Hi Kalled,
I'm still thinking and praying about whether to go back or not. I'm leaning toward, as you say, giving "it a chance".
As for using it as a tool for evangelism, the way it's structured doesn't really seem to suit that very well. The feeling I got at the first meeting was they don't want anyone to be to assertive that they have the "correct doctrine". I could be wrong about this, though, it was only my first impression.
I'll use this post to list some other of my impressions and thoughts. I hope someone will provide me some feedback. I don't know who this person is or if he just has an axe to grind, but some of my impressions are similar to some I found on this website
http://watch.pair.com/bsf.html so I'll just quote some of what he wrote (Note: I don't agree with some (alot) of what he wrote).
Even after only one meeting, I distinctly got this impression.
Another questionable Shepherding/Discipleship practice of BSF is its adherence to a vast quantity of complex rules which are designed to promote orderliness within the organization, but which actually promote legalism. I sensed that any resistance to rules by participants results in their being labeled as rebellious or not in submission to their higher authority in the hierarchy, even when the rule contradicts Scripture.
Because of the above error, BSF exhibits the cultish characteristic of maintaining strict control over the flow of information within its organization. Nobody is allowed to speak about or discuss specific denominations. Nobody is allowed to ask other questions than those which are presented by BSF for discussion in the small groups. In fact, nobody is even allowed to bring up Scripture to clarify a point other than those Scriptures provided in the questions. (The exception to the above is "Challenge" questions where participants are allowed to bring in other Scriptures, but there are very few of these challenge questions, usually no more than one per week.) But most importantly, BSF will not allow their lesson materials to be given to anyone for scrutiny or examination unless they are a class participant. "BSF notes are provided for the personal use of class members during their active participation and must not be loaned or given to nonmembers." 12 Such secrecy is a common element of shepherding/discipleship groups and secret societies. However, II Tim. 2:9 states, "... but the word of God is not bound."
I'm not sure about the "cultish characterstic" part, but I did get this impression too. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, if you don't fill out the questionnaire before the meeting, you can't even talk during the discussion. In addition, you have to discuss only what you wrote on the sheet. So I assume that if someone says something you disagree with, unless you anticipated them and wrote it down in your answer area, you wouldn't be able to argue the point. And I really don't like the idea that I can't loan or give the notes to non-members. I suppose that I can still discuss them with others as long as I don't let the sheet out of my sight. According to the copyright notice, I can't even reproduce "in any form" "any portion" of the material. That means if I wanted to get your opinion on a particular point, I suppose I couldn't even do that (I think "Fair Use" actually allows this though regardless of their interpretation of the copyright law). My question though is "why are they so concerned if a non-member sees these materials?" Christians aren't concerned when non-Christians read the Bible. We aren't instructed to not give non-Christians a Bible are we?
The Small Group Discussion Leaders do not teach Scripture and do not acknowledge correct or incorrect answers. They simply encourage participation from all members and attempt to arrive at a consensus within the group about what the Bible is saying. Miss Johnson wrote,
I taught these leaders never to respond with "That’s not right," but simply to thank the individual and ask if someone else might have a different opinion. Discussion leaders were not intended to teach their class, but rather to encourage fellowship and discussion of answers and to have occasional simple discussion class luncheons.
The dialectic process (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) is at work here. The formula for the dialectic is "a diverse group of people dialoging to consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting." This method will brainwash participants to abdicate strict adherence to Scripture for the sake of their relationship to the group. In other words, Thesis (What the Bible says) + Antithesis (What BSF says) = Synthesis (Allegiance to BSF's interpretation of the Bible).
I'm not sure about this point yet, but it worries me if this is the way the discussions are going to be run. Some of the most edifying discussions I've ever had have been some of the most argumentative. I am grateful for those people who, when I have been in error, didn't back down from their position just to spare my feelings.
There are other interesting points made in that article that mirrored some of the other impressions I had, but I don't want to quote the whole thing.
Claiming my fair use rights, what do you think of the following statements?
"A person has no power to witness for Christ until he has received the promise of the Holy Spirit following the remission of sins through Christ's death on the Cross. Have you ever definitely received the Holy Spirit as a person to dwell within you."
"Acts presents a cycle that is also the cycle of all Christian service accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit. The cycle is this: Prayer is followed by power (to preach or witness) in such a way that miracles (of changed lives and spiritual healing) result. This is followed by persecution or opposition of some kind."
John
