy a good one, but one that entered more appropriately to the worldview of the Hare Krishna and other similar people -- just didn't have one for such populations.

The bias exhibited vis-a-vis female [female implements and home appliances and work and so on are usually put down -- they are closely related to material -- MATER, ha, ha]. Even the subjects people take have a hierarchy based on how much material is in them. Biology is material and dirty and messy, so is the lowest science. Chemistry is material, but is CLEAN, so is a bit higher up. Physics and Math are the highest, not having material in them, but IF Physics gets material in it, it falls down to Engineering. And, the more material in the subject, the more easily women are allowed into it.

So, the business of something being womanly or old-womanly is a basis for critique, eh?

And age-ism! If you were to speak to someone female working in an old people's home, you would become aware that people have not lost their sexuality because they are seniors. SOme of the women workers have to beware of what they wear or they'll be groped, a bit. Research shows that people continue their sexual lives to most any age at all.

Dated, yes, sure. PErhaps it might have been a really good idea to have told people the kinds of reactions that were provoked when that particular title was given to young people.

Probably, they use that tract because no one writes one better.

But, yeah, maybe the mockery -- is it kind, really, since those persons, the writers were in there trying. Maybe ONE person saw through the perhaps flawed approach and got the message. Maybe the Lord blessed that in some way.

Maybe He would have blessed a tract that you might have written. Just recently, I saw that someone had changed the name of a booklet called "Twelve Bottles of Milk" that was given out to new believers. Now THAT was a title that had seemed dated to me.

WHY? Someone, at a prison, had very kindly pointed out that the document, while very useful, had a title to which prisoners could not relate, for two reasons:
1. milk didn't usually come in bottles, these days
2. prisoners were not generally drinkers of milk

AND THEY CHANGED IT. So, if you have a critique, it's possible that somebody'd be glad to change things. If you have a tract, well, you only need a photocopier to publish it, lay IT around, and people will grab it.

So, sure, maybe you love the Lord, and well, have insights from time to time. You're an English teacher, and can write informed letters to publishers, simply stating the problem.

I think that an honest effort by older people should be lauded, not mocked, eh?

But, twenty-three is a certain age.
At 9:42 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

A request for my testimony? Why? Aren't I embarrassment enough already? ;)

Briefly, I was challenged when I was 17 by the behaviour of one of my best friends at the time. He was a smart guy, 92% average in his last year of high school or something. To make a long story short, I watched him drink his life away at a young age, and began to ask myself natural questions: "what is the point of life without a moral order?" "which moral order is correct?" "what punishments are there for those who break it?" etc. Although my curiousity was piqued by my friend's unwise decisions, I wss also looking for a way of life in which I could find acceptance from others and become a superior human being.

From there, I started to read the Bible, figuring to find the solution there. After completely missing the point of the New Testament for about a year (despite no lack of effort), I finally had my eyes opened to see Christ as the end of the law, myself in need of forgivness (and not a moral code) since I was fundamentally flawed, even though I wish I weren't. I therefore put my trust in Christ to save me, being without hope of doing so myself.

Shortly after that, I started faithful church attendance at a local United Church, but was way too reactionary to their liberal beliefs. So I went to a Baptist church where I fell in with a KJV-only fundamentalist group. From there, to a Brethren assembly in Cambridge, and then to Guelph Bible Chapel when I realized the commute to Cambridge was pretty non-sensical.

So that's my story. Some of it. A sufficient amount.
At 7:50 AM, Wikkid Person said…

I thought I had said that, my reflexive mockery of the efforts of the old wasn't, in hindsight, anything I'm proud of. Thing is, they are characteristically completely terrified by changing anything, and are not capable of looking through another person's eyes (which seems to me to be useful skill in evangelism).

Blake, I wanted to know about your brethren experience. Privately, if need be.
At 10:29 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

Well, part of the problems have to deal with me and having shifting attitudes, and part of it is just some of the Brethren people I've met.

To emphasize again, I was a dyed-in-the-wool KJV-only fundamentalist. I eventually dropped the KJV-only part (it lasted about 13 minutes in NT Greek class) and eventually, the more I was in school (U of Waterloo), the more I became accustomed to having to engage and think meaningfully with people around me. That experience changed my approach to life, as I become more even-minded, less prejudicial, and appreciate mystery and questions more than pat answers and absolutism. At Guelph Bible Chapel, there were conflicting factions that both welcomed that change in me (Jack Correll being perhaps the most supportive) and steadfastly opposed me (Steve Kaczorowski, who as I mentioned on my blog, condemned me to hell for being a Calvinist and made some other really dense statements).

Some of my negative experiences that happened are unique to Guelph Bible Chapel and do not grossly affect my opinion of Brethrenism as a whole. Some of my experiences at Arkell Road Bible Chapel, which I was at only as a visitor, do. The narrow-mindedness, the brutal argumentation, the control freaks in leadership, and the demand for submission to unacceptable degrees (in my estimation) rubbed me the wrong way. There were a few other things I could share, drop me an email and I'll try to get it done by tomorrow. :)
At 11:21 AM, Blake Kennedy said…

For clarification: the ARBC experience for me was especially unfortuante. There are so many people there that I have a world of respect and admiration for, and it really saddened me to see things go down that way. Due to some really harsh criticism I've received on my own blog, I won't name names, but I will state that 90% of the people I know at Arkell Road are among the greatest people I've ever known, which makes not being able to fellowship there especially difficult.
At 2:03 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Have you generally been the dumper or the dumped?
At 3:02 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Romantically? Neither. Married the first serious girlfriend I ever had.

Religiously? Dumper. Every time.
At 4:15 PM, Wikkid Person said…

So you ARE a photographic negative of me!
At 5:10 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

I'm a negative everything, dude.
At 9:46 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Yet they say that about me. I don't know, you got married to the wife of your youth, and you had the courage to move on and try new places and to leave before you got kicked out. Doesn't sound very negative to me. Sounds like someone who has some idea how to have fun and get stuff for himself.
At 11:14 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Well, one of my regrets is that I always didn't leave places on an entirely positive note. Despite the fact that I sometimes like confrontation, I would prefer my exits from places to a) not have happened at all, b) if inevitable, at least take place with as little drama and in as unnoticable a fashion as possible. I prefer to just disappear when a situation goes sour (which in my experience was only twice: theologically with the United Church, practically with Guelph Bible Chapel) so that others can continue along in the way they want to go. But that always hasn't been the way it's gone down. And I'm sorry for the part I've had to play in those times.
At 12:00 PM, Wikkid Person said…

For myself, I have mixed feelings on the same score. I think it is necessary to create a cultish mindset to keep the average PB system alive. You have to raise people who don't listen to, (or dont' have) cognitive dissonance when two contradictory thoughts occupy their brain at the same time. You have to get everyone to cooperate in not thinking about most things. Like with newspeak in 1984 by Orwell, the more you insist that a special language be spoken, and ensure that there are many things that can't be expressed in that language, the more it becomes impossible to fully think out these concepts and share them with others. There simply does not exist the sanctified terminology and social context wherein any two people could put their heads together and say anything other than "Let's leave." All of the usual "common sense" stuff gets stepped on, remains unspoken, or is labelled "the human mind failing to grasp spiritual things."

This leaves "We are because we are and we are right because we are right and other are wrong because they are not-us. Don't forget to thank the Lord for all of this."
At 1:41 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

Have said so many timse myself. Good to hear others agreeing wholeheartedly!
At 5:47 PM, Anonymous said…

Well, I suppose that there are a goodly number of people posting here, and so on.
At one time, i could talk in 'brethrenese,' but sort of lost it when I was in a younger assembly in both senses of the word.

I DO try to speak generic whenever possible, and that goes not only for said 'brethrenese' but for words that may be kind of all right in theology, but may not make a lot of sense to reg'lar folks.

I think that if I can't say it in 'street,' maybe I've not internalized it enough, eh?
At 5:57 PM, Anonymous said…

I think you guys are starting to speak more from the heart, as it were, and it's becoming more interesting, really, along with the technical critiques and so on.

The thing about the 'goodly number' is a kind of phrase I seemd to hear, and so on.

Lots of us very ingrown types, you know, really do understand the foibles and so on, and those may sometimes come from those who aren't really, underneath, quite as, you know, into the biblical thing, but more, into being a certain kind of person or whatever.

Thanks for the testimony, Blake -- it was most interesting, I think.

Sometime, maybe, when WikkidPerson has a chance, he could perhaps give us something similar, eh?

We're basically all for you guys, you know, at heart. I hope you realize that. We're in family, eh.
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous said…

However, having said that we're FOR you does not at all mean that in every iota we AGREE with you.

I agree when people DO fall into the profile of just having a mindset such as one you mention. Having said that, I know a WHOLE lot of people, also within assemblies, who simply do not have a mindset like that.

And I do stay with the idea that we have to respect and be kind to God's older sheep, and realize when they're in there trying. At the same time, I realize that there are many hard times, and misunderstanding DO, of course, happen, as well.

God does turn the heart of the king, so we do have to think that He'll also take care of things in His time, as well.

Hello to Julie, eh!
At 9:27 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"I DO try to speak generic whenever possible, and that goes not only for said 'brethrenese' but for words that may be kind of all right in theology, but may not make a lot of sense to reg'lar folks.

I think that if I can't say it in 'street,' maybe I've not internalized it enough, eh?"

You and I might have different feelings on this, but I think these things are contextual. Yes, some things could stand for using more universal terminology, at times, but other times I think when teaching those who are not as educated you still have to use the proper terminology and then explain it. For example, if I am preaching a sermon on some aspect of Christology, when appropriate the category "hypostatic union" is going to come out, followed by an explanation to the best of my ability as to what it means and why it's important that the person in the pew knows what it's all about. To me, that's how pedagogy is done. I know not everybody agrees with me on that point, but then, nobody's a perfect teacher who reaches an entire audience all equally.
At 9:32 PM, Blake Kennedy said…

"Thanks for the testimony, Blake -- it was most interesting, I think."

It's not exhaustive, but it gives enough details.

"However, having said that we're FOR you does not at all mean that in every iota we AGREE with you.

I agree when people DO fall into the profile of just having a mindset such as one you mention. Having said that, I know a WHOLE lot of people, also within assemblies, who simply do not have a mindset like that...And I do stay with the idea that we have to respect and be kind to God's older sheep, and realize when they're in there trying. At the same time, I realize that there are many hard times, and misunderstanding DO, of course, happen, as well."

Now, see, that's what I'm talking about. I don't necessarily need everybody to agree with me straight down the line, because I don't even know if I agree with me straight down the line, and if I don't it's certainly not the most important thing in the world. But what is important is being treated respectfully no matter what my differences are. I may not see things like some of the older saints with whom I may not have a lot in common, but I respect some of their efforts and devotion. While what turns my crank may not turn theirs, I can respect at least that they have a crank and that it is turning. All I ask is that the same respect be showed to me. That's what's most important to me, anyhow. Even in discussion forums I frequent where laying smack-downs is the order of the day (like RaptorsChat), I do not as a rule disrespect those who do not disrespect me.

Perhaps my recent blog entry on conformity and why I see it being such a horrible thing might shed some light on that subject.
At 10:01 PM, Anonymous said…

I think it is necessary to create a cultish mindset to keep the average PB system alive. You have to raise people who don't listen to, (or dont' have) cognitive dissonance when two contradictory thoughts occupy their brain at the same time. You have to get everyone to cooperate in not thinking about most things. Like with newspeak in 1984 by Orwell, the more you insist that a special language be spoken, and ensure that there are many things that can't be expressed in that language, the more it becomes impossible to fully think out these concepts and share them with others.

Well, yeah, this does happen. I do think, though, that if people don't think in terms of 'brethrenism,' or of 'this is a brethren church,' and just think in terms of the idea of in some way following the NT pattern, of keeping close to the Lord and so on, and, therefore, with one another [it is absolutely certain that Satan will work to prevent this happening, no?], then you won't get this sort of 'we are the people -- come not near to us, for we are holier than thou.'

First of all, you'd have, IF we followed the Lord and avoided merely making a kind of cult of the correct, a lot of humility, and we'd be thinking about other people as being, not worse than ourselves, but better. That's for starters.

I must admit that those who are the most eager, I guess, to please the Lord, and are not working on keeping a status quo that they think is what they're on earth to do, often are siphoned off, with time, into missionary endeavour or into something like that. Maybe they're a jail chaplain, you know, or maybe they're in some other kind of full-time thing.

I guess what I'm saying is that the general level of spirituality and obedience to the Lord may determine a lot of this. Not, as you, Wikkidperson, say -- trying to be correct, or, trying to be the MOST correct, but rather, obeying the Lord in the minutest details of life. It might indicate a kidn of revival.

Having said that, on the factual side, I'm pretty sure that for a lot of people, the idea of "assembly" or "brethren," probably does not go beyond, well, having a meeting at 9:30 a.m. where the emblems are taken, having another one at 11:00 a.m. or so where there's, say, some preaching; having a prayer meeting, and so on and so on.

And that constitutes the distinctives in their mind of being, in some way, on a 'better'
track.

So, the principles, really, aren't all that much taught. You know, like, "What is the church, biblically speaking?"

I sometimes wonder whether, and this is simply a wandering of my mind, eh? Anyway, I do wonder whether the creation of a "Family Bible Hour," in, I think, the fifties, meant there'd be, in some cases, a meeting that was neither fish nor fowl, so to speak.

Prior to that, you most likely had an adult Bible class during the time , perhaps, that Sunday School occurred. There was consecutive delving -- it was usually conversational -- into the Word, into specific portions of the Word. Mostly, there'd be Christians there, but they'd adjust it if not.

I think that now, you have maybe a ministry type meeting for starters, but then as yet unbelievers come in, and they start thinking to themselves, "Hmm. I really must try to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit, just as that speaker was stating." SOmetimes, they make a false profession, because it wasn't too clear.

And, when the gospel is preached, in that context, it's often not as clear as when it is preached in a gospel-only meeting. There are transitions between the various things being preached, and the focus may be unclear.
Actually, the false professor may be the kind of person who'd just DO 'brethrenism' and not be really into a dynamic relationship with Christ. They'd go through various correct motions, maybe. Or, maybe, they'd kind of put a damper on the better things that others were doing,eh?

I don't know. Just a thought. But, anyway, the Bible classes may have kept people knowing a little more accurately what they were about, eh?

At least the males would kind of read ahead because of needing to participate.

Some assemblies have this sort of thing in other meetings, so it's covered, though. SOme do almost everything through preaching, though, and it may become a spectator thing, no?

Consequently, a lot of people don't really know their stuff as well as they otherwise might, don't you think?

Don't tell me yhou don't know, becuase you were very aware that the Lord's Table was not specifically the time when we take the bread and the wine, so, ha, ha, you study, I think....
At 6:56 PM, Anonymous said…

Not to extend this, but I guess you would have to think that the person who is into a 'mindset' about being 'in the assemblies' in the sense of kind of putting down others who don't SOUND as if they are, or who are not is, to a certain degree, in a way, 'not getting' what its all about, the church, the local assembly, and so on.

The so-called 'brethren' movement tried, anyway, to MOVE AWAY from that sort of division between Christians.

Often, when I've had some kind of a discourse with someone, I've kind of used their own purported stance, really, trying to show that they are not, really, being faithful to that to an entire degree.

E.g., you could, when speaking to a J-Witness, cite one of their favourite verses, about God being one, and there being none beside Him, and then say that their idea of Jesus as "a god," really mitigates against their purported monotheistic stand. Tried it once and the person was aghast, eh?

The assembly person wishes very much not to be a SECTARIAN person -- he/she would be against that. Well, one will have distinctives, yes, and that's not a problem, but when there's a crossing of the line that is too far, the stance of US as above THEM, only looking at OUR pluses tnat THEIR minuses, and never at our MINUSES and THEIR pluses, you really eventually are re-instating a sectarianism which the "brethren" movement tried to eschew.

It's the attitude, NOT the convictions, that are the problem, wouldn't you think? There are, on the other hand, and possibly as a reaction against this sectarianism, those who become mealy-mouthed and feel that one should not have one's distinctives and should never differ from anyone, and, especially, that one should never talk about differences. I don't agree with this reaction.

It's not the having of differences but the attitude of Little Jack Horner. We pull out an ecclesiastical plum and instead of being grateful for it, saying "Thanks be to God!" instead say, "What a good boy am I!" We are not thankful, but proud.

So maybe that's not the place of blessing, exactly.
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous said…

Having said this, there are a lot of Christian people in assemblies who appreciate the church universal a whole lot, and are not at all with a feeling of being above others.

They're not proud about assemblies, just enjoy them, participate in them, and have the attitude similar to someone who's found something very palatable at the smorgasbord table,and may tell others about it, but are glad to hear about anything someone else has found, as well.

Yes, re the Blake comment -- sure, the hypostatic union and that is a pedagogic way of going about matters.

SOmetimes, in a case like that, a person might ask, anyway, such as saying "A WHAT union?", or, "Say that in English, Bro!"

There is more of a problem with words that are, maybe, commonly used and not explained, that maybe we all bandy about, without thinking about whether people are really 'getting' what is implied.

Redemption, sanctification, repentance and more common words may not be explained, eh? So, yeah, either explain them, which is very correct, or else say them in a comprehensible way.

I do not mean to promote not explaining or something like that.

I mean that if I could not say it in street, maybe I hadn't internalized it. I don't mean I am necessarily going to say it in street -- just have the ability to do so, maybe.
At 1:03 PM, Wikkid Person said…

Yup. Jargon serves as a short-cut for people who understand, and necessarilly excludes newcomers and outsiders. Eventually, if enough newcomers and novices are using jargon that's never been defined, we get a mess.
At 9:59 AM, Wikkid Person said…

For your edification:

a decade ago when I was just learning how to make music with computers, in order to learn about using samples and basic stuff like that, I edited together a whole bunch of little sound bytes of brethren men preaching, and put them to some technoey music. Tell me what you think:

http://wikkidwebsite.mine.nu/sounds/MP3s/The_Wikkid_People-%20Independant%20C%20(Follow%20the%20Flock).mp3

The sound quality is amateurish and downgraded for easy download, but the effect is interesting, I think. My Mom was very upset when she heard it. I asked why she'd be upset at brethren men preaching and she said "They sound CRAZY!" I replied "Yes. They do."
At 9:48 PM, Anonymous said…

I would rather talk about JESUS than assemblies!! Really who cares about a man made machine like an assembly? It is all about JESUS!! I really get bad vibes when I hear I go to an assembly, as my experience is one of people committed to a "WAY" of meeting etc. with all that baggage rather than "THE WAY" - which Jesus is.
At 6:49 AM, Anonymous said…

Blake,

I am glad you aced "brethren" from your blog...it really shouldn't have ever been there in the first place!

I appreciate you sharing some of your testimony at the end of this string. Truly our fellowship isn't in any "manmade machine," but rather the word of God.

If you would receive them, i would throw out a couple of thoughts for your contemplation:

1) consider avoiding "painting with a broad brush." i don't come from a "brethren" background, but walked into an "assembly" 6 years ago and found a very warm loving group of people and four elders who passionately love the Lord. this was after my family and i visited numerous Baptist, Church of Christ, Bible, and Nondenominational churches. So, the assembly in this town happens to be exceptional, a good blend of theology and practical living...with elders open to personal critique and doctrinal discussion (i went to a bible school in Texas). Since, i have traveled and visited these type of churches in California, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas...as well as Canada, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Mexico...in these travels i have found wonderful christians seeking to please the Lord and terrible assemblies that i wouldn't attend if it was the only church in town.
The very model these churches are built upon dictates autonomy, so undoubtedly you get a "mixed bag" when you see different cultures set by different elders (somewhat determined by which branch of brethrenism they come from, but also determined by their own personal experiences.
To say that "Brethrenism is bad" or "this movement is doomed" is to paint with too broad a brush. I agree that many of the assemblies will fail as soon as the current generation dies off. There are some around the country that are absolutely flourishing.
Let me give you an example: what if i told you "Calvinists are extremest, intolerant, harsh eggheads who just like to sit around the local pub talking about the attributes of God." you would acknowledge that some Calvinists are that way, but certainly not all...right? Some of my closest friends are very reformed, but don't fit the above description; but i have met my fair share of YRRs that do fit that description.
To say "the assemblies are bad" would be the same as to characterize any denomination or group with broad sweeping statements, which often aren't representative and are sometimes unfair. That is the same as saying "all Church of Christ people are going to Hell" or "Baptists don't study their bibles," or... fill in the blank. It is really no different than any other stereotype..how would you feel if i told you, "Negros are lazy." Certainly you would take objection to that type of racial bigotry? i would. Consider the same approach when talking about any Christian group.
At 6:51 AM, Anonymous said…

(Continued...)
2) When i went to bible school and studied Greek delved into the Word, i developed somewhat of an elitist perspective that really corrupted my world view and relationships for years. Beware of that. If God has blessed you with the mental wherewithall to study and understand the scriptures and the ability to teach them to others, don't let bad experiences from your past corrupt your future ministry. Be careful not to develop a negative bias that would keep you from developing your gifts in a way that can be a blessing to those around you. I was in a class once with 6 other students discussing eschatology...each student put forth their view, which i subsequently questioned and then showed why it was inconsistent with their own paradigm of scripture. The teacher wisely sat back and let this play out...and then when each of the students had put forth their thoughts (which i felt like i had squashed), the prof turned and told me (basically) that for the rest of my life I could use my giftings to tear others ideas apart or that i could use them to help others along the right path. He then asked me to elucidate my views on the topic...which i shamefully couldn't because all i saw were flaws...i couldn't explain the big picture and how it fit together.

3) lastly, i would encourage you, wherever you go, not to focus to much on the Pharisees, and not too much on the multitude, (though both require a portion of your time), but focus FIRST on yourself and where you can grow, then seek out and help along the hungry that you meet. In the assemblies you mentioned (which i haven't been to), were there people there you could have positively influenced?
one thing i see with our generation (i was born in 1980) is that we are quick to object and take offense, but slow to patiently serve...and that to our detriment.

I fear that if you take the attitude you started the blog off into any denomination you will forever be disappointed by the very people your theology clearly considers depraved in every way. After a number of years you will leave the church you are in now because they were "too narrow" or "too open minded" or something else. You will continue to stand up with a defiant attitude just waiting for some poor soul to defend what you have condemned...and when none do...you will call out "where are the defenders...none have answered me..." And in so doing, you and Wikked Person and others will miss a lifetime of opportunities to be a blessing and not a burr under some poor uneducated elders saddle. When you find those who are stuck in the mud of legalism or traditions, try to help them out. If they are unwilling, go on and find someone else to bless. That is what Jesus did...and many of the counsel believed! and those who didn't...he warned and went on and focused on the hungry. If you go back and look at Calvin's life, or anyone else of note, they spent some time dealing with Servetus and those like him, but they spent most of their time in the Word and teaching others. Choose your battles wisely.

I write all these things to try to save you the pain of many of the mistakes i have made in my life. I still fellowship among the assemblies and have found many sincere believers. I, like you, am still dedicated to my study of languages (for me, Spanish and Greek...which by the way, if you don't have it you should get Bibleworks 9...the greek tools it has are out of sight). i am now a father of 4, coaching soccer and working in real estate...much has changed since my college days...BUT, I have learned not to expect much from or depend upon man, in any organized form.
may God lead you as you run your race.
Brady
p.s. widded person- please don't critique my english...i am on my way to work and was in a hurry. my apologies for the parts that were difficult on the grammarian! :)
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous said…

My experiences with the brethren were like Blake's. There were many good people in the brethren. The assembly in Toronto to which I belonged had a great many undercurrents due to family rows and disagreements. Heads of these families were in oversight. This resulted in a great many people who hated each other gathering together to remember the Lord on the Lord's Day. It was not a happy place to be.

PreacherPrescott

Monday, June 05, 2006

Your experience in the "assemblies"

86 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts