Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Because the "6 year CRI study" has been referenced on this thread as "authoritative", there is a great deal of information about said "study" on this forum which should be considered.
On May 5, 2010 Thankful Jane posted an open letter to Buntain, Sady and Towle, as described below, including this complete and comprehensive rebuttal/debunking of "The 6 year CRI study" which was published in the CRI Journal saying "We Were Wrong"....basically to have labeled the LC a cult. Note that Buntain, Sady and Towle never acknowledged receipt of this open letter, much less responded to it. Perhaps Evangelical will read and respond to the question “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (After reading it, of course!) When you reference such a study as authoritative, as Evangelical has done, it is necessary to know more about the content of this "study."
I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”
Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619
Thankful
Nell |
Thanks Nell.
A rational and logical approach to this would be to consider two things.
Firstly, the 6 year CRI study was by a number of people, independent of the local churches, with no vested interest to either malign or promote the local churches. In fact, for the CRI to reverse their position on this was a big thing to do. They moved from a negative position to a positive one, with no doubt some potential damage to their reputation. Can we say the same about the
one author of this article?
Secondly, the author is seen to be profiting from her experience in the local churches by selling a number of books about it. This indicates she does not have a neutral and unbiased position in this, so can we trust it?
These two pieces of fact weight the evidence towards the CRI study than towards this letter in my opinion. 6 year study by independents, versus 1 long letter with various claims that have not been independently verified and who profits from some books about it. Hmmm.
This is not to say that what she writes is wrong, only that based on the evidence it seems more doubtful than the CRI study.