The head worker here spoke very directly if people are going to have unprofessing partners (we're talking boyfriend/girlfriend here) that they would not be welcome in the fellowship. On the strength of that [**brother worker**] put out a lady who was about 30. You must understand that this lady had been a PERFECT, PERFECT 2x2 all her life. (Mind you she never took a judgmental attitude with anyone.) She was one ofthe most sunny-natured people I have ever known. While it may have done her the favour of a lifetime it sure exposes the system for what it is.

[**Brother worker**] and the head worker here had a passionate dislike for each other. Sad thing is with most of the old workers here they get shoved off to other parts. Kind of like 'shoot the wounded' mentality. -Darryl 5/10/99

I'm curious to know if a current 2x2 rule which is applied in
Northern Ireland is also applied elsewhere.

If a professing 2x2 is dating an outsider, the workers
ban the individual from partaking of the emblems.  If they
deem the relationship to be not serious, they allow the
individual to pray, but not to give their testimony.  If
the relationship continues, they then ban the individual
from praying in the meeting.

I'm not sure what the current punishment is for marrying an
outsider, but 8 years ago when I married, my wife believed
that she had to stop taking the emblems for 1 year.
She did this voluntarily.

I welcome your input on this matter.

best regards

Robert  9/97 

When I was dating my wife ("outsider"), she went to Sunday meetings with me,
gospel meetings with me.  Never a hint from the workers that I should not
participate in every way.  I partook of emblems and testimony with no thought
that anything should be modified.  I do not know of anyone who has modified
their taking part in all aspects of the Sunday service, nor do I know of
anyone who has been asked to modify their taking part because of the
"nonbelief" of a girlfirend/boyfriend/spouse.  This has been the attitude of
the workers in my experience in the Midwest US, and Western US from the 1950s
through the 1990s. 9/97 

If all will remember that what I write re: this subject is from my own
experience and awareness of 2x2 group belief in the Pac N/W USA, and
Northern Europe, AND from my birth in year 1943 to my excommunication in
1986, I will share a few things along the lines of which your post
solicited information.

Growing up, I was taught to even be close friends with an "outsider" was
showing a lack of understanding of why Paul asked "what communion does light
have with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14).  I was unable to either make or even have
"friends" who were more than "acquaintances"  because of this indoctrination
resulting from pseudo-christian judgment of others who also believed in
Jesus and God.

Thus, for me to "date" an "OUTSIDER"  was OUT of the question at any time
while I was growing up, or in school.  For me, I did some agonized looking
at some pretty nice school mates throughout HS, and even on into college,
and I DID develop some "temporary" friends, male and female, while I was in
the Army.  I actually did date a couple of the gals who's company I enjoyed.
I KNEW, however, nothing serious could be allowed to develop, and still have
2x2 approval.

From indoctrination, and observation of some who were so sentenced, I knew
the 2x2 religion taught that a "standard" was to be kept.  So I KNEW  if
ANYONE married a divorced person, or was divorced themselves and remarried,
they were forbidden any part in the meetings, though they WERE allowed to
attend the meetings.

Later, Tharold Sylvester began an "enforcement" policy upon marriage to
outsiders, which he obviously discovered in another place, and took a liking
to for "his area of responsibility" (translate that "under HIS control!")
Then he began forbidding people to attend meetings for specific periods of
time because they could NOT preserve their marriage relationships.

Also, it became policy that if fornication could be proven by pregnancy
prior to marriage, both parties were forbidden any part in the meetings for
a non pre-determined period of time--usually until it was lifted (if ever)
by the sentencing overseeing worker.

In each such occasion some verse in the Bible would be given as basis for
the decision, and was NEVER subject to appeal, UNLESS the person being
judged happened to have a highly placed relative in the 2x2 ministry and/or
a financially STRONG family.  Exceptions were then often made.

Also, I knew many variations also occurred.  How they were dealt with was
always lumped into "diversities of administration".  Any deviation from area
to area was ALWAYS justified in such a manner.

I know of one case where a girl of 15 and a half, (going on 28) ran off and
got married in a State where 15 and a half year old marriages were legal at
the time, to a 21 year old....both had been going to meetings all their
lives.  They lived together as man and wife for a short period of time.  The
girl's family had wealth, AND highly placed worker/family relations.  The
young man's family was judged entirely "UNSUITABLE" coming from an "inferior
saint" background.

The marriage was "annulled",   The two were forbidden to see each other, and a
number of years later both married other mates.

I know of one case from eastern Canada, where a minority man married the
"white" daughter of a church Elder.  Supposedly, the restrictions on finding
mates inside the group made this precedent intolerable for the minority
women, who appealed to workers, asking what they were going to do, if
inter-racial marriages between minority men and "white" women were going to
be allowed.

Since the unmarried women were "discouraged" from finding wives from among
the "heathen" outsiders, this became a big issue, and the young married
couple who were obviously in love were banished from their home area.  I met
them at a convention in B.C. while I was in the work, and heard their entire
account from them, NOT from others.  I felt very sad upon hearing it, and
feeling their anguish.  Being only about 26 at the time, there was little I
could do....or say.

In Northern Europe, a young man I knew well, and continue to love as a
brother to this day, and his girlfriend, (who have been married for the 26
years since) committed fornication, provable by her pregnancy.   She was NOT
going to meetings, the young man was "professing",  While allowed to come to
meetings he was forbidden any part in the services,  Only upon the
sentencing workers death bed several years later, was the young man's
sentence lifted.

Few of these "standards" are consistent from country to country, or even
from area to area within a country, if there are different "overseers"
involved.  Further, if a change in overseers occurred the case might be
appealed.  In such cases, sometimes previous sentence was lifted, other
times even harsher sentence was proclaimed.

>From this first hand knowledge of mine while I was in "the work" and for
these reasons, I believe 2x2 rules governing such situations to be as other
2x2 rules -- inconsistent and completely arbitrary.  I believe them to be
enforced equally inconsistently and arbitrarily depending upon completely
"personal feelings" of the one(s) sitting in "judgment" together with
social and economic considerations.

With kind regards and Christian love,

Dennis.  9/97

As Dennis has already said, the punishments are wide and varied, some   
receiving no punishment at all, others being harassed for years for their   
actions.

In my own case, I was dating an outsider for 3 years before I left the   
2x2s.  I was not baptised, so the emblems were not an issue.  Nobody ever   
said anything about praying/giving testimony, though I voluntarily   
stopped taking part some months before I left, no longer believing what   
the 2x2s did.  The workers tend to leave things til the eleventh hour -   
protesting only when a wedding is announced in many cases.

I friend of mine (professing) was seeing a boy who had also grown up in   
the 2x2s, but had not professed.  The couple's families both went back   
several generations in the way.  The workers disapproved, but waited   
until 3 weeks before the actual wedding date to suddenly inform my friend   
that she could not take part in meetings anymore if the wedding went   
ahead.  She was ordered to cancel or postpone the wedding because of the   
non-professing status of her husband.  She refused, so her parents were   
ordered not to attend.  They did attend, I think still hurting from when   
they had complied to this same order several years earlier with an older   
daughter under similar circumstances.  The couple, who married a few   
years ago now, have since decided not to attend any meetings.

Another lady I know came into the 2x2s as an adult, and after a few years   
was courted by and married an outsider.  As far as I know, a blind eye   
seemed to be turned to this situation, and she is still happily attending   
meetings by herself with her children while her husband stays home.  If   
any form of punishment was enforced in this case, I am not aware of it.

A relative of mine married an outsider (where the workers pulled the same   
trick, trying to cancel the wedding a few weeks before), and was   
sentenced to a punishment of one year of non-participation in the   
meetings, though attendance was allowed.

Robert, the "sentences" I have seen appear to be subject to the nearest   
worker.  One thing is common - there is no court of appeal.

Love,
Elizabeth. 
9/97

When I decided to marry outside, the workers came to talk to me.  You
know what I did.  I sat there and let them talk.  I knew that no matter
what I would say would be wrong and they were right.  It must be
wonderful to be so un-flawed.  My soul agonized over getting involved
with someone on the outside.  I felt very responsible for my boyfriends
soul.  It almost broke us up.  I must say that the need for a companion
and someone to love was great.  Living alone is not all it is cracked up
to be.  Especially if there are a shortage of single professing men.

The straw that broke the camels back was how they viewed my boyfriend
and how they talked about him.  Also what they felt was the ideal
husband.  I was amazed by what they said and a little hot under the
collar.  Jesus wanted all to be saved and if this is supposedly the crux
of the Truth, why didn't they stretch out their arms to him. He just
didn't fit into that package of the perfect husband.  I have never
understood this.

Then just to top it off, I talked to a daughter of one of the Elders and
she said, "Do you think that when I married that the workers or anyone
else talked to me?  No they didn't.  I was ____________'s daughter."  I
thought, so it does matter who you are.  I thought I left clicks behind
in High School.  Guess not.

There are definitely favorites and rules for them versus rules for the
rest.

Praise to Jesus that we are all the same in His eyes and that we can
attain the same eternal life.  Every knee shall bow and every tongue
confess His name.  Not just some but all.  
Peggy 
9/97

Once upon a time, about 1982-91, Leslie White was in our home.  He
was putting more than a little pressure on us (for what, we did not
know at the time.)  In that process I asked him about young people
and "professing" and "dating" as we knew of a nice young lady in our 
area who was dating an "outsider" although not very seriously. 

We sure learned something from him that night. Leslie told us of 
one of the many "regional differences."  (And as time passed we 
learned more of these "regional differences.")

He said, "Back East, we did not allow a boy or girl who was keeping
company with an outsider to take part in meeting."   Then he said,
"But since this has not been done here in the past, I will not
enforce it here in Iowa."

It was statements and situations like this that made me cringe when
the oft repeated phrase of self praise was made that "we are so
fortunate to be in God's way and it is the same all over the world!"

So, _____, as you observed, this was NOT a rule enforced in the
Midwest (at least Iowa) but just to the east of us.  God had different
rules - - - - -  or did He?   I think not!  Rather it seemed to us 
that the rules were made up as they went along! 

How sad to have to admit to being so blind as we were. BUT, how 
wonderful to have the blinders off and now seeing Jesus Christ, 
"my Lord, my God," as our living hope for eternal life with Him. 
 9/97 Larry Lindemann

Many thanks for your detailed responses.  In my opinion, it is useful
to illuminate the differences in rules, sentences, etc.
which are applied in the "unchanging true way".  Perhaps,
if workers were to realise that their potentially devastating decisions in
such matters will be scrutinised on a world-wide basis, they will adopt a 
more enlightened approach. It is interesting to note that the outsiders in
such relationships are generally unaware of the threats to
the partner, especially if the individual is showing
interest in the meetings.  Exposure of these threats as
widely as possible should be encouraged.  In my own
case, I was unaware that my wife felt obliged not to take the
bread and wine after our marriage.

The following is a transcript of a conversation I had in  November 1994
with Tommy Gamble and Bertie Anderson (Irish overseer and deputy) regarding
this matter:

I asked why my wife was not given the sacraments for 1
year after her marriage, as it gave me the impression that the workers
believed that my wife had 'polluted' herself by marrying me.  I felt
insulted by
this inference.

Bertie Anderson replied that they did not approve of converts marrying
individuals who were not 'in the Lord'.

I responded that I resented Bertie's judgment of me, and
pointed out that Bertie knew nothing of my relationship with
the Lord or my moral standards, which I knew to be
higher than many of the converts.

Bertie retracted his statement, and rephrased it to say
that marriage to someone who is 'not in the fellowship' is
not approved.

Robert 9/97

Yes, dating with outsiders is seen as a bad thing.  But I feel the 
workers do have a  point.  Scripture clearly says that it is not
a good thing for believers and unbelievers to be yoked together. 
I am not making a judgment on this or saying it is a 
commandment (which would be against the Holy Spirit), but 
it is certainly a Biblical principle, and we have to consider this 
in light of marriage.

When David and I were dating, we were very aware of our religious   
differences.  And we knew there could be no future for us together if our   
beliefs and priorities in life were not resolved.  Our home and marriage   
would have a division before we even said "I do".

I think the workers do have an obligation as shepherds to point out that   
a marriage between a believer and non-believer will be a problem.  In the   
end, yes, the decision is up to the couple, but the workers would be   
negligent to turn a blind eye to having their members marry unbelievers.   
   
The main problem is that they (workers) tend to keep their silence for up   
to even years until a wedding is announced, and then step in to try to   
put a halt to things.  This makes huge messes and puts very unfair   
pressure on the couple who had not had this discussed with them before.   
 Punishments are handed out instead of issues being resolved earlier in   
the piece.  I think this is partly caused by workers being quite happy to   
have outsiders come along to meetings, even if they are dating one of the   
believers.  They are happy up to the point of a marriage being announced   
before the outsider has "decided".  The issues of believers and   
unbelievers being yoked is ignored until the horse has bolted, so to   
speak.

When David and I were seeing each other, David's father was particularly   
concerned from the start about what would happen in the long term if our   
relationship were to become "more permanent".  Were we aware of the   
consequences of marriage where the partners have different beliefs?  Were   
we prepared to look at this seriously for ourselves?  What steps were we   
taking to work things out before we wanted to marry?  Does a Christian   
have an obligation to look for a believing partner?  What will happen   
when there are children?  Which parent will have the right of way in   
choosing which church they will attend/with which rules they will be   
brought up?

I do not have the answers as to how exactly a pastor should act in these   
circumstances, but I think we need to be a little aware here of workers   
genuinely concerned about believers and unbelievers being unequally   
yoked.  Their inconsistencies and "punishments" depending on which   
families are involved is a symptom of other deep-rooted problems and   
abuse of power.

I do not meant offend ANYONE here, (Honest!), but is easy for all of us   
to be offended at times when we want to ignore certain Biblical   
principles and think what we are doing is right.  In some instances   
blaming workers for their interference/bad handling is a justification   
for only accusing them while ignoring the substance of what they said.

Please don't throw me in the briar bush!

Love,
Elizabeth Coleman
9/97

You stated, "I think we need to be a little aware here of workers
genuinely concerned about believers and unbelievers being unequally
yoked."

The base question is what/who is a "believer" and who/what is an
"unbeliever?"   It has been my experience that a "believer" in the
2x2 fellowship is one who "believes" in the system of 2 and 2
ministry, meetings in the home and conventions and special meetings
as a way of salvation.  The 2 and 2 fellowship is one in which the
"believers" have faith and trust in that system.

The workers are concerned about a professing person being 
unequally yoked with an unprofessing person. They are concerned 
with someone who is *not* a "believer" in their system marrying someone 
who *is* a believer in their system. This makes all the difference 
in this discussion. 

I'll try another statement.  I think the basic attempt of the workers
in such matters is to keep the maximum number "in" and keep the
numbers up.  This is not to impugn their integrity.  I feel that many
have wrongly believed that their "way" was the thing to believe in
for salvation.  Their sincerity does not make it right. 9/97 Larry L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A large number of people from my current congregation have married 
partners from a variety of other denominations (Baptist, Anglican,
Presbyterian).  We do not have a problem with this, it is Jesus as
Saviour that matters!  The couple then decide which church they 
will choose for their place of worship, that is THEIR decision, and 
theirs alone.  Some have gone with their partner to their church, 
some have brought their partner here.

The big difference is of course, is that Christians from different
denominations recognise other Christians who have their faith wholly in
Christ, and are not dependent on "ONE TRUE WAY".  9/97 Elizabeth

I have never actually SEEN anyone in the group be told not to take
part because of dating an outsider, though I believe there is at
least one person on the list who has said they were basically
excommunicated over just such an "offense."  I DO know, however, that
my sister was VERY concerned that such "discipline" might take place
with her kids.  She was bracing herself for it and trying to figure
out what her response would be. She believed it was a real threat
because she had apparently heard many stories of such a thing
happening in their area in recent times... this was Ohio in the mid-
80's.  (Both of her girls did date and marry "outsiders"... there was
never any "visit" or "discipline" administered.)

[I agree with Elizabeth, that the Bible DOES say a Christian should
NOT be unequally yoked with an unbeliever.  I also agree with Larry,
that that scripture refers to believers in JESUS CHRIST, not
believers in a METHOD/SYSTEM.  Part of the problem, though, is...
that scripture is never taught in the group, as far as I can remember.
Has anyone else ever heard it preached??  So... along comes this
problem "minutes" before a wedding (or sometimes even AFTER the
wedding) with only a vague idea and no specific teaching prior to
that time.]  Connie J   9/97
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as dating outsiders goes, I personally don't have a lot of experience
with this. I've known of many others who did & situations that came up as a
result. What I found was that pressure would be put on the person who was
professing to stop dating this other person, so the one who wasn't professing
would generally be pressured into professing. The motive wasn't what it
should have been but apparently the workers weren't too concerned about that.
Most of these cases I'm thinking about were people who went to mtg. but in
the case of someone dating an outsider I've seen the person who did profess,
stop when pressure was put on them.  Joetta 9/97

The policy in New South Wales is an automatic 12 month ban 
on a person speaking/taking emblems in meetings if they 
marry an "outsider". This has been challenged by a number 
in recent years and in some cases the workers have backed 
down. I know of two cases where the father of the women 
involved challenged the workers and they admitted there was 
no scriptural backing but it was their policy. However, the 
workers have indicated here on a number of occasions that 
they don't necessarily need scriptural backing for taking a 
particular stance.
I've no doubt problems can result, but the problem I have 
with the worker's policy is their automatic assumption that 
anyone not in our fellowship is not a Christian.

9/97 

All of my siblings dated outsiders and although my parents weren't too keen
on it I don't remember it being absolutely forbidden.  Don't remember ever
discussing the subject with a worker but I wasn't the only teen doing it.  (Can remember
several who brought non-professing 'dates' to gospel meetings and I did it myself
once and remember no fall-out.  One or two of those kids eventually professed).
Though my three older siblings all dated outside they all eventually married 2x2's.
Two of those three marriages ended in divorce and put all involved through
hell.

I don't remember my parents objecting when I dated outsiders but I didn't
date much.  Also my father was not professing (though his mother did) so they really
couldn't have said much.  Dating outsiders probably helped me exit, because
it meant I had friends and  supporters and felt comfortable in 'the world.’
Incidentally the non-professing girls I dated were no less upstanding than the professing
girls I dated and they were MUCH less concerned about the fact that I was relatively
penniless.  Even when I was still quite actively professing it was a lot easier for
me to get non-professing dates.
Take care,
Bob McPhail

As a teenager, some 20 years ago, we called outsiders
'forbidden fruit', as were people who attended meeting 
but weren't professing. Believe me, dates who were
acceptable in KY back then were slim pickins!! I did 
date a couple of guys from school who weren't professing.
Mom wasn't crazy about it, but she allowed it. I only dated
one guy who professed. When I did get married it was 
to someone who was/is an outsider.  9/97 Mona

I couldn't help but respond to your post. We had first-hand experience at how New England treats the issue of dating outsiders. Personally, when I was that age, that would have been the worst sin imaginable. I never really felt that way, but my parents would have had a nervous breakdown had I tried it! Back when we lived in *********** a young officer began coming to gospel meetings. (A former girlfriend of his from ******** who was professing told the workers about him, and they invited him.) The nearest fellowship meeting to the base in ****** where **** was stationed was in our home. We had young guys coming and going all the time, and so "adopted" **** as well. He came to every gospel meeting he possibly could, even when he was exhausted after a 24-hour duty. Came to many Sunday morning meetings, too, whenever his schedule would allow him. He was a lot of fun, and all the young ones in our meeting thought the world of him. Meanwhile, he and *******, then 17, began to be VERY good friends. He waited until she was 18, then began officially dating her. After they had been dating a few months, **** (the head worker in *****) spoke to us and to ****** about it. She said that if they ever got "serious," and **** was still not professing, that ****** would be asked to not take part. I would call this a threat now, although at the time I didn't think of it that way. The very thought of ****** being asked not to take part was too awful to think about, and I assured myself this would never happen - that ***** was not likely to get "serious" for a long time. (He was a confirmed bachelor - 28 years old.) Well, not quite a year later, **** took us all by surprise (himself included, I think!) and asked ******* to marry him! Remembering the worker's earlier threat, ****** couldn't bear the thought of being TOLD not to take part (which was probably how your wife felt, too), so she also voluntarily stopped - which devastated not only her fiancee (who she had never told about the threat), but the rest of our meeting, as well. She always had a very helpful testimony, and we had a lot of young folks in our meeting. She told them the reason, of course, and they tried to accept it, but couldn't really understand WHY, especially since **** had shown such an interest in the meetings. This caused a lot of pain to all involved. We as her parents tried to help folks understand - when we didn't really, ourselves.Thank God for deliverance from such ridiculous bigotry! As far as the emblems are concerned, nothing was said about them, so ****** continued to take them. A year after their wedding, she was told by the overseer that she could begin taking part again. Apparently, her time of "penance" was over!This seems to be the procedure on the east coast. Obviously, from the posts, other areas treat this situation differently. We knew that at the time, too, which made it all the harder to accept. In some areas, nothing is done or said. In fact, one young man from Texas told me if that had happened to his sister, his brother-in-law wouldn't be professing today. Strange way to operate, especially when you'd think they would want to lure **** in, not turn him away! Which is precisely what happened. He told ****** (his wife by this time) later than he had been on the verge of professing, but that just turned him off. 9/97

Well, as with most of the topics we’ve discussed on the List there is such a variety of opinions and experiences. I wonder if this could be because of ‘interpretation!’ Kind of hard to interpret unwritten rules! 9/97 Sandi