|
You are reading the VOT Archive Home Page · VOT Topics · Table of Contents |
The article described the group, their methods of ministry and fellowship, the convention and the group's history. But the article was really written to address Altamont Convention's safety issues:
"Despite the large number, most neighbors and town officials knew little about the group's existence until last month. That's when the town got a tip that four buildings on the 165-acre farm near the Watervliet Reservoir violated health and safety codes. The owners had represented the buildings as farm sheds, but when the town's building inspector visited the site, he found men's and women's dormitories, washrooms and cooking facilities inside the buildings."
"Town and county officials have ordered the owners to make sure the buildings, septic systems and other facilities meet state code by the time the event starts on August 17, 2000."
Worker Charles Steffen was quoted as saying: "It's really not a public gathering. It's a gathering of believers. We haven't had any illnesses or problems. We've been very careful. We want to do what's right.''
I was born and raised in an abusive religious system. I understand only
too well how such a church can victimize its own people. The Lord was
faithful to deliver me and, at times the journey has been exhilarating.
Other aspects of the experience have been very difficult. Making the
choice to leave my church of a lifetime was deeply painful. Many of my
relationships with family members and friends still in that church have
been lost or crippled. I know my recovery will be a lifelong process.
Today my heart aches for others I see enduring that same kind of
spiritual abuse. I want to do what I can to stop this needless hurt.
Many people find it hard to imagine how intelligent people can
get entangled in such an abusive situation. The subtle twisting of
scripture, the control of information and the emphasis on the happy,
loving church family can make recognition of the abuse difficult.
When Leadership Disappoints
Those of us in the Christian community have to face the fact
that sometimes our leaders fall. When it happens to us, it is painfully
traumatic. It is a human reaction to bury our heads in the sand and
pretend it never happened (or forget it quickly) in hopes that the pain
will also quickly pass. How do seemingly godly leaders become abusive?
What are the signs of spiritual abuse of power in the church? What is
our responsibility to guard against this kind of abuse?
Is our church family healthy or does it exhibit signs of
dysfunction? It has been said that watching how our leaders treat the
"one" will give us an indication of how they view the "ninety and nine"
in their church family. When a family member comes forward with
concerns, is that person honored and his concern prayerfully considered?
When trouble comes to the family are the hurting members embraced and
cared for or are they forgotten as though they never were a part of the
family in the first place?
We are exhorted in scripture to do our best to present ourselves
to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and
who correctly handles the word of truth. Paul commended the Bereans as
noble for searching the scripture daily to see if the things Paul
himself was teaching them were true. Do our leaders encourage this kind
of scriptural scrutiny of their teaching?
Abusive systems and abusive leaders put a high emphasis on the
authority of church leaders and the submission of the "sheep" they lead.
They discourage questions. When members ask questions or voice
concerns, they may receive evasive answers.
Do our leaders allow for input from the congregation? Do they
show the openness of Christ-like servant leaders? Are our leaders
teaching sound doctrine or must we set aside scriptural mandates in
order to embrace their teaching? Do we continue to submit to them and
say nothing? Our own well-being (and that of our children) and the very
witness of the church could be at stake.
…a divorced Edmonton couple, appeared in Alberta Family court to decide which of them would get custody of their two children. Mr. ______’s lawyer, charged that (his ex-wife) was raising their children in a cult to which both parents belonged but from which Mr. ______ has since escaped. Known as the Two-by-twos, the Way, the Truth, the Go-preachers, or "the Church without a Name," the movement claims to be the one true Christianity. The Family Court deemed itself unqualified to settle the question and referred the case to the Court of Queen's Bench, which now finds itself in the awkward position of having to rule on the harmfulness of a religious sect. "We compiled a list of 47 different cult characteristics," says lawyer ______. "The Two-by-twos meet all the points. They are extremely secretive, have no written doctrine or records, you can't get a straight answer from them and yet they claim to be the only path to salvation. Their 'friends' must give unconditional obedience to the workers or they're guilty of backsliding. And if they backslide, they're damned." Mr. _______ says his case is bolstered by California academic Ronald Enroth's work CHURCHES THAT ABUSE, Port Coquitlam author Lloyd Fortt's IN SEARCH OF 'THE TRUTH', and the testimony of a dozen former members in Alberta. However, Gordon Melton, the California-based editor of the Encyclopedia of American Religions, argues the Two-by-twos are simply an "old-line, 19th-century Christadelphian sect," an isolated subculture of non-Trinitarian Christians. They are not a cult because "there's no real threats or violence," he says. "A good comparison is the Amish. They keep to themselves, with a minimal creed; they stress community, and their faith is passed from generation to generation. The big difference is that the Two-by-twos blend into the community, own houses and work normal jobs." Some ex-members have cited instances of sexual abuse, but author and ex-member Fortt has admitted such accusations are rare. Local "workers" did not return calls from this magazine. The custody case may be heard at Queen's Bench in Edmonton within the month.
In January and February of this year (1999), the child custody trial of Dorey and Dorey vs. Steingard commenced. An issue which is, generally speaking, settled out of court or in a three to four day trial, had over almost a three-year litigation period grown to monstrous proportions; the trial lasted 17 days. Duncan and Margaret Dorey, father and stepmother to the children - Teresa and Katie Dorey, aged 8 and 6 (at that time) respectively - were pursuing sole custody of the girls. Janice Steingard, Duncan's former common-law spouse, was pursuing sole custody of her daughter Katie, and of Teresa as well. Teresa Dorey's birth mother died when she was 18 months old. Janice Steingard is a guardian of Teresa Dorey.
Janice Steingard is a member of the Two by Twos, her mother is a strong Willis Propp adherent and supporter, and her father is an Elder. They hold Meeting in their home. Janice's sister is a Sister Worker, and her brother and second sister are also Two by Two members. Significant indoctrination of the children into the Two by Twos had occurred and there was a lot of concern by the Doreys on the effect that this was having on the children, their development, and their relationship with the Doreys (as Outsiders).
The trial, presided over by Justice E. MacCallum, was heard in Queen's Bench Court in Edmonton, Canada. The gallery was packed to overflowing on most days of the trial, primarily populated by current Two by Twos, but with a smattering of Exes as well. Surprisingly, many of the current members voiced support for the Doreys, despite the testimonies against the Group put forward by the Plaintiffs and their witnesses. Witnesses for the Plaintiffs (the Doreys) included, among others:
· Mary Anne Schoeff from the state of Washington, acknowledged as an expert in the Two by Twos (having researched the Group for over twenty years)
· Professor Ronald Enroth, of Westmont College in California, one of the leading experts in the field of cults and abusive churches (he profiled the Two by Twos in his book "Churches That Abuse")
· An ex-member, profiled in a story about the Two by Twos in a series of newspaper articles about the Group
· An ex-member and author of a book on the Two by Twos; and
· An ex-member whose family was still involved in the Two by Twos.
Witnesses for the Defendant (Janice Steingard) included, among others:
· The Head Worker/Overseer for Alberta;
· Two Elders and longtime Two by Two members;
· The mother of the Defendant, and a current Two by Two; and
· Two women who are current members of the Two by Twos in Edmonton.
The lawyer for the Defendant, David Schwartz, was attended and assisted by a lawyer from the province of British Columbia - Norm Evans - who is a currently a professing Two by Two.
Despite evidence which appeared to demonstrate the appropriateness of custody being awarded to the Doreys, and of the risks to the children of remaining in the sphere of influence of the Two by Twos, the Judgment of Sole Custody was provided to Janice Steingard for both children, with access to the Doreys. However, the Court Order and Judgment concerning custody and access provides some direction on the issue of religious practices, as follows:
"When Katie Dorey and Teresa Dorey are in the Plaintiffs' care the Plaintiffs shall have sole say as to the religious practices they observe with the children. The Defendant is not to interfere or criticize the Plaintiff's choice of religion. The same applies when the children are in the care of the Defendant."
Since the conclusion of the trial, three Two by Twos have lodged complaints with the Law Society of Alberta against the lawyer for the Plaintiffs, James K. Arends. Their complaints centre around Mr. Arends' requests on the "Hope" and "Two by Two Church" Lists for assistance and information in preparing for the trial, which the complainants take exception to as an infringement on their rights. The investigation is currently pending with the Law Society.
Dear Impartial Reporter: We see in your recent printing of Cooneyite letters that our experience of leaving the mainstream Two-by-Two's in America in 1972 was referred to. Later on we had a number of extended visits with some elderly Irish Cooneyites. We would like now to report a significant difference we noted (related to truth in advertising) that we believe the public should be aware of. The "message" and general practice of both groups were similar. But while the Cooneyites seemed quite knowledgeable and open about their doctrine and their 1890s origin, the Two-by-Two's had little awareness in either area and were careful to evasively disguise what little they did know. Without having to say so, they wanted to appear to be from the days of Jesus without interruption, a concept necessitated by their veiled claim that spiritual life could only come through the directly spoken words of one of their itinerant ministers. And they wanted to appear to be doctrinally orthodox without actually committing themselves clearly. They didn't really want to discuss either doctrine or history. The Two-by-Two ministers could appear to agree warmly with views they didn't actually hold and which they would later disparage. They commonly led prospects to believe they held orthodox views, and also pretended the same to any of their own members who made specific inquiry on doctrinal essentials. But usually evasion and silence disposed of such questions, whether of doctrine or of history. Had we been dealing originally with the Cooneyites instead of the mainstream Two-by-Two's, we could have learned much more readily the serious ways in which these groups differ from orthodoxy: * that their "gospel" was simply a method of preaching and meeting, and that it rejected the biblical message of God 's grace in providing a Savior. * that they were relying on their own flawed faithfulness and placed no reliance on what Christ did for them when He kept the precept and penalty of the Law in their stead. * that they did not believe God to be a trinity, nor Christ to be God, * that they believed themselves to be the only Christians, etc. Oh, yes, they "believed" in the blood of Christ, in His death, in His righteous, obedient life, but what they believed about these things was deliberately unclear, and the admission that they didn't rely on any of them for acceptance with God was very slow in coming. But eventually it did come through. They simply expected God to be "reasonable" (as they called it) in accepting their best efforts, expecting that He could bend the strictness of His Law for them, that imperfect compliance with it could be accepted, though it cost Him His integrity as a Judge. Since they didn't see the price of heaven to be out of their personal reach, they didn't need a Savior, much less a Substitute - only an Example. So let the public beware. And let those members who are privately "reading into" the teachings of the group truths which are not there re-examine and challenge what they are hearing. Doing this will not be easy. Even the Loizeaux Publishing House was, for awhile, completely, fooled into defending the Two-by-Two's as an orthodox Christian group. And the particular circumstances of Loizeaux's encounter with the Two-by Two's gave them far more chance to get to the truth about the group than any Two-by-Two convert ever has. It may help to remember that straightforwardness and consistency cannot be expected from Two-by-Two workers, even when they believe they are being honest. "Be wise as serpents, seem harmless as doves" is their oft-repeated motto. Sincerely yours, Ruth Miller 6120 West Umatilla Avenue Kennewick, WA 99336 USA