Tommie Gamble ~ Let your word be……

{Photo changed as the wrong image was up.}

After only a day Tommie Gamble came back to me and on the most flimsiest terms turned down a dialogue about the issue of whether the 2×2’s were a cult or not. He must have known that I had disagreed with Irvine Grey on this subject, but he misused scripture to avoid meeting.

You will read his reply and mine under the first mail:

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/proposed-meeting-with-2x2s-and-their-overseer-tommy-gamble/

Dear Tommie,

I t was a pleasure to talk to you and to discuss the possibility of meeting after the convention season. I am hoping to go to the Convention in Rathdowney if I can get a lift on Monday June 30th. Then as you kindly suggested I could come up to see you in Lisburn to have a wide ranging discussion. I am away till July 19 but we could make an appointment after that if it suits?

I was going to suggest July 24, which is Thursday. I would take the 9:35 train to Belfast and get in about 11:30?
I would also like you to let me know what your understanding was when Irvine approached you in regard to his research and why you were surprised at his using your material? As I told you I wrote a post last Saturday as I told you I would:


Regards

MIKE GARDE MA

DIRECTOR

DIALOGUE IRELAND TRUST

This followed this post:

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/dialogue-ireland-proposes-a-dialogue-between-irvine-grey-and-the-two-by-twos/

Here is the 2×2 section:
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/category/christian/two-by-twos/

From: Thomas Gamble
Sent: 10/06/2014 09:10
To: info@dialogueireland.org
Subject: Re: My call
Dear Mike,
         Your phone call just came out of the blue & I 
made a hasty statement about you & I having a meeting 
but in thinking that over the last few days I don't 
feel that there would be any profit in the same, 
I found my answer to this in Titus 3-v9. 
I am not bothered by what I, Grey or any other man says
about us or me, we will just continue in a quiet way 
in doing what is right & be more concerned as to 
what GOD says or thinks about us, me etc., 
one thing is for sure "Jesus will have the last say"
Sent: 10/06/2014 09:37
I will consider your reply and post my reply on 
my blog on Thursday. You might reconsider and 
realise your first response was the Christian
one and your latest a political one. John 3:16
Regards
Mike
I wrote further having read the text of Titus.
10/06/2014 12:44
With due respect this has nothing to do with 
Irvine and to use Titus 3:9 which 
I have just read as an excuse to not meet 
is to accuse me of something before we have even met. 
(I was on the bus when your original
email arrived, and so could not look up Titus.)
As I said, I will reflect and get back to you on Thursday.
Regards
Mike
Matt 28: 18-20
Here is the text and references with similar ideas:
 http://biblehub.com/titus/3-9.htm
However, the specific text is as follows:


"Do not get involved in foolish discussions about
spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights
about obedience to Jewish laws. 
These things are useless and a waste of time."


First what relevance does this verse have to my coming 
with no fixed agenda to discuss the 2x2's and whether 
they are a cult or not?
This text is addressed to Jewish Christians about 
feeling superior about the fact that they have
the law and are descended from Abraham.
I was not even coming to debate about doctrine, 
but about the issue of whether it is right to view
the 2x2's as a cult.
If I who was completely open and had no fixed agenda and
would be rejected for no logical reason. Also I was also 
willing to go to one of their conventions, 
what must it be like for anyone
inside the group who raises a question?

Finally Tommie acts as if his position is that of 
representing Jesus with this put down:
"...one thing is for sure "Jesus will have the last say."
No Tommie you are afraid to meet and and I will 
now await for the excuses from those who will 
see this as normal. No it is you who had the last say.

62 Responses

  1. Hey. Just happened across this site in the wee small hours. I’m only interesting the 2x2s strictly from a genealogical pov. I live in Canada & never heard of 2x2s or Elim but my greatgrandparents from Northern Ireland were big into it. Any historical records, photos greatly appreciated. James Gault 1864-1944 & Agnes Gault (Jack) 1863-1836.

    Thank you

    Like

  2. Thanks for the clarification and will open a new thread for this type of discussion.

    Like

  3. No infant baptism at all. Baptism is allowed after an age of understanding but the common practice is generally a little later than that, starting in late teens. So for instance, a young person may indicate their faith in Christ at age 13, but will not likely get baptized until at least after 16, and more often 18 and up. There’s no rules on it, but it’s the common practice.

    New adults coming in and professing their faith in Christ will generally get baptized fairly quickly, usually at the next opportunity which is typically performed at an annual event at the larger conventions (although baptism can be performed at any time where there is particular interest).

    Baptism is usually performed “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” spoken at each dunking.

    Like

  4. In other words do they belief in believers baptism or infant baptism? Methodism seems to have bit of both. Generally Pietism and the holiness movement stressed inner sanctification and people stayed in the old denominations.Later this was externalised after the Nazarenes by 1904 Revival in Wales which produced the Apostolic Church and later in American Pentecostalism by baptism and tongues. In Northern Ireland one must rememer the 1859 Revival as well as an influence.

    Like

  5. Immersionists.

    Like

  6. All very relevant if you want to send me a post I will make a new thread entitled 2×2’s Origins which would allow people t leave appropriate comments and remarks.
    As a matter of interest are they immersionists or do they accept infant baptism?

    Like

  7. artfols, I have also found it ironic that Wesley was the one who was set up as the standard for being unsaved since he had so much influence on the early thinking. However, it’s actually quite logical if a group is attempting to establish exclusivity. It would have had little effect to have Long declare the pope unsaved since he likely agreed with that and many doctrines and traditions were unanimously rejected. To establish exclusivity, the most effective thing to do is to denounce the source that is the closest to you, not the furthest.

    Long’s departure from 2×2’s was in 1907. He flirted with early Pentecostalism/Holiness for the first couple of years after that…… which makes a lot of sense, given the Wesleyan connection.

    Like

  8. Yes, sorry about the tangent on Wesley. But I think the startup of this movement does have to be appreciated in the broad context of various influences in the late 19th century ‘Awakening’ in Ireland and Scotland, sparked by Wesley, early on, and Dwight L. Moody, later. One little side note that is relevant is that one of the original worker’s, John Long, swan song with the f&w’s came (around 1905 give or take) when he was confronted by William Irvine and asked to affirm that John Wesley was *not* a Christian in front of the entire convention. He refused to do so. I find this ironic as so much of the content of the worker’s early preaching lines up with Wesley’s work on sanctification as a separate work from conversion/ being born again.

    Like

  9. I think we are both going off on a tangent here:
    This post is about the failure of Tommie Gamble to meet for an open discussion.
    You have stated your opinion and I mine. So we will leave that here………..
    So after this I will leave the issue of Wesley with this link.
    It is clear that it was through Spangenberg that Wesley came to faith or at least it was one of the links in the chain, with another Moravian Peter Boehler helping him at the end of the process.
    You could say the Moravians were the Alpha and Omega of John Wesley’s conversion.
    http://gcaruso1.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/the-conversion-of-john-wesley-at-34/
    Hutton also describes the influence of these Moravians continued to have on John Wesley, “He talked much with the learned August Gottlieb Spangenberg, after he arrived in Georgia.

    “My brother,” said Spangenberg to Wesley, “Do you know Jesus Christ?”

    “I know,” replied Wesley, “that Jesus Christ died for my sins.”

    “That’s not what I asked you,” pursued Spangenberg, pressing the question further home,

    “Do you know Jesus Christ?” “I hope He has died to save me,” stammered Wesley.

    “Do you know yourself?” persisted Spangenberg, who was not content with skin-deep work.

    “No,” replied Wesley, and added, “I long to know Jesus Christ.” And Wesley stumbled on as dazed as ever.

    “I went to America to convert the Indians,” he wrote, bitterly, in his Journal, on his way home to England; “but oh, who shall convert me? I have a fair summer religion. I can talk well; nay, and I believe myself, when no danger is near. But let death look me in the face, and my spirit is troubled. Nor can I say, ‘to die is gain.’ I have a sort of fear that when I have spun my last thread I shall perish on the shore. I have learned that I who went to America to convert others was not converted myself.”[1]

    The Moravian Peter Bohler was leading a bible study in London’s Fetter Lane. A historian writes, ‘Charles [Wesley, John’s brother] and John were in almost daily contact with Bohler.’

    Peter Boehler said one day to John Wesley, “My brother, my brother, that philosophy of yours must be purged away.”

    When John Wesley complained, “Ah, how can I preach the faith which I have not got?”

    Peter Boehler answered, “Preach faith till you have it, and then, because you have it, you will preach it.”

    “’In the evening,’ says Wesley, ‘I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to [his commentary on] Romans. About a quarter before nine while he was describing the change God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.’”[2]

    Finally, John Wesley got his breakthrough. He had already discussed justification by faith with Peter Bohler, but this was different.

    At 34 years of age he was finally born again.

    Like

  10. Centrality to what? I’m not sure what you mean by that. Anyway, the Moravians had an extended influence on Wesley’s ideas, although I have not studied it in any detail, and the relationship appears to be quite complex and not always complementary. There is an unbelievable amount of material available on Wesley, Christian Perfection and the Moravians on ‘Google Books’. And wesley.nn.edu will give you 1400 books on the subject for a freewill donation. :) The wiki article on ‘Holiness Movement’ briefly mentions the influence of the Moravians on Holiness doctrine. The article mentions 20 or so denominations spawned by the movement, f&w not among them, but, I believe, should be. For example, Brunstad church, or Smith’s Friends, have more than a passing resemblance to the f&w movement.
    As you can see, one could spend a lot of time on this, and I have just scratched the surface.
    (A thread on Brunstad church with lots of source links is available here –
    http://professing.proboards.com/thread/16443

    Like

  11. It was not so much Christian perfection that Wesley learnt from the Moravians, but his actual conversion to Christianity which is what is of centrality.

    Like

  12. Much more than that, the Moravian church influenced Wesley’s writing on Christian Perfection. A little Googling will turn up all kinds of information on this. But I stress that it’s a side issue in the origins of the f&w movement. However, there has existed a consistent and more works-focused theology ever since James entered the canon, and Holiness Doctrine and its downstream effects are the most recent manifestation of it.

    Like

  13. Yes Wesley declared his conversion was brought about as a result of the influence of Von Spannenberg.

    Like

  14. The Moravian thing is an interesting sidebar, and of undetermined significance. I haven’t studied their doctrine; I just know John Wesley was influenced by them. I have read Wesley’s book and sermons on Christian Perfection and they line up well with Holiness doctrine. I’ve also read later Holiness sermons and writings. The thread on Holiness and the f&w is well worth reading, IMO. It’s not a long thread.

    Like

  15. Those general influences are there ok, but the Moravians in Ireland had no influence on the founders I can see. Was recently at a lecture on the Moravian Cemetery in Dublin. Will send you a link to Moravian history here.

    Like

  16. The connection of John Wesley to the Moravian Church and the inspiration provided there for his essay on Christian Perfection is well documented. In turn, the influence of that essay on the Holiness Movement is documented, as is William Irvine and John Govan’s later involvement with Keswick and the Holiness Movement. It’s simply a succession of influences, and not to say that these were the only influences on the f&w movement. However, Holiness doctrine and its variants are unique, so they’re not that difficult to trace. The commentaries above go into more detail on the subject.

    Like

  17. If you have a post on this we will publish it. I wold have doubts about the Moravian connection in Ireland.

    Like

  18. My general thesis, based on reading Cherie Kropp’s TTT web site extensively, as well as more general reading on the independent preaching movement in the UK in the late 19th century, is that the f&w movement represented a culmination of independent preaching around Holiness doctrine. While accepted broadly at first, the doctrine (which can be traced back through Wesley’s concept of Christian Perfection and before that, the Moravian church) was ultimately rejected in the mainstream denominations, and its proponents either yielded ground or began new denominations such as the f&w movement and the Pentecostals. The former though followed directly from the Faith Mission, and its practices follow directly from Faith Mission gospel meetings and Prayer Union meetings. Of course, ‘how much’ and ‘to what extent’ this thesis is correct is a matter of more detailed research and exposition and can be analyzed from historical evidence and also in theological terms. However, that’s my view in very broad terms.

    Like

  19. Actually, artfols has done some work on tracing the pre-1897 roots of 2x2ism so he could do a much better job than me suggesting the branch of Christianity which informed the founders of 2x2ism.

    Like

  20. bgm I note the group is called fundamentalist before we get the methodology outlined. Then it is a sect? Of which particular branch of Christianity
    A sociological analysis is also going to leave us short, but let me publish it and get you guys commenting. I need sleep you guys still have the night ahead of you.

    Like

  21. Julene Jones writes…”highly tense…….sect”. Highly tense? Hey, we’re as mellow as a peach that is ready to drop in your lap! :)

    Like

  22. Thanks will get to it when I can.

    Like

  23. I have meant to provide a link to Julene Jones’ thesis on ‘Motivations for Disaffiliation from the Two-by-Two sect’ but didn’t get around to it until today. It can be found here – http://works.bepress.com/julene/6/

    Like

  24. I am not surprised that Tommy G changed his mind as he did. Because the workers view themselves to be God’s personal chosen on earth, they do not like to be challenged. To challenge the workers is to challenge God.

    As a result, the workers do not believe they are accountable to those outside the meetings nor to the group members; the very people who host them in their homes, do their laundry, feed them meals at times which suit them and not their hosts, and give them the use of their cars. For instance, they have no problem lying to these same people about the origins of the group and about being penniless.

    Like

  25. I am happy to leave it there.

    Like

  26. You could not be clearer you were leaving this site and here you are back.

    >> I don’t remember saying anything like that. Sorry, I would need a quote, but all the same here I am.

    I am going to reply to you one more time and ask you to reply to earlier points I have made.

    >> I am off my phone, have a bit of spare time at the moment, so here we go.

    Your replies here have nothing to do with this thread of my conversation with Tommie Gamble. Also you impute to me views I do not hold. If you do not reply I will be moving your comments and mine to our commenting section.
    I will now number the points so there can be no ambiguity about what is being written.

    1. MIke, I can appreciate that you are trying to do some good work here, and provide information to the public, or at least to those who may be affected or dealing with the various pockets of group psychoses that exist in civil society.

    I appreciate your recognition of my mission.

    2. However, I think that when dealing with groups such as the 2x2s, who have a conservative subculture, but are NOT malevolent to any great extent, you need to work hard to establish your credibility in order for them to open up to you.

    I believe I have done so. If you have followed this category for the last two years. I have at all times disagreed with Irvine about the group being a cult. I had extensive communication with John Watt of NZ on the friendliest of terms. I did give space for an anonymous post from a former member. What I find hard to understand is your position. You are supposed to be an ex member and therefore psychologically your interventions are most confusing. At the end of this recent comment I am not clear whether you are in or out. It is clear you are defending them when I am not attacking them.
    So could you categorically state whether you are a member or an ex member?
    I in an open way suggested mediation between Irvine and them in so far he regards them as a cult and I do not. Therefore it seemed that offering to to intervene was a good idea. Having had no clear idea how to do it, I then got Tommie’s contact details and asked for meeting with no conditions. I do not need to explain myself, but Tommie does. No excuses will do.

    >> You had commented as follows. “I have been reading the Irvine Grey’s book and finally have concluded he has done them a great service” “I would suggest they take the book as it gives them a marvelous insight into their movement and they either continue down their current path of isolation or they enter into a period of renewal and examining their history and doctrine.”

    >> This is judgmental and imprudent, and even if you think not, surely you have the perspicacity to see that such comments would naturally be met with resistance.

    “Herbert W. Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God in the late 1930s.”

    >> This group is nothing like Herbert W. Armstrong and the comparison or analogy is inappropriate and puts the group in the category of “weirdo”.
    >> I stand by my comments that your offer to mediate will not be accepted. I understand the leadership’s reluctance to do so, because they would have the same apprehensions I do about your comments.

    3. You have already made some comments about Grey’s book, “they are doing the 2x2s a favour” et cetera, which work against you.

    You have acknowledged that they are a group without a written theology or history and in my view as someone who has read the book, I believe Irvine has given a very good account of the history, theology and practice of the group. How can they say they disagree with that when they do not have any stuff written down. If you have better historical and explanatory material superior to Irvine’s post it here.
    >> I’m entitled to my opinions based on my experience, and that’s what your getting. If you want a detailed review read the links bgm provided above.

    Also both you and bgm hold to liberal views on Christianity which you are entitled to, however, you can hardly suggest your views are in any way compatible with 2×2 positions? I believe Irvine’s critique from his Evangelical perspective and by the way it has no connection with the extremes put forward by you. The theologians he presents are mostly Anglican Evangelicals like Stott, Packer and McGrath from Oxford. This has nothing to do with the Gerry Falwell style you were suggesting.
    >> As you might guess I personally do not think much of Christian literalism of any sort. If you are referring to the men who endorsed Grey’s book I have no use personally for their theology which I believe is oppressive, self-serving and also fairly superstitious and not credible, no matter which ivory tower provides them refuge. But it’s nothing personal against any of them, nor against Grey. I like and endorse theologians like Borg, Spong and Hick. These other guys are old men whose theology will die with them …. I’m really hoping anyway. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

    4. Finally, when you suggest that people like me are suffering “Stockholm syndrome”, your subtext is that members are ‘captive’ in the group instead of their of their own free will.

    Here again you demonstrate your lack of transparency. You have written you are and ex member and only have an historical interest etc…… however, these comments were addressed to you not the 2×2’sa. You act as if you are in when you claim you are out. Patty Hearst was kept captive by the group and began to espouse their views. It has nothing to do with the 2×2’s but you only. Please explain yourself. This time please do not go missing claiming it is too onerous and leave the site three times.

    >> I can’t believe you are that thick so it must be blindness induced by overmuch vituperation. You suggested that I, as an ex-, was suffering from ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, which only captives and ex-captives suffer from. I’m an ex-member, not an ex-captive, and you give away your true feelings about the group, not just me, with such comments.

    5. Various comments you have made of this nature, right or wrong, won’t win you friends within the group.

    They were not addressed to the group but to you who are supposed to be an ex member.
    >> No, I mean the comments you made about the *group*, and I’ve quoted you above.

    6. There are in fact thousands of happy, well-adjusted people who grow up in the 2x2s and then leave.

    Did I suggest anywhere that they were not well adjusted. Stockholm applies to non members who under undue influence are forced to stay in the group and espouse their views, hardly relevant here.

    7. Most of them are not motivated to write or defend the group to try to set the record straight.
    Why would they they defend a group they have left. Rather they would be critics. You have a very strange view of ex members.
    >> I speak from knowlege, and where you speak from I don’t know. Most ex-members have both good things and bad things to say about the group. Your logic that all ex-members should be critics sounds logical, but obviously you’ve not spoken with many people who change churches or theologies like they change from Ford to G.M., with some soul-searching, but only a modicum of personal angst.

    8. There are a few like myself.

    You do not define what people like you are about. I think you reacted the other day as you have not resolved your leaving and I won’t put words into your mouth but ask you define what people like you believe.
    >> A 1000 people who have exited the friends would have a 1000 different reasons. There are only a few ex-members who actively defend the group, but generally reactions are mixed. Most well adjusted ex-members could not be bothered to write about the group.

    And there are quite a few who have been hurt by the legalism of the group, but that’s more in 60s and 70s than it is the case today.

    This is not an issue from 60’s and 70s but ongoing. The original poster here in 2012 was discussing these issues. I also got a woman from Ontario onto me who was suffering from ostracism last year.
    So hopefully me taking the time to reply to you will give you the opportunity to clarify your position.
    >> There’s no question the group and its ministry is more moderate than it was years ago. This is not to say it’s free of issues entirely. Since we have left we see church members less regularly than we used to but have suffered nothing I would call “ostracism”. It is definitely a group whose members’ social and religious life is centred mainly but not entirely on the church. I’m skeptical that this lady has been actively ostracized because we have experienced nothing of the sort. If ostracism is policy, then it would be universal.
    The ex-members quoted by Grey generally left some decades ago, and tend to be the first subjects you’ll find on an Internet search, hardly a statistically sound sample to learn about exit experiences.

    Like

  27. You could not be clearer you were leaving this site and here you are back.
    I am going to reply to you one more time and ask you to reply to earlier points I have made.
    Your replies here have nothing to do with this thread of my conversation with Tommie Gamble. Also you impute to me views I do not hold. If you do not reply I will be moving your comments and mine to our commenting section.
    I will now number the points so there can be no ambiguity about what is being written.

    1. MIke, I can appreciate that you are trying to do some good work here, and provide information to the public, or at least to those who may be affected or dealing with the various pockets of group psychoses that exist in civil society.

    I appreciate your recognition of my mission.

    2. However, I think that when dealing with groups such as the 2x2s, who have a conservative subculture, but are NOT malevolent to any great extent, you need to work hard to establish your credibility in order for them to open up to you.

    I believe I have done so. If you have followed this category for the last two years. I have at all times disagreed with Irvine about the group being a cult. I had extensive communication with John Watt of NZ on the friendliest of terms. I did give space for an anonymous post from a former member. What I find hard to understand is your position. You are supposed to be an ex member and therefore psychologically your interventions are most confusing. At the end of this recent comment I am not clear whether you are in or out. It is clear you are defending them when I am not attacking them.
    So could you categorically state whether you are a member or an ex member?
    I in an open way suggested mediation between Irvine and them in so far he regards them as a cult and I do not. Therefore it seemed that offering to to intervene was a good idea. Having had no clear idea how to do it, I then got Tommie’s contact details and asked for meeting with no conditions. I do not need to explain myself, but Tommie does. No excuses will do.

    3. You have already made some comments about Grey’s book, “they are doing the 2x2s a favour” et cetera, which work against you.

    You have acknowledged that they are a group without a written theology or history and in my view as someone who has read the book, I believe Irvine has given a very good account of the history, theology and practice of the group. How can they say they disagree with that when they do not have any stuff written down. If you have better historical and explanatory material superior to Irvine’s post it here.
    Also both you and bgm hold to liberal views on Christianity which you are entitled to, however, you can hardly suggest your views are in any way compatible with 2×2 positions? I believe Irvine’s critique from his Evangelical perspective and by the way it has no connection with the extremes put forward by you. The theologians he presents are mostly Anglican Evangelicals like Stott, Packer and McGrath from Oxford. This has nothing to do with the Gerry Falwell style you were suggesting.

    4. Finally, when you suggest that people like me are suffering “Stockholm syndrome”, your subtext is that members are ‘captive’ in the group instead of their of their own free will.

    Here again you demonstrate your lack of transparency. You have written you are and ex member and only have an historical interest etc…… however, these comments were addressed to you not the 2×2’sa. You act as if you are in when you claim you are out. Patty Hearst was kept captive by the group and began to espouse their views. It has nothing to do with the 2×2’s but you only. Please explain yourself. This time please do not go missing claiming it is too onerous and leave the site three times.

    5. Various comments you have made of this nature, right or wrong, won’t win you friends within the group.

    They were not addressed to the group but to you who are supposed to be an ex member.

    6. There are in fact thousands of happy, well-adjusted people who grow up in the 2x2s and then leave.

    Did I suggest anywhere that they were not well adjusted. Stockholm applies to non members who under undue influence are forced to stay in the group and espouse their views, hardly relevant here.

    7. Most of them are not motivated to write or defend the group to try to set the record straight.
    Why would they they defend a group they have left. Rather they would be critics. You have a very strange view of ex members.

    8. There are a few like myself.

    You do not define what people like you are about. I think you reacted the other day as you have not resolved your leaving and I won’t put words into your mouth but ask you define what people like you believe.

    And there are quite a few who have been hurt by the legalism of the group, but that’s more in 60s and 70s than it is the case today.

    This is not an issue from 60’s and 70s but ongoing. The original poster here in 2012 was discussing these issues. I also got a woman from Ontario onto me who was suffering from ostracism last year.
    So hopefully me taking the time to reply to you will give you the opportunity to clarify your position.

    Like

  28. Oops, said “their” instead of “there”.

    Like

  29. MIke, I can appreciate that you are trying to do some good work here, and provide information to the public, or at least to those who may be affected or dealing with the various pockets of group psychoses that exist in civil society. However, I think that when dealing with groups such as the 2x2s, who have a conservative subculture, but are NOT malevolent to any great extent, you need to work hard to establish your credibility in order for them to open up to you. You have already made some comments about Grey’s book, “they are doing the 2x2s a favour” et cetera, which work against you. And with regards to the comments you consider a personal attack, seriously, I think it’s very difficult to have a site which wants to get the news out on cultist (your term) behaviours and also offer to mediate. Finally, when you suggest that people like me are suffering “Stockholm syndrome”, your subtext is that members are ‘captive’ in the group instead of their of their own free will. Various comments you have made of this nature, right or wrong, won’t win you friends within the group. There are in fact thousands of happy, well-adjusted people who grow up in the 2x2s and then leave. Most of them are not motivated to write or defend the group to try to set the record straight. There are a few like myself. And there are quite a few who have been hurt by the legalism of the group, but that’s more in 60s and 70s than it is the case today.

    Like

  30. Thanks DI, it was a surprising comment and humor is accepted!

    The Mason association has always been a red herring used too liberally by the critics, reducing their own credibility. 2x2ism has plenty to be criticized for, but Masonry is not one of them.

    Like

  31. Yes a joke, and up till very recently most Protestant Bishops were Masons so just focusing on the 2×2’s is a bit rich and the cult label is just rhetoric.

    Like

  32. “Are you also in the Masons?”

    I presume that is a joke. Anyone who knows anything about 2x2ism knows that they have absolutely no association with Masons. As I mentioned on the other thread, it is typical that a new 2×2 convert quits the Masons when joining 2x2ism as my grandfather did around 1920, and as I have personally known others to do. I do not know, or have ever known a 2×2 practising Mason. A few join Rotary, even though it displays many cultic attributes.

    You claim an interest in the truth. You got suckered by the misinformation on the Masons so hopefully this post straightens out the truth about 2x2ism and Masonry.

    Like

  33. We will just have to disagree. Are you also in the Masons?

    Like

  34. “More like don’t try to divert our discussion. It is not (DI edit.) rubbished just archived in our commenting section which has clear guidelines.”

    Sorry, but you stated that you “moved” it because you claimed “personal abuse”, which it was not by most reasonable standards.

    Like

  35. More like don’t try to divert our discussion. It is NOT rubbished just archived in our commenting section which has clear guidelines.

    Like

  36. “Nothing is removed just moved to our commenting section.”

    Right. Sort of like: “I didn’t remove it dear, I just moved it to the garbage dump.”

    “You are obviously one of those who find it difficult to reply to those that respond to you.”

    That’s actually a bit funny. I have a record of over 40,000 responses on various forums over the last decade. Yep, really difficult to respond……

    “Will read in due course and adjudicate as to where to locate it.”

    Of course, it’s your party.

    “No we are dealing with diverse groups as Tibetan Buddhism and Scientology. You seem to be a shrinking violet and find robust comment a problem.”

    Again, more humor. I have never moved a post on any forum I have moderated which responded to or criticized me. Nor have I ever asked to have a post move or removed that responded negatively or off-topic to me. And I’m talking years and thousands of posts, some responses which make this forum look like Sunday school.

    ” From the time zone it seems you use this comment section as your early morning espresso.”

    I participate on a large number of forums at various times of day depending on time availability. This happens to be one that would be more useful to get lulled to sleep at night time.

    ” I would suggest you are emotinally not able to answer issues you raise.”

    That seems to be the typical quality of your suggestions.

    “By the way you did say you were a 2×2 did you not?”

    I did.

    ” I am unclear what your interest is?”

    Uhhh……2x2ism? Does that seem a bit strange to you?

    Like

  37. Nothing is removed just moved to our commenting section. You are obviously one of those who find it difficult to reply to those that respond to you. Will read in due course and adjudicate as to where to locate it. No we are dealing with diverse groups as Tibetan Buddhism and Scientology. You seem to be a shrinking violet and find robust comment a problem. From the time zone it seems you use this comment section as your early morning espresso. I would suggest you are emotinally not able to answer issues you raise.
    By the way you did say you were a 2×2 did you not? I am unclear what your interest is?

    Like

  38. Artsfols:
    “Your offer and further response to Mr. Gamble seem preposterous to me, I mean, why would someone want to discuss with an ignominious and rather short fused blogger whether the group he leads is a cult or not? You do have freedom of association on the Emerald Isle, I take it? Also, the man can […]”

    dialogueireland:
    “That was a quick return. This will be moved to our commenting section a bit later. It is personal abuse and fails to address any points made. Duck and Dive”

    Wow Mike, if you think that is personal abuse, then you should read some of your own words which personally skewer respondents who don’t seem to post as you would like them to.

    I would recommend that you consider shutting down the discussion sections of your blog. At the risk of sounding personally abusive to your ears, it seems to me that you struggle emotionally with allowing freedom of expression in your sphere. Why put yourself through the misery of having to read challenging responses? Not everyone is made for this, in fact, it’s an uncommon talent to be able to handle free expression on blogs like this.

    Like

  39. “So please stop trying to divert from the main issue which is the inappropriate response of Tommie Gamble.”

    I am exactly on topic, discussing your exchange with Tommie Gamble. It cannot be discussed without discussing what you said to him in the first place. His response simply cannot be analyzed in isolation to what you said.

    Now that said, I thank you for telling us here what you disclosed to Tommie………. it appears that you did not disclose much at all.

    ” To be as clear as possible I contacted Tommie in order get to know more about the 2×2′s and offered originally to meet him at one of the Conventions. He suggested waiting till the end of the Convention season. I agreed.
    Nothing more or less.”

    He made his first decision on the above.

    However, you did not reveal your position in Dialogue Ireland, what Dialogue Ireland is, nor that you feature 2×2’s as a possible cultist group (even though you don’t consider them a cultist group yourself), nor that you have proposed some sort of mediation service between Irvine Grey and the 2×2’s, nor that you have promoted Irvine Grey’s book. This is all relevant information should have been disclosed to Tommie. The way I see it, Tommie got a request from someone interested in his faith, and then he found out later that there is much more to it. If I am reading this correctly, Tommie Gamble’s response was perfectly understandable and appropriate. If a stranger calls me and wants to come over to my house, I want to know why and what is his connection to me. That is a very normal response and if there is more to the story than what he disclosed, I would likely disinvite him solely on the basis of lack of disclosure and deception.

    Let’s be right upfront about this: did you avoid full disclosure for fear of scaring Tommie off on the first phone call? That alone should qualify you for a dis-invitation after Tommie found out there was more to it. His Titus reference simply indicates that he does not want to get into a big argument, which he figured was going to happen once he found out that you are a theological academic and have been promoting Irvine Grey’s book that concludes the 2×2’s are a theological cult.

    It was an appropriate response by Tommie, given the facts as we know them. The lack of disclosure alone was inappropriate.

    Final comment. If you want to meet someone for an honest, mature discussion, simply ensure that all agendas are disclosed and understood from both sides. In this case, you did not fully disclose your agenda, nor did you understand Tommie’s agenda. You were your own worst enemy in this case.

    Like

  40. That was a quick return. This will be moved to our commenting section a bit later. It is personal abuse and fails to address any points made. Duck and Dive

    Like

  41. artsfols is clearly trying to create a diversion and when requested to reply to points made, first does so by going off on a tangent. When confronted he then says he will no longer comment. Then within a few hours is back to throw a grenade into the post. We are moving this comment to our commenting section.
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/commenting-policy

    Your offer and further response to Mr. Gamble………………….

    Like

  42. bgm

    Submitted on 2014/06/14 at 7:54 pm
    I have got a clear view of your strategy and you informed us that you yourself were a member last week.
    I will now not engage with you unless you actually address the post, and not try to tell me what I agreed with Tommie.

    Like

  43. bgm
    Submitted on 2014/06/14 at 7:07 pm

    His book is about 2x2ism as a dangerous theological cult whereas your cult concept is a human rights issue where the group/leaders exert undue influence on members to their detriment.

    You are correct about our definition and throughout our commentary from 2012 we have stated we do not believe that the 2×2’s fit that category.
    Do you get that once and for all. Could you please focus on this post and not do what you did last week try to divert us from the subject!!!

    Tommie Gamble ~ Let your word be……

    I am beginning to form the opinion that neither you nor Grey are particularly interested in the truth……and that’s more particularly dangerous than the particularly dangerous 2×2 cult.

    I am beginning to see through your role as a troll and minister for defence for artsfols.
    You seem to offended by a direct response. If it is too hot in the kitchen then you know where to go. But if you do not address the topic it will go into our commenting section.

    You should have disclosed all that.

    We did as I showed in my last reply.

    Like

  44. bgm
    I promised to get back to you. Instead of listening to the point I made you made conjectures about
    my views.
    To be as clear as possible I contacted Tommie in order get to know more about the 2×2’s and offered originally to meet him at one of the Conventions. He suggested waiting till the end of the Convention season. I agreed.
    Nothing more or less.
    Also here is our Mission Statement which clearly defines our position.
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/about/cultism/
    “Two by Twos” by someone who grew up and out of the movement.
    Posted on February 8, 2012 by dialogueireland | Edit
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/two-by-twos-by-someone-who-grew-up-and-out-of-the-movement/#more-6250
    “Two by Twos”= “the friends”= “The Truth”= “The Way”= “The Gospel”= “The Meetings”= “Cooneyites”= “Christian Conventions”

    Dialogue Ireland has been approached by a person who grew up in the “Two by Twos” and has requested our assistance to alert the public to the controlling nature of the group and issues of abuse and the violation of Human Rights. Naturally we want to protect their confidentiality and so we invite you to post your experiences in our comment section again without fear of your anonymity being compromised.

    It is clear that we were approached by a former member and if you read through the comments our attitude is absolutely clear. So please stop trying to divert from the main issue which is the inappropriate response of Tommie Gamble.

    Like

  45. Mike, I’m not going to answer all your questions.

    I note like a butterfly you jump from topic to topic so all I can do is answer your points but I note you have a tendency to move to a new topic without having addressed earlier threads.
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/dialogue-ireland-proposes-a-dialogue-between-irvine-grey-and-the-two-by-twos/
    You also told me you were on an I Phone as I was on a Windows Phone so could not address your points. But your brief points were scatter gun and did nothing to respond to issues you raised and the contradictions I noticed.

    It takes only seconds for you to conjure this or that point,

    This is a most bizarre response to clearly asked and defined points based on your comments. It suggests you are not up to being challenged.

    and am I to take all day refuting your points, many of which are rubbish?

    it is clear you are in difficulty so call the views of your dialogue partner rubbish.

    I’ll let them pass thank you, especially anything to do with me as a person.

    I can see you are having a problem as you are totally confused as an ex member. You seem t have walked off the pitch.

    You told me once you respected anonymity of contributors??

    Where do you see the breach of your anonymity?

    This what you wrote last week. Have you forgotten what you said?
    artsfols, on June 8, 2014 at 12:31 am said: Edit Comment
    “It’s been a few years since I left the group and I have moved on, so have much less interest in the topic, other than the history which remains a source of fascination.”
    It is clear you have a more interested position than you stated.
    I won’t reply further as you are contradicting yourself already. You were not going to comment further … but what do you do… you comment???

    Like

  46. Mike, I’m not going to answer all your questions. It takes only seconds for you to conjure this or that point, and am I to take all day refuting your points, many of which are rubbish? I’ll let them pass thank you, especially anything to do with me as a person. You told me once you respected anonymity of contributors??
    Back to this question of ‘turning the other cheek’. Can you see where Grey’s work might be considered an attack from the workers POV, or did you really mean it when you said he was doing them a favour? He’s labelled them a cult remember. Now, nice of you to offer to mediate, but I don’t see you as a ‘mediator’, so I doubt they do. So, ‘turn the other cheek’, it is.

    Like

  47. Mike, I am not reading your mind, I am reading your words and your actions. As I stated, the fact that 2×2’s rate a prominent place in your blog speaks volumes. The fact that you have compared the 2×2’s to the JW’s speaks volumes. The fact that you warn of dangers of members holdng different opinions than the workers speaks volumes. The fact that you asked me about my “integration with the wider culture” cannot be anymore telling of your views. I can go on…..yet I am pleased that you state categorically that you do not hold the view that 2×2’s are cultist. If only I could see that in your responses, but I will take your word for it.

    As far as artsfols goes, you have misunderstood my intention. My comment was not about him or defending him, it was about your less than friendly reception of people who are not anti-2×2, and tend to go on the defensive. Honestly, I doubt that artsfols will bite you, and I will promise that I don’t bite hard.

    Like

  48. I will reply to you in detail, however, it is clear you are presenting yourself as a mind reader..
    I repeat I do not regard the 2×2’s as a cultist group under any defintion.
    Have you read the first post? It it has nothing to do with Irvine and preceded his involvement with this blog. Also Ardfols does not need your assistance and hopefully will reply to clear questions asked of him.
    If I am not mistaken you went missing after my reply to you last week?
    Please do not try to put words into my mouth

    Like

  49. “How could I when I disagree with Irvine, who concludes it is a dangerous cult.”

    That’s a disingenuous response because I didn’t ask you about Grey’s definition of a cult unless you have suddenly changed your idea of a cult. You have stated that you disagree with Grey’s definition of a cult. His book is about 2x2ism as a dangerous theological cult whereas your cult concept is a human rights issue where the group/leaders exert undue influence on members to their detriment.

    Let’s be honest here, everything about your postings indicate that your opinion is that 2x2ism is a human rights cult. 2x2ism has a prominent place on your cult-busting blog here and that alone speaks volumes. You should have disclosed all that. Grey should have also disclosed his pre-formed opinion that 2x2ism is a theological cult before he sucked punched Tommie with his “research”. If you are sneaky about your purpose or you connect yourself with Grey’s sneakiness, it is no surprise that no one wants to talk to you……. except me of course, but on another thread it didn’t appear that dialogue with me was your thing, nor do you seem particularly friendly with artsfols, a very thoughtful and reasonable ex-2×2.

    I am beginning to form the opinion that neither you nor Grey are particularly interested in the truth……and that’s more particularly dangerous than the particularly dangerous 2×2 cult.

    Like

  50. These comments moved to commenting section in light of them not having any evidence and are intended as a personal attack:

    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/commenting-policy

    wow…that would be…………

    Like

  51. These comments moved to commenting section in light of them not having any evidence and are intended as a personal attack:

    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/commenting-policy

    Wow…that would be some ………………

    Like

  52. How could I when I disagree with Irvine, who concludes it is a dangerous cult.
    The purpose of my visit was to have a wide ranging discussion with him. There was no agenda and I in the meantime was going to go to a Convention.
    The reference to Irvine was that in our discussion, Tommy claimed Irvine had used material without permission. I sought to get to the truth.

    Like

  53. Mike, did you disclose to Tommie in your first phone call that it is your current opinion that 2x2ism is “cultic” (ie “a cult” in more commonly used terminology)?

    Like

  54. On my Windows phone. Take your time replying. You totally avoided replying to my points. Again you act as a spokesman for a group you have left. Then you have the cheek, forgive the pun, to suggest they are turning the other cheek. That suggests that they are victims. The only cheek exposed is the backside.
    Do you think before you comment?
    If you do not address points we have to regard you as a troll.

    Like

  55. Mike, on a smartphone, so will be brief. I don’t know Tommy Gamble but given my knowledge of the group I’m quite confident that he sees only pointless conflict in engaging with you or with Grey. After all, it is Grey who is picking the fight, so leaders of this group will tend to turn the other cheek, unless there is a perceived spiritual benefit. Again, trying to give you their thinking based on my best guess. I might be wrong. I’m also quite sure they’re not afraid of you, because there’s nothing to be afraid of, that I can see anyway.

    Like

  56. This comment has been moved to our commenting section. The purpose of this House of Prayer troll is to attack anyone that DI mentions and make personal attacks on its Director. Regardless of the group eventhough its views are opposed to the House of Prayer is used to try to divert from the topic at hand. We gave this guy so much rope he believed he could come here with impunity.
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/commenting-policy/

    I am pleased to read ………….

    Like

  57. I was expecting both the fact that you would be in before anyone to comment and you would like to act as a kind of Minister of Defence for the 2×2’s!
    This was my key sentence in anticipation:

    I will now await for the excuses from those who will see this as normal.

    Have I got this right? You are a former 2×2 which suggests you left them because you differed from them in some way? Your role seems to be that of defending them at every opportunity? Remember this is not a theological blog but one associated with cultism? I find you seem to be suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps you could help us to understand you better? We certainly do not want to go down a cul de sac again on Evangelicals!
    So for some years we have given space here to allow debate and in my view Irvine has given very helpful background to the 2×2’s. I sense you actually do not like him as his theology is too orthodox. I can see where you are at from your blog postings.
    However, here we have the situation where Irvine has called the 2×2’s a dangerous cult. That is the context of my post not your problem’s with Irvine’s theology.
    Now a reply to you:

    So … your post raises a couple of questions.

    You can be upset about Gamble not meeting with you, but why do you think he’s afraid of you?

    I am so glad you agree I have reason to be angry with Tommie for going back on his word. I believe his fear of meeting is obvious.
    1. He has a hermetically sealed biblical position. It is an oral position and therefore he can control it with his members. Meeting others makes him vulnerable to verification and to be challenged. This was classic avoidance using biblical and theological terms to retain control.
    2. I was coming to him as someone who supported his position that the 2×2’s are not a cult. However,
    I had asked him to give evidence that Irvine had no permission to use his interviews with him for his thesis. He would have to give evidence to that effect. I have a copy of an email he wrote to Irvine soon after the book was published saying that Irvine had used his material without permission. He would have had to back that up with evidence.

    Personally, I don’t think he is.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but could you back up your view?

    Second, why do you think he should meet with you?

    Because he agreed to and I believe his reasons for changing his mind are self serving. Let your yes be yes and your no no.

    What purpose would it serve him?

    As the recognised leader of the group it was as you commented
    artsfols, on June 8, 2014 at 1:37 am said:

    The response you’ve received is consistent with an ‘open door’ policy to journalists and others. Attendance at convention meetings will give you a real flavour of what this movement is about, so I hope you take the opportunity to do so.

    Are you suffering from amnesia? Yes I thought he would be open and but you were shown to be wrong and I thought your view would inform his response. Communication as a leader is not about what is in it for him!

    I think the key phrase in the verse he quoted you is “useless and a waste of time”./blockquote>

    Perhaps you could clear up what you really think? Here you really reveal that you are not an ex member, but have a strange psychological need to defend the indefensible.

    I wouldn’t take that too personally.

    I am not taking it personally but professionally and trying to educate the public about how groups that are cut off from society make decisions. However, this is not unique to the 2×2’s, but I find your views most strange.

    I suspect he’s thinking that whatever happens will happen and meeting with you is not going to change anything.

    Your reductionist logic and political view of dialogue is disappointing, but from a Christian leader who models the way of Jesus it is another thing.

    I happen to think he is right.

    I happen to think you are wrong and that you contradict yourself.

    Like

  58. So … your post raises a couple of questions. You can be upset about Gamble not meeting with you, but why do you think he’s afraid of you? Personally, I don’t think he is. Second, why do you think he should meet with you? What purpose would it serve him? I think the key phrase in the verse he quoted you is “useless and a waste of time”. I wouldn’t take that too personally. I suspect he’s thinking that whatever happens will happen and meeting with you is not going to change anything. I happen to think he is right.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: