The LCS Factor [Archive] - Page 2 - Local Church Discussions

Hope

08-19-2008, 07:28 PM

Now I would like to address the fruit of the LC/LSM with regard to our children. The LC/LSM did not promote or permit any of the horrible social issues and sins that dj listed. There was no more than what you might find in society and among other Christian groups. Yet it is so shocking that is was found at all much less to the extent it was found. But very big to me is the spiritual deadness and disillusionment of so many of the children. How did this happen? Why did it affect us all? (Me too.) We must look at this for God has a very high purpose for the family.

The first big problem for the children to overcome was the church split they witnessed and the low time their parents went through. I was very much under the condemnation of the devil for a few years. I was not much help or encouragement to my children during this time. What happened to me greatly discouraged them. Remember how angry you were if someone hurt or cheated your parents. The LSM/LC and its leadership turned on those who had served the saints and were often most responsible for the establishing and building of the churches. This was a great opening for the devil to come in and discourage and destroy some of the children.

The new way and the usurping of the headship of Christ by “the Apostle” were 180 degrees away from the original vision. Not only were adults confused so were the children.

The terrible teaching of “deputy authority” empowered foolish immature men who could be used by the flesh and the devil to attack and undermine the young.

The class system and unequal appreciation of the various members of the body of Christ was a great damage to the children. 1 Cor 12:25-28, "that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it." Here we see so clearly that to have preferential care creates division. These two items, the division of preferential care and the usurping of the headship of Christ opened the flood gates to the enemy, Satan.

The idolatry of promoting WL was death to the family and to the children. Why did the Lord command the Israelites to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Canaan? It was due to their idolatry. A huge part of Baal worship was the sacrifice of children in order to obtain the blessing of success. The model and agenda set up by the LSM was devastating to the children and families. How much of the training attendance was due to the desire to please WL and the elders? Same with the exhausting local meeting schedule. The average brother and sister may have scored some points but at what cost?

Finally there was no healthy teaching regarding caring for the saints in order to strengthen the family and there was nearly zero understanding on how to resist the devil. In Eph. Chapter three we find: Eph 3:18-19, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. NASB Here we see something of the vast dimensions of Christ. No one person can possibly have it all. If we only have the supply from one member we will get a limited view at best. Witness Lee was good as far as he went but he had only one dimension. Many other gifts to the Body were needed in order to fill in the picture. Sadly our children suffered greatly and the marriages suffered greatly because of his dominating the Lord’s ministry to the church.

The Lord is very angry about what happened to the families and to the children. We all should be very mad. I am mad, mad, mad. I am certainly not mad at the children or the parents. I have no desire to berate them for they are also victims of the LC/LSM system.

There is a need for prayer and fasting for the recovery of the children and for the healing of damaged marriages. It would not hurt to shed many tears for what the enemy has been allowed to do to our wonderful children.

I am calling on the members of the forum to join with me every day in prayer for the damaged and disillusioned children and for the discouraged and down trodden parents. Heb 7:25, Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. NASB

LET US JOIN WITH OUR EXALTED LORD AND SAVIOR IN DAILY INTERCESSION FOR ALL WHO HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED AND DAMAGED BY THE LC/LSM.

Thank you all,

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

OBW

08-19-2008, 07:41 PM

Everything has turned out OK, but it wasn't easy. This is when you find out God's ability to heal the deepest wounds.I intentionally omitted asking about your long term outcome. It is probably in Jane's book, but it has been too long since I read it. Anyway, I chose not to pry and leave it to you.

I am exceedingly happy that things have ultimately turned out OK. I am learning that sometimes we must go through great trials to really appreciate God and receive that comfort that He expects us to pass on to others. We always wish it could just be a bad case of indigestion, but it is never so easy. We also wish that someone else could bear the weight of our suffering. I know that Christ does just that, but he does not simply make it all go away, but instead gives us strength to make it through.

blessD

08-19-2008, 07:50 PM

I am calling on the members of the forum to join with me every day in prayer for the damaged and disillusioned children and for the discouraged and down trodden parents. Heb 7:25, Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. NASB
LET US JOIN WITH OUR EXALTED LORD AND SAVIOR IN DAILY INTERCESSION FOR ALL WHO HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED AND DAMAGED BY THE LC/LSM.
Thank you all,
In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,
Hope, Don Rutledge

Announce the day and time periods for the prayer and fasting and I'm in.

OBW

08-19-2008, 07:55 PM

In OKC, free choice in mates, dating, and engagement is accepted. It seems, at least in this area, the lessons were learned. Of the 15+ marriages around 1980, the latest reports indicate ALL but one ended in divorce. Since I don't keep contact with many people of that time period, this report is just word of mouth.

The only marriage that survived is a couple that met each other and fell in love before they began attending meetings. Strangely enough, the elders told them not to get married saying it was "natural" and of the flesh. I am so glad they did not listen and have had one of the best marriages I have ever seen.

Someone mentioned on a post that they did not think the divorce rate was that different than any other church. At 14 out of 15 failed marriages just from this 1 year period, I beg to differ.I'm probably at least one of the people that said something about similar divorce rates. 14 of 15 is quite a failure rate.

Now, surely this was not the norm, even for OKC. But some really low divorce rate was not either. The marriages that I was most familiar with near the time of mine are still going. I can't say how strong. I know several of them that are happily in the LC somewhere in the DFW area. And in the same breath, I can point to quite a few over many years that didn't last long, up to one lasting long enough to have 2 or 3 kid before she just left and moved in with some guy. But these are mostly marriages of people whose entrance into the LC was late high school or beyond, so it was at least somewhat their own decision. I have little information concerning the true second generation.

I would hate to think that 14 of 15 was commonplace, but even if not, the fact that it happened that way once is tragic and screams for review.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-19-2008, 07:57 PM

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-19-2008, 08:10 PM

Hope finally we get on the same page about something. The parents obsession with Lee caused much suffering to the children.

I suppose "the system" can be blamed and we can be mad, mad, mad at it but that's sorta abstract don't you think? Who set up and maintained the system? Let's not kid ourselves and waste our energies being angry in the wrong direction. The LCS leadership and the parent's abdicating their responsibility are what caused the children to suffer. It is their fault and they are to be blamed.

Overflow

08-19-2008, 08:16 PM

blessD wrote:

"Someone mentioned on a post that they did not think the divorce rate was that different than any other church. At 14 out of 15 failed marriages just from this 1 year period, I beg to differ."

2 posts later Hope writes:

"There is no more than what you might find in society and among other Christian groups."

So which is it?

I wanted to also bring up marriages that had a dominating husband (elder) and a wife that worked so hard to deny herself completely of self that she ended up just checking out on life altogether. Almost a 'Stepford' type relationship. I wonder if these were common in the LC!?!? I observed this personally. I don't think you can count that as a successful marriage, despite the fact that there wasn't/isn't a divorce. If you think there was a cushion being from an elder family, I'd like to say my opinion differs.

Hope

08-19-2008, 08:19 PM

Dear Sister BlessD, and all others burdened to pray for the families.

Thank you for your desire to join with me and others in prayer. I suggest tomorrow, Wednesday at your normal supper time. I plan to pray with my wife during that time instead of taking our normal meal.

We all know some specific families that are suffering and who have suffered. I suggest you write those on your heart and bring them to the Lord.

In Christ Jesus,

Don Rutledge

Paul Cox

08-19-2008, 09:00 PM

I know when I began to write the history many were interested to know how the eldership worked and how our relationship with WL and the LSM worked. The way the thread has gone has given an excellent opportunity to take a look at some of the service of the so called leading ones.

In Dallas, the elders were usually the last to leave the hall. Many nights my phone rang after mid-night...

Hi Hope,

Thanks for the insight into the tireless work that shepherds do. All of us who were in the Local Church can remember shepherds who labored selflessly to bring us along, with no thought of themselves. Many of them left the Living Stream Church, and many remain there.

As you mentioned, a shepherd’s life should be that of a slave. This proves to be true with caring ones in every denomination, every evangelical group, and every free group. It also holds true for the leadership in many errant groups. So it almost goes without saying that the leadership in any Christian group, if they are adhering to the principles of the Bible, labor like a slave without regard for their own welfare, or benefit.

But I wonder if with the Local Church, as with many groups, that automatic given expectation of the leadership it totally exploited. In other words, they should be slaving, but we must ask the question, why are they slaving, and what is the result.

Maybe there was an atmosphere of fear fostered in the Local Churches, then, and the Living Stream Churches, now. It seems to me that those who were most faithful to absorb the actual message of Witness Lee, and the concepts contained therein were absolutely scared of making a move in their personal lives without “taking the fellowship.”

I can remember at least a couple of times, when I was young in the Local Church, that I went out and did something in my personal life on my own, and was strongly rebuked for not “taking the fellowship.” It could be said that this eldership was inviting me to call him at all hours of the night, as long as he knew I was being held in line with the program.

When I finally started making moves that would eventually lead to my departure, there was an abiding fear within me – “What will ‘the brothers’” think. It was a very real, palpable fear, and one that had been cultivated in me over almost three decades, over several localities, by scores of leading ones. I think it is inarguable that such a fear is indeed cultivated in the saints.

I believe this matter of “taking the fellowship” was used as an instrument of control. The consequences of not staying under this control can be seen with actions that were taken against certain leading ones who dared to move as they felt led of the Lord, instead of following “the fellowship” from Anaheim.

If this is the case, then don’t you think that maybe, in large part, the sleepless nights and ragged days of much of the eldership of the Local Churches had much to do with being under undue pressure – a burden imposed on them because of this teaching that descended all the way from Witness Lee.

I not only believe in the trickle down effect in economics, but I also believe in it as regards leadership in a group. Brother Witness Lee, for all his giftedness, was, in my opinion, a paranoid person when it came to control of the Local Church. In some of the Texas leadership, and other from around the globe, he found more than willing accomplices in the matter of controlling the saints by stressing the importance of “taking the fellowship.”

I am certainly in no way trying to mitigate the effects of your fellowship as outlined in your testimony of tragedies averted, for example. But I still think that much of the hours spent in shepherding the saints had more to do with trying to keep everybody on the plantation, than anything else.

IMHO

Roger

bookworm

08-19-2008, 10:01 PM

Hi Roger,

These are very interesting points you have considered. It reminds me of a time when I was first in the LC and was single and at the end of a regular meeting wanted some (what I considered to be simple) advice regarding something. I asked a brother about it, a brother who along with his wife had been very helpful to me, and I distinctly remember that brother saying for me to go “have fellowship with THE brothers (meaning leading ones) and be in the Shikinah glory.” I was truly taken aback by this and believed this was a bit over the top. However, later after that brother moved to another locality I heard he did “make the big time” and became an elder there.

YP0534

08-20-2008, 04:53 AM

When I finally started making moves that would eventually lead to my departure, there was an abiding fear within me – “What will ‘the brothers’” think. It was a very real, palpable fear, and one that had been cultivated in me over almost three decades, over several localities, by scores of leading ones. I think it is inarguable that such a fear is indeed cultivated in the saints.

1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has torment, and he that fears has not been made perfect in love.

I think it's pretty clear that the root cause of the thing is that there was a general lack of love, a lack of understanding about love, a lack of experience of love, just whatever there is related to love, there was a serious lack of that. Love is the most important theme in the New Testament yet it was completely displaced by Lee's focus on teachings regarding administration and dispensing. A friend of mine has suggested what we really need is a "Love-Study" of the New Testament.

Many seem to think that the camaraderie experienced inside the Local Church towards the saints is the evidence of the proper love. With regard to many situations, we surely did love the saints. Yet is there fear there? If the love is there, than it cannot be that there is fear. If there is fear, then that cannot be love.

I think I understand that Lee taught that "love is the expression of life" but if that's so, the lack of love would seem to indicate that there isn't really much life in the Local Church after all.

The abounding and overflowing love of God in our lives, originating in the operation of divine life that we all share, should clearly be obviously expressed within families, to people we work with, to the saints around us, to unbelievers, to our enemies, everywhere.

After all, love is how they know we are His disciples.

Ohio

08-20-2008, 05:11 AM

Matt Anderson

08-20-2008, 05:11 AM

Preface:

The other posts to this thread since last night are interesting and good. I'm sticking with another theme (idolatry) a bit longer. Just call me little drummer boy. I've got my one little drum right now and I'm still banging away. I wrote something last night and didn't post it. I knew I didn't have the utterance for what I was trying to say yet. I woke up this morning with some more light on the matter.

I am going to say it. Hopefully, I can share what I have been seeing. I'm sharing it just as insight and nothing more or less.

Hope, I am not on the attack, but I am using your words as example to try and reframe and redraw a line which I believe you have set in the wrong place. I'm not proclaiming to have set it in the right place. I'm just going to try and uncover the core issues that help us know how to set the line in the right place. I may or may not get it in this attempt.

The Dividing Line on the "Vision" and Idolatry

By means of example, Hope has started to set a dividing line on the issue of idolatry. In summary, it goes like this: If you attached yourself to a group, a ministry or an allegiance to a man (i.e. WL) as some did then you were entering into a level of idolatry. Here is the quote:

The vision was the big thing for me from the very beginning. I did not attach myself to a group or a ministry. This was difficult to explain to friends and family at the time. Everyone assumes you are attracted to personalities. James Barber always stressed that his vision was a man and that he followed WL just like Timothy followed Paul. For James, it was not Christ who is our life and the church as the Body of Christ but the ministry of WL. Benson Phillips had a very similar view. WL was God's man of faith and power for this hour. Thus, he attached himself to WL. Ray Graver was similar to Benson but with an even stronger view that included rendering service to the man of faith and power for this hour and seeking to duplicate that man in life and work. They were very successful in bringing this view into many of the local churches. Matt, here is where your premise of idolatry comes in.

When you set the line between that which is idolatrous and that which is not idolatrous in the way you describe, then it leaves room for the following idea:

A. There is a good "vision" that is okay.
B. There is a bad "vision" that is not okay.

Now, we have touched on the "vision" and I believe others have rightly agreed that the "vision" was something other than Christ alone. I believe you are seeing this something other than Christ alone as the attachment to a group, a ministry, or a man. I am not seeing it that way.

I am seeing the something other than Christ alone to include an ideal, a concept... A "vision"... even a good "vision".

Putting some more meat on the "vision"

Here is what I have come to understand about the "vision". In simple terms, the "vision" was a vision of the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality.

In my mind, this is where the idolatry lies. I won't be able to fully explain my last statement in this post, but let's go to the Word before anyone gets too upset with me for such an extreme view! :(

Digging down on Idolatry

I've studied the issue of idolatry on a number of occasions. The first time was when I was about 17-18 years old. I read through Kings and Chronicles and was struck by all of the idolatry. It was everywhere. I looked up idolatry and read the definition. It was talking about graven images. I immediately thought about the Catholic Church. They had idols, but then in my little brain I had a second thought...

If idolatry was so widespread and pervasive among the children of Israel, I don't think it just went away or ended up in the Catholic Church alone.

This was a thought that opened a question for me with the Lord that hasn't closed even unto this day.

If you study the OT you will find that the definition of idolatry remains consistent. It's about physical objects that are images of things in heaven above, on the earth or in the sea. The definition doesn't really change throughout the OT.

So, how in the world can I (me, Matt) change the definition to point to an ideal, a concept... A vision?

Here is how. Paul did it, not me. Paul moved the idolatry from a physical object to the condition of one's heart. He tied it to covetousness. It's a pretty big leap, but a valid one.

Ephesians 5:5

ASV - For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

KJV - For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

NASB 95 - For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Let's get a reminder of "covetousness". In this case it comes from the following Greek word.

Strongs 4123 - [pleonektes /pleh-on-ek-tace/] n m. From 4119 and 2192; Four occurrences; AV translates as 'covetous' four times. 1 one eager to have more, esp. what belongs to others. 2 greedy of gain, covetous.

Here I will pause and give Hope a reminder... I'm going to use the most object example I know of with confirmable facts/deeds.

Hope, do you remember Benson in front of his world map? Look at the territory that he surveyed and decided that he was going to go after in the name of the Lord. Think about it again in light of what I am saying.

Benson attached himself to Lee and the LSM because he was already acting in idolatry. He did not commit idolatry because he attached himself to a group, a ministry or a man other than Christ. The idolatry was already there. Benson wanted something. Benson had already had a "vision" of leading a worldwide christian organization. The LC, the LSM and Lee were a means to an end... The satisfaction of Benson's covetousness for something other than Christ.

Now, I know I am speaking judgmentally. God forgive me. I'm judging with the same judgment that I have been judged. I've committed idolatry too. I wanted something and set my heart on it. In His mercy, God stopped me. Thank God.

Short-circuited Conclusion

I've said enough for now. I hope I am opening a window for at least some people to look through. I think I will need to say more, but for now I am going to add one more passage to this post and stop.

Titus 1:5-16 (NASB95)
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. 10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Matt

P.S. I am committing an apparent error of logic if this post is viewed in isolation when I use "idolater" vs. "idolatry" somewhat interchangeably. If someone sees it and questions it, I can prove out in the verses in Ephesians 5 that what I am saying is still valid.

Nell

08-20-2008, 06:24 AM

I wanted to also bring up marriages that had a dominating husband (elder) and a wife that worked so hard to deny herself completely of self that she ended up just checking out on life altogether. Almost a 'Stepford' type relationship. I wonder if these were common in the LC!?!? I observed this personally. I don't think you can count that as a successful marriage, despite the fact that there wasn't/isn't a divorce. If you think there was a cushion being from an elder family, I'd like to say my opinion differs.

Process,

You make a good point. What a complex system we were all caught into! It's a culture of extremes.

A few years ago I went to a meeting for whatever reason...I ended up there. As I looked around the room, I noticed the faces of the sisters. It was remarkable. Many had an almost a blank look on their faces. Even if they were smiling, their eyes looked hollow. Based on what you've shared, I'll call this a "Stepford" look. I think it is probably very common. I have known one sister in particular for many years, who is the wife of a dominating elder husband. She has had that Stepford look, an almost permanent pained look on her face, as long as I can remember. So you're right, not all elder families were "privileged". Many women try to cope the best they can, and that often means denial.

Nell

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 06:37 AM

I think it's pretty clear that the root cause of the thing is that there was a general lack of love, a lack of understanding about love, a lack of experience of love, just whatever there is related to love, there was a serious lack of that. Love is the most important theme in the New Testament yet it was completely displaced by Lee's focus on teachings regarding administration and dispensing. A friend of mine has suggested what we really need is a "Love-Study" of the New Testament.

Many seem to think that the camaraderie experienced inside the Local Church towards the saints is the evidence of the proper love. With regard to many situations, we surely did love the saints. Yet is there fear there? If the love is there, than it cannot be that there is fear. If there is fear, then that cannot be love.

I think I understand that Lee taught that "love is the expression of life" but if that's so, the lack of love would seem to indicate that there isn't really much life in the Local Church after all.

The abounding and overflowing love of God in our lives, originating in the operation of divine life that we all share, should clearly be obviously expressed within families, to people we work with, to the saints around us, to unbelievers, to our enemies, everywhere.

After all, love is how they know we are His disciples.Great post. Spot on! Tell your friend that :iagree: about that "Love study" need.

Also, love never fails...

There has been a lot of talk about "the vision" but the real vision is "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son...."

(that was reduced for us to something "old" as the spotlight turned our eyes away from the simplicity in Jesus to lock them in for decades on so many other things--the vision of true church, God's economy/admistration, etc.)

"Love one another as I have loved you ..." and He said this to the disciples before He went to the cross. His example was loving and caring for individuals who were sick, wounded, hurting, old and young, etc. Yes we truly need a "Love study."

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart ..." Zero room in there for other things.

Eze 14:3 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them?

I think the apostle John, when he saw the love leaving, may have written the first "Love study," and he interestingly he ended it with "little children keep yourself from idols."

Thankful Jane

Hope

08-20-2008, 06:43 AM

Good Morning Roger,

I think you post is pretty much right on. I can remember thinking "why did you call me about that?" I always tried to treat all with respect and dignity but to tell a saint that what they had brought up for "fellowship" should be taken care of by themselves caused some to think you did not care for them. It was a catch 22. This whole fear of the hierarchy undermined any possibility of a healthy church and stunted everyone’s growth.

I can prove on almost any issue that was a chronic problem that deputy authority or some permutation of it was the root problem.

Perhaps later today I can make further comments. But basically I would only agree and maybe add a little twist here and there.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope

08-20-2008, 07:06 AM

Matt and others who have taken on the "Vision" thing.

Vision can cut both ways. A flawed vision or false vision can lead to all kinds of problems. Constantly talking about vision can lead to the ridiculous circle of vision about the importance of vision. The whole New Testament is an unveiling or revelation regarding out wonderful Father God and the blessed Savior Jesus Christ. If your vision of the Christian life does not have the Love of God as a center piece then at best your vision is 10,000 miles off the mark.

Actually there is quite a bit in the N T about vision or revelation. Here are just a touch of verses:

Acts 26:19, Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Eph 3:9-11, And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Rom 16:25-26, Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Eph 3:3-5, that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

Hey Matt, thanks for getting why I put that in about Benson's vision of leading the worldwide Christian organization. See, I knew you were very very smart. If you have this piece of information, you can understand a lot of what eventually unfolded. If you put covetousness with idolatry then things are pretty clear.

I must leave for the day. I believe the discussion currently going on does indeed get to the heart of many matters. I would like to say more but my time is gone. I will be praying tonight specifically for some of the saints' whose families are suffering and would welcome any to join in. Sheryl and I will be fasting at supper in order to have the time to pray for this need.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 07:38 AM

I am not so sure that "lessons were learned" in OKC, rather than the "chief zealot" has passed away.I don't know if they learned any lessons or not, but the passing away of the "chief zealot" didn't end the destruction. The "chief zealot" left his little chiefs behind. I (and others) were witness to the role they played in cruelly destroying a marriage in the mid 90s (not arranged, but between two people who married because they loved each other). That's one of those stories that can't be talked about yet without more harm to the ones already wounded.

Thankful Jane

Paul Cox

08-20-2008, 08:04 AM

Many seem to think that the camaraderie experienced inside the Local Church towards the saints is the evidence of the proper love. With regard to many situations, we surely did love the saints. Yet is there fear there? If the love is there, than it cannot be that there is fear. If there is fear, then that cannot be love.

The Verse says, "Perfect love cast out all fear."

Seems to indicate you can have imperfect love with some fear, or you can have no love with all fear.

I can certainly testify of some genuine brotherly love in the Local Churches, then, and even in the Living Stream Church now. But the degree of fear in the Local Churches truly hampered the Love from being perfect in the organization.

Roger

OBW

08-20-2008, 08:24 AM

Hope, do you remember Benson in front of his world map? Look at the territory that he surveyed and decided that he was going to go after in the name of the Lord. Think about it again in light of what I am saying.

Benson attached himself to Lee and the LSM because he was already acting in idolatry. He did not commit idolatry because he attached himself to a group, a ministry or a man other than Christ. The idolatry was already there. Benson wanted something. Benson had already had a "vision" of leading a worldwide Christian organization. The LC, the LSM and Lee were a means to an end... The satisfaction of Benson's covetousness for something other than Christ.

Now, I know I am speaking judgmentally. God forgive me. I'm judging with the same judgment that I have been judged. I've committed idolatry too. I wanted something and set my heart on it. In His mercy, God stopped me. Thank God.Excellent point.

Of course someone will point out that we all have some sort of vision about something in our life that is not Christ, but does not replace Christ. Surely we do not go through life with no direction. To have a "vision" of something beyond the immediate future is not necessarily a problem.

Unless that vision usurps Christ's place. So it is not entirely about having a vision, but of the prominence that vision receives in our life.

I'm sure that an LC apologist would try to make the case that this lesser vision was what Benson had. But the track record does speak of something much greater than that. It got between him and any kind of proper dealing with others. Even if you are willing to accept some reasonable hierarchy, the one he lead in the Texas region was beyond reasonable. If you expect an elder to be a shepherd, it is odd that shepherds do not go around slaughtering a sheep that they think is getting too far outside the flock. Instead they should leave the flock and diligently search for a lost sheep.

Here are the sheep in the LC. Here are the stories of the LC faithful who were railed upon, humiliated, meddled with, and in some cases cast aside — all for the glory of "Christ and the church": (Just fixed one of those subliminal errors. I originally wrote "gory.")

"I went downstairs, outside. I crept up into the barn. I was so scared to look inside, but I had to."
"And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see?"
"Lambs. The lambs were screaming."
"They were slaughtering the spring lambs?"
"And they were screaming."

I know. This is way over the top, and the "vision thing" may be somewhat off topic (I'll let others decide). But as I wrote the part about an elder as a shepherd, this immediately came to mind.

Peter Debelak

08-20-2008, 08:45 AM

Actually there is quite a bit in the N T about vision or revelation. Here are just a touch of verses:

...

Rom 16:25-26, Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Hope, Don Rutledge

Just a quick thought on the "vision" thing...

Paul's conversion is often cited as one marked by receiving a "vision." Witness Lee points out that Paul saw that even though he was persecuting a whole group of individuals, he realized that he was simply just persecuting Jesus Himself. And thereby, it is said, Paul from the start had a vision of the Body.

I think there is some validity to this. I want to emphasize another aspect of that conversion experience:

"Who are you, Lord."

Before Paul understood anything about the Christian faith, he understood that the One speaking to him was his MASTER. Paul knew He was "Lord" before he saw anything else.

We can say much about what Paul "saw" thereafter and throughout his ministry. But this was the cornerstone - obedience to the Lord's voice.

Perhaps, this is why in the Romans 16 verses which Hope quoted, the outcome of the "revelation of the mystery" (i.e. "vision") is "leading to obedience of faith.

If a larger "vision" preceeds understanding that ONLY HE is Lord, then we can, even with good intentions, end up serving Masters other than our Lord - and we can do it "in His name." (See Matt. 7). When our "core" vision is "the church" or "building God's house" or whatever, we can "hear" God's commands to us in ways He really might not be speaking - if you know what I mean. We "see" and "hear" God in places where he is not in actuality. And ironically, we do this in service of Him and in service of "the vision."

And yet we forget the most foundational revelation: He is Lord.

Just some quick, disjointed thoughts.

Grace to you,

Peter

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 08:52 AM

Ex 20:2-6
I am the Lord thy God that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not maken unto thee any graven image nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them neither shalt thou serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me and showing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me.

We are to have no other gods before Him. That includes our self. Coveting is just our self wanting something that we don't have (and someone else does.) Think Lucifer. At the root of every sin is coveting. (At the root of those who practice "deputy authority" is coveting to be someone and act in God's place).

If we are bowing down and serving something other than God alone because of the desires of our own deceitfully wicked heart, we are committing idolatry.

There is only one acceptable service and that is to present our bodies a living sacrifice to Him.

If we present ourselves a living sacrifice to serve anything else, we are in peril and our children are in peril because our inquity will be visited upon them (there is another one for the "what went wrong with our children list.")

We are commanded not to serve that which looks like it is of God (likeness of something in the heavens above).

He shows mercy on us and our children when we love Him only; that means repenting of our idolatry. We can't repent of it until we see it.

Matt you, too, are spot on. How can we keep ourselves from idols if we don't see them. Step one: see them. Step two: smash them.

Lord open our eyes to whatever we love or serve in our hearts more than You.

I have been reading The Two Babylons again. What an eye opener. Paul referred to the mystery of iniquity that was already at work in his time. What was that? It was something that looked like God, but wasn't. It was Satan's subtlety to secure for himself the worship that was God's alone through a counterfeit, something that fooled people into following him all the while believing they were serving God. The mystery of iniquity over time became Mystery Babylon the Great, Mother of the Harlots of the earth.

The parallels to the LC experience found in that book are stunning. I plan to quote a few things if I get time. The Babylonian religion was dependent on the development of a strong hierarchical system. It was developed in secrecy. The way for a priest in the hierarchy to gain further admission into the inner circle and have knowledge of the mysteries (secrets) was a pathway of compromising the conscience. The Babylonian religion was filled with idolaters. There was one high priest who was the repositor of all knowledge. I could go on, but the day is calling.

So there you have some of my thoughts on idolatry.

Thankful Jane

YP0534

08-20-2008, 08:58 AM

Here is what I have come to understand about the "vision". In simple terms, the "vision" was a vision of the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality.

In my mind, this is where the idolatry lies.

I think the teaching is fine in and of itself, but even as a teaching it's not nearly as big a deal as the Local Church made it out to be and among them it was in fact turned into something that is probably rightly called idolatry.

If you and I meet seemingly randomly at the grocery and we end up sharing the verses we've been enjoying so that I can see the Lord's shining on your face and you can see Him shining on mine and those around us can see it too (tell me I'm the only one this has ever happened to) then, right at that moment, what do you have? I'm in this place and you're in this place and when we meet and Christ is displayed there, we are the assembly in this place. You have "the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality," as long as you don't require that the "whole church" come together to satisfy some religious locality test.

It's really not rocket science.

The reality of Christ manifesting practically in the meetings of the believers constitutes something very unique and very important in the universe. But the Local Church takes a couple of little verses in Matt. 18 and turns it into the excuse to have standing orders from LSM for the latest HWMR books. The stretch is incredible and I'm sure no one else made the leap with me just now. Let me try phrasing it this way: once you have your "church you can go to" then you must have all these other things in place and handled correctly according to the teachings of the "universal church," which of course includes all the things we've all been vomiting up here for weeks and months.

Poppycock!

When we receive one another freely without judgment wherever we happen to be and Christ is present in those meetings and thereby glorified in His saints, that poor little locality doctrine just has nothing else to do.

Please don't try to turn it into the foundation of another particular flavor of "universal church" whatever you do!

Matt Anderson

08-20-2008, 09:07 AM

and the "vision thing" may be somewhat off topic (I'll let others decide).

OBW,

Here is why I think laying hold of and committing yourself ("bow down and serve") to any kind of "vision" is still on track for this thread when the "vision" is something other than Christ. The original question was about the impacts of the LCS on the next generation.

Take a close look at the commandment on idolatry. I've rebolded another section of it that ties to this thread.

Ex 20:2-6
I am the Lord thy God that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not maken unto thee any graven image nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them neither shalt thou serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me and showing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me.

Bluntly put, look what happens to the subsequent generations of fathers who enter into the iniquity of idolatry. This can be stopped through repentance, but repentance is required.

This is part of the story of my family. The Lord put another key example in my personal path that has helped to clarify this further for me.

Matt

P.S. Amen to Peter's thoughts on this subject. And YP's for that matter too. Okay, well, you too, Mom. :D

OBW

08-20-2008, 10:42 AM

Matt,

I was not suggesting that it was necessarily off topic. I had my own thoughts both ways. I have had even more thoughts since then.

Actually, I think that idolatry is probably a very real issue. There might also be other issues. But as part of my further thoughts on the issue, I'm beginning to wonder if throwing the term "idolatry" around might be sort of like my tendency to throw the "C" word around.

I'm not saying that either is not true, but that idolatry is a term that, no matter how we show it to mean more than bowing to a graven image, it has charged meanings that differ among the various people participating and lurking here.

The real issue is in the make-up of the fact that we call idolatry. It is in the expanded definitions. It is about the heart and intent. It is about what comes first (and who's on second).

At some level, the only thing we clearly know is the fruit of the tree. We can point to certain things and think that maybe the issue is the soil, or the water, or a need for fertilizer. But the thing that clearly marks the tree is the fruit.

There are ways to sweep ambition, misguided following, closed-minded dogma, and much more into "idolatry." I'm not sure that it helps the conversation. Instead, it sweeps us into a frenzy.

Now we need the energy of that frenzy at times, but what does collecting a lot of symptoms into a label do? It will alienate those who ride the fence or are still quite “in” the LC but are open to consider.

Rather than talk about idolatry, we can talk about specific instances of LC abuse. For example, Benson has essentially said that he is proud of his actions relating to Jane. He says he did it for the church. When I look at the things he did then, I would have to ask myself, “what kind of church needs this kind of bullying to protect it and would tolerate such a person as one of its primary leaders?” That is clear. We have observed the fruit and can honestly question the source even if we do not know the details about it. Since the examples are coming out of the woodwork, can we let them speak of the fruit of a bad tree? We can separately (different thread?) discuss the fullness of what we believe is the problem with the tree (idolatry, among others).

This is not a complaint about the actual content of the idolatry discussion. It is an opinion about this thread which began as “what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?” We’ve seen Benson’s role in some cases. A couple of them have been heralded strongly. We are now seeing a few others. I expect there to be more. Some will be stronger than others. Some will border on uncertainty about how clearly the LC was responsible. I think if you look at what I wrote to BlessD about myself you can see that the LC played a big part, although not as clearly as it did for her.

Is it necessary that within this thread we figure out what spiritual label to put on these evil doers? Is allowing the evidence of the various ones who were actually affected by the LC without distraction from other things worthwhile? Might a separation of the “why” discussion from the “how it played out” discussion be useful?

Just some honest questions. (BTW. If you are up on Meyers-Briggs personality types, look up INTP. It says volumes about the way I stick myself into these kinds of things. It also tells why I don’t always understand why others complain sometimes. No excuse — just what I’m dealing with.)

Matt Anderson

08-20-2008, 10:53 AM

Actually, I think that idolatry is probably a very real issue. There might also be other issues. But as part of my further thoughts on the issue, I'm beginning to wonder if throwing the term "idolatry" around might be sort of like my tendency to throw the "C" word around.

I understood most of what you were saying in your post. The one distinction I think should be drawn between "idolatry" and the "C" word is that the "cult" word is just a label that is a noun.

Idolatry is a specific act of sinfulness described by the Word of God that our behavior can be measured against. I used the Benson example because it was so extreme and clear. I think there are lesser examples that still have application, but it is left to the reader to approach the Lord for their own part. I'm pointing at the Word (with some level of implication) on this subject of idolatry. Without seeing and understanding it, it can be just another label, like the "cult" word.

It's been a 17 year journey for my eyes to slowly open to see it more clearly in my own life. As the light shines, I'm getting better focus on it. It's another one of those things that even with all my good efforts, I can't really get it right apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Psa 19:1-14 For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. (2) Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. (3) There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. (4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. (6) His going forth is from the end of the heavens, And his circuit unto the ends of it; And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (7) The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple. (8) The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes. (9) The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether. (10) More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb. (11) Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward. (12) Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults. (13) Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, And I shall be clear from great transgression. (14) Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer.

Matt

Cal

08-20-2008, 11:18 AM

I wanted to also bring up marriages that had a dominating husband (elder) and a wife that worked so hard to deny herself completely of self that she ended up just checking out on life altogether. Almost a 'Stepford' type relationship. I wonder if these were common in the LC!?!? I observed this personally. I don't think you can count that as a successful marriage, despite the fact that there wasn't/isn't a divorce. If you think there was a cushion being from an elder family, I'd like to say my opinion differs.

Hi Process,

I'm not much of an expert, but in the early days my observation was that some elders marriages seemed quite healthy. I lived with one elder and his family and was fairly well acquainted with another. Both of these couples seemed to be very much in love, and the wives seemed to be fairly comfortable in their roles and did not seem suppressed, but were honored by their husbands and enjoyed the playful repartee that healthy couples often engage in. But both marriages began pre-LC.

I saw several other elder marriages from a distance and never saw one which seemed suppressive. Some seemed less effervescent that others, maybe some even less than happy, but like I said, I'm no expert.

However, I do know of one elder marriage that I witnessed firsthand in which the couple seemed quite happy, but which eventually ended in a devastating divorce. Thankful Jane can tell you more about that one and does in her book.

Ohio

08-20-2008, 11:25 AM

Paul Cox

08-20-2008, 11:43 AM

OBW

08-20-2008, 11:52 AM

I understood most of what you were saying in your post. The one distinction I think should be drawn between "idolatry" and the "C" word is that the "cult" word is just a label that is a noun.

Idolatry is a specific act of sinfulness described by the Word of God that our behavior can be measured against.And I agree. But even when you take it to the action level, it is still a label, albeit of an action. It is also a state of being of the heart. For that reason, the limits of its reach could be enormous. But discussing idolatry does not demonstrate how the LC played a role in the development of behaviors. It is trying to find out why the LC played a role.

I am not disparaging the actual discussion. I think that the how and the why should be separated. Let the two carry on separately. Here is why I think that separation is worthwhile:

I think this may have been one of the problems with the little fiasco of the past couple of days. The original issue was how. But even the originator of the thread started trying to answer why. And Don stepped in provided examples of how he tried to avoid those things. We now have three topics going on simultaneously; how (with examples), why (with analysis and accusations), and how not (also with examples). In hindsight, no matter where it started, it begins to seem that each person saw the whole of the thread in terms of the angle they were addressing (how, why, why not, how not) and not reading others within their proper contexts. When “why” is read as “how,” it suddenly says something different than was intended. We all got caught up in it. We brought BlessD into the mix and seemed to be disparaging her account, although I do not believe that was ever intended. I eventually saw certain things. I may think I was clear on some of them, but I probably was not on all, and maybe none.

I read people on both sides who quoted the person with whom they were disagreeing and then read their characterization and wondered if it was entirely fair and accurate. I did not keep notes on specifics, but I could go back in and find some. I would rather not. We all would probably be embarrassed at some level — including me.

That leads me to question whether we are doing ourselves a favor to continue to have two different aspects of one thing discussed at the same time when we have already seen an example of what can go wrong. Yes, we could try to be more careful. But it may not be worth the risk.

I know I could be beating a dead horse. It is still just an opinion. If you understand my concern and still disagree, I’m quite OK with it. I just want to be sure you understand my concern.

OBW

08-20-2008, 11:59 AM

So, I guess you are right Mike. We must be careful how we sling words around. Did I say that? Guess I did.Yep, and so should I. I know I gave you an earful recently. I've had terrible misgivings over it even though I felt so strongly justified at the time.

(I had privately told Pat that he had just stepped lower than I had ever seen him go. I told him to count to ten, take his wife to dinner, go to a meeting. Then I turned around and lambasted you in public. Go figure. Some phrase about pots and kettles comes to mind.:eek:) (That smilie will have to do. There isn't a red-faced embarrased, sheepish look guy in there to pick from.)

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 12:48 PM

OBW my original question was: "what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?"

So far we have heard many answers but the weakest for me so far is a former leader claiming no role for the LCS. No cause and effect relationship. I consider that to be a cop out. A child cannot grow up in a Lee obsessed or any other obsessed environment and not have an effect on their behaviors. Call it addiction, call it idolatry, call it obsession, do the footnotes with the usual disclaimers that it doesn't include everybody...but at the end of the day Lee and those leaders and parents who abdicated are accountable. Weaseling around it just feeds into the irresponsibility that is part and parcel of the LCS.

Men who think Lee is the acting god and wasted millions on building white elephants and convinced people to give their life savings for Lee's businesses and covered up for Lee's son and had their entire agendas wrapped up in Lee and openly bullied people along with Lee and supported his bullying at the same time were fathers and husbands. Are we to believe that they checked their irresponsibility and obsessions at the front door every night when they came home? I don't believe that at all. And anyone who does is a patsy.

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 01:55 PM

Let me clarify. It is a primary responsibility to take care of a child's environment. Even when a parent tries to put their child in a good environment they cannot control everything. This is very true, but to realize that you did put your child in a bad environment (knowingly or unknowingly) should generate a remorseful response about the environment and not a defensive one that tries to carve out a very, very, very small section of the bad environment as being better. This is what you have done. You've basically said, "We tried to do better and Dallas wasn't as bad as Houston, OKC, etc". The fact is that the whole thing was corrupted and unhealthy for kids.

Let me go straight to the crux of my concern.

Looking backwards do you believe that having your children in the LC environment was a good one for them?

Matt

Matt, as I read your post directed at Hope I have to give my response. being raised in the local church environment was ideal prior to 1986. Most of the teaching and instruction I recieved was Biblically based. I have no regrets how my parents raised me. I feel the Lord placed me exactly where I needed to be.

Terry

SpeakersCorner

08-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Everything in the LC was more intense than in general Christianity, especially during the 70's. The result is you'll see more intense successes as well as failures. This thread has certainly documented some of the intense failures of the LC and its practices. But I would like to say a word for the intense successes.

The biggest success: that it produced a bunch of Christians who really deeply love and pursue the Lord. This very crowd here on the forum is proof. The brothers and sisters I know in the LC are, by and large, as purpose-driven a crowd as Rick Warren could ever hope for. We're idealistic, given Jesus-lovers. You could argue that we'd have been that way anyway, but the LC experience was the common thread we all had and it deserves some credit.

For all the mistakes of the LC I do believe a lot of lives were touched in a white-hot way by God. Sure there was some idolatry. Sure there was some abuse. Maybe there was even some addiction (there, are you happy DJ?). But you could find all these same things in the Children of Israel's experience as they trekked the Wilderness ... and the Lord called that his honeymoon with them (Jer. 2:1-2).*

While I have memories that make me weep at times, I feel like my experience through the LC was glorious: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Something sho' happened in these decades and to me that something was gold.

SC

*Okay, here's my proof: " 1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: 'I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown."

Matt Anderson

08-20-2008, 02:29 PM

Well, we know we've made some headway when SC comes out with a balancing word! :D

Just kidding with you SC. Nice Jeremiah reference. I've never seen that one before. It's a good one. It's good for us that God is big and merciful enough to see them through the lense of Jereremiah 2 while also knowing about the idolatry they committed in the wilderness (Acts 7:41-43).

Matt

Paul Cox

08-20-2008, 02:34 PM

Hi SC,

With all due respect (see how nice I can be :D ) I’m not completely convinced that what you have stated is altogether accurate.

Since leaving the Local Church, I've found out that there are far more genuine seeking Christians "out there" than I ever believed before. In fact, we were led to believe there weren't that many genuine seekers in "Christianity."

Also, it isn't strange to find a greater concentration of genuine seekers in aberrant groups, which are claiming to have the "vision" that all the rest of "poor, poor, fallen Christianity" doesn’t have, than in most other moderate groups. They seem to be a magnet for people who have an inward sense that they want to give their all to God. Why God allows so many of his true seekers to end up in these groups is still a mystery to me.

Roger

Ohio

08-20-2008, 02:45 PM

The biggest success: that it produced a bunch of Christians who really deeply love and pursue the Lord. This very crowd here on the forum is proof. The brothers and sisters I know in the LC are, by and large, as purpose-driven a crowd as Rick Warren could ever hope for. We're idealistic, given Jesus-lovers. You could argue that we'd have been that way anyway, but the LC experience was the common thread we all had and it deserves some credit.

SC, that's what I'm talking about!

How do we deal with the fact that nearly all the LC saints were the most dedicated and given bunch of Christians ever assembled.

That's why I put all the blame on the leaders, and not the saints.

Cal

08-20-2008, 02:48 PM

Also, it isn't strange to find a greater concentration of genuine seekers in aberrant groups, which are claiming to have the "vision" that all the rest of "poor, poor, fallen Christianity" doesn’t have, than in most other moderate groups. They seem to be a magnet for people who have an inward sense that they want to give their all to God. Why God allows so many of his true seekers to end up in these groups is still a mystery to me.

Because it's easier to fall into an elitist (to hell with those other guys) idealistic (we want the best, we are the best) group which enforces conformity (thinking less than optional) than it is to truly love, cherish, receive and minister to all people one encounters. The former simply requires checking out of society while you await the mothership; the latter a real walk with God.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Dedicated Christians who deeply love and pursue the Lord do not neglect their children. Does the Lord neglect children?

Does the Lord sue for real estate and quarantine people unjustly?

Some say Lee taught them to love the Lord more etc. Let me suggest if at the same time you learned that you should neglect your children, sue each other, etc for the sake of the church, ministry etc. then he did not teach you to love the Lord. That is not loving the Lord.

OBW

08-20-2008, 03:05 PM

Because it's easier to fall into an elitist (to hell with those other guys) idealistic (we want the best, we are the best) group which enforces conformity (thinking less than optional) than it is to truly love, cherish, receive and minister to all people one encounters. The former simply requires checking out of society while you await the mothership; the latter a real walk with God.Wow!

I wasn't sure how to respond to that. But I think you may be right. That means that all those strong stances for the LC are proof, at some level, of their desire for God.

But it also questions something about whether they truly understand what desiring God is since they lost sight of the great commandment.

Do we have a paradox? Or at leat a conundrum?

Cal

08-20-2008, 03:10 PM

Wow!

I wasn't sure how to respond to that. But I think you may be right. That means that all those strong stances for the LC are proof, at some level, of their desire for God.

But it also questions something about whether they truly understand what desiring God is since they lost sight of the great commandment.

Do we have a paradox? Or at leat a conundrum?

No, I don't think so. I just think it's easier to leave the world than to be sent into it. It's easier to sit around the campfire and sing Ohio State fight songs than it is to go play Michigan or, even more, get ready to play Michigan. It's easier to be God's best than to take God's best to the world.

Ohio

08-20-2008, 03:13 PM

Because it's easier to fall into an elitist (to hell with those other guys) idealistic (we want the best, we are the best) group which enforces conformity (thinking less than optional) than it is to truly love, cherish, receive and minister to all people one encounters. The former simply requires checking out of society while you await the mothership; the latter a real walk with God.

In the beginning ... at least for me ... back in the days of old ... we in Cleveland were not elitist ... but ... yes ... we were idealistic ... we did stress Christ ... only Christ ... all in all forever ... and I never thought ... really thought ... I mean "think" ... so much in all my life, in fact I never was sober ... that long ... in all my adult life ... but ... regardless of what others think ... things changed ... dramatically ... for the worse ... as the influences from Anaheim grew ... and the books against us ... think "Mindbenders" ... became popular ... and the pouring out of the Spirit ...as in all of the Jesus movement ... during those days ... declined.

Matt Anderson

08-20-2008, 03:14 PM

How do we deal with the fact that nearly all the LC saints were the most dedicated and given bunch of Christians ever assembled.

That's why I put all the blame on the leaders, and not the saints.

What you describe here Ohio is one of the core reasons why it was so easy for many to fall into the trap of idolatry. Zealotry and dedication that is not set in the right direction goes in the wrong direction even if it is done unknowingly.

Take Saul/Paul. Before he was such a dedicated and zealotrous christian, what was he? A really dedicated and a zealotrous Jew!!! ;) He was very dedicated, just misguided until he had the right "vision".

Idolatry in a system of Christianity doesn't work if only the leaders do it. Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree with you on this one.

Matt

Ohio

08-20-2008, 03:24 PM

Cal

08-20-2008, 03:37 PM

Whoa ... wait a minute folks!

Nobody's singing up here!

Things are really getting personal.

I think Brutus Buckeye is ready to trounce those Wolverines.

Let's stop talking. We want Longhorns for lunch! :D

See you in the playoffs. :) (Ouch! That has to hurt!)

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/09/13/gallery.leadingoff/gallery06.jpg

Ohio

08-20-2008, 03:39 PM

What you describe here Ohio is one of the core reasons why it was so easy for many to fall into the trap of idolatry. Zealotry and dedication that is not set in the right direction goes in the wrong direction even if it is done unknowingly.

Take Saul/Paul. Before he was such a dedicated and zealotrous christian, what was he? A really dedicated and a zealotrous Jew!!! ;) He was very dedicated, just misguided until he had the right "vision".

Idolatry in a system of Christianity doesn't work if only the leaders do it. Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree with you on this one.

Matt

Don't compare me to "zealotrous" Saul ... or today's suicide bombers ... nosiree !!! ... back in the beginning ... we were passionate for the right thing -- Christ -- Christ -- only Christ -- but that time was short lived for me -- and for many others ... then MaxR came around ... sent by headquarters ... bringing the works of the flesh ... and rarely ... only rarely ... did we taste that move of the Spirit again.

Ohio

08-20-2008, 03:43 PM

Cheap shot! Look where he put his hand!

Do all you Texans teach your kids that? :D

Cal

08-20-2008, 03:43 PM

The lesson of the local church is that even the best teaching can lead astray.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 03:49 PM

Ohio

08-20-2008, 03:53 PM

Ohio Christ? Christ? Christ? What does that really mean and what does it look like in application on the ground so to speak?

It means what I said.

Christ.

The One who saves and changes lives.

Christ.

Who died for our sins and sets us free.

Christ.

Who lives in you and me!

Cal

08-20-2008, 03:54 PM

Ohio Christ? Christ? Christ? What does that really mean and what does it look like in application on the ground so to speak? Because my impression of the LCS is noise noise noise. Lot's of God-talk not much God.

Not to leave this interesting discussion of proper football fundamentals with Ohio behind, but...

Honestly, I think we in the LCs were more in love with the idea of Christ alone than we were with Christ alone. Sort of like the woman who is in love with the idea of being in love. We were in love with the idea of being pure and perfect more than we were in love with the pure and perfect One.

Cal

08-20-2008, 03:58 PM

Ohio

08-20-2008, 04:08 PM

I mean, we always talked about Christ alone, but when push came to shove we never stood by it. Did we? Being one with the program always took precedent.

I s'pose it's easier to talk about football. :)

I haven't met another group of Christians who got this whole thing perfectly right either.

Hope

08-20-2008, 04:10 PM

dj,

You have assured us that you were never in a local church but have a friend who was and have an interest in the group etc. Since you were never there but would like to have plenty to say, it would seem you would want to get as many facts as you could and hear from many regarding their experiences and thoughts. Then again maybe not.

I have listed your post 2533 and quotes from my posts #s 13 & 56.

OBW my original question was: "what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?"

So far we have heard many answers but the weakest for me so far is a former leader claiming no role for the LCS. No cause and effect relationship. I consider that to be a cop out. A child cannot grow up in a Lee obsessed or any other obsessed environment and not have an effect on their behaviors. Call it addiction, call it idolatry, call it obsession, do the footnotes with the usual disclaimers that it doesn't include everybody...but at the end of the day Lee and those leaders and parents who abdicated are accountable. Weaseling around it just feeds into the irresponsibility that is part and parcel of the LCS.

Men who think Lee is the acting god and wasted millions on building white elephants and convinced people to give their life savings for Lee's businesses and covered up for Lee's son and had their entire agendas wrapped up in Lee and openly bullied people along with Lee and supported his bullying at the same time were fathers and husbands. Are we to believe that they checked their irresponsibility and obsessions at the front door every night when they came home? I don't believe that at all. And anyone who does is a patsy.

# 13
There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

In the LCS there was a real lack of vision regarding the very crucial and critical role of the family in God's plan and purpose. Sadly, in the LCS, many parents made serious mistakes and did not receive needed healthy instruction regarding raising children for the Lord.

#56
The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing. I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

dj, please help me out. Where have I declared "no role for the LCS. No cause and effect relationship."

In addition to getting the whole truth, it is important to be accurate. You take way to many liberties.

Hope, Don Rutledge

OBW

08-20-2008, 04:13 PM

No, I don't think so. I just think it's easier to leave the world than to be sent into it. It's easier to sit around the campfire and sing Ohio State fight songs than it is to go play Michigan or, even more, get ready to play Michigan. It's easier to be God's best than to take God's best to the world.I do understand. But isn't there a contradiction when you are desiring after the person who would have you do one thing but you do another? Doesn't it suggest that they actually desire something else? A different Christ (as abugian would have said it) or at least something other than Christ (as Matt is saying it)? A Christ that goes to the wilderness for more than 40 days — in fact, more like forever. One that doesn't care about your neighbor. One that doesn't care about the kind of justice that the Jesus of the gospels preached.

Sounds like they seek a God created in their image rather than the other way around. Oh. Uh. Well. Uh. My Goodnaise! (Think WL in a training meeting) Sounds like idolatry.

SpeakersCorner

08-20-2008, 04:14 PM

I mean, we always talked about Christ alone, but when push came to shove we never stood by it. Did we? Being one with the program always took precedent.

Igzy,

You've got to stop quoting yourself. :)

SC

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 04:14 PM

Why God allows so many of his true seekers to end up in these groups is still a mystery to me. Roger

Here is a possible explanation given by Jessie Penn Lewis. Her book War on the Saints was written because of what happened after a major outpouring of the Spirit in her time:

"In the special onslaught of the deceiver, which will come upon the whole of the true Church of Christ at the close of the age, through the army of deceiving spirits, there are some more than others who are specially attacked by the powers of darkness, who need light upon his deceptive workings, so that they may pass through the trial of the Last Hour, and be counted worthy to escape that hour of greater trial, which is coming upon the earth (Luke 21: 34-36; Rev. 3: 10).

For among those who are members of the Body of Christ, there are degrees of growth, and therefore degrees of testing, permitted by God, Who provides a way of escape for him who knows his need, and, by watching unto prayer, takes heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10: 12, 13). He is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe, and Satan is set his limit with every redeemed believer (see Job 1: 12; 2: 6; Luke 22: 31).

Some of the members of Christ are yet in the stage of babyhood, and others do not even know the initial reception of the Holy Spirit. To such this book has not much to say, as they are among the weaker ones who need the "milk of the Word."

But there are others, who may be described as the advance guard of the Church of Christ, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost, or who are seeking that Baptism; honest and earnest believers, who sigh and cry over the powerlessness of the true Church of Christ, and who grieve that her witness is so ineffective; that Spiritism and Christian Science, and other "isms," are sweeping thousands into their deceptive errors, little thinking, that, as they themselves go forward into the spiritual realm, the deceiver, who has misled others, has special wiles prepared for them, so that he might render ineffective their aggressive power against him.

These are the ones who are in danger of the special deception of the counterfeit "Christs," and false prophets, and the dazzling lure of "signs and wonders," and "fire out of heaven," planned to meet their longing for the mighty interposition of God in the darkness settling upon the earth, but who do not recognize that such workings of the spirits of evil are possible, and so are unprepared to meet them.

These are the ones, also, who are recklessly ready to follow the Lord at any cost, and yet do not realize their unpreparedness for contest with the spiritual powers of the unseen world, as they press on into fuller spiritual things.

Believers who are full of mental conceptions wrought into them in earlier years, which hinder the Spirit of God from preparing them for all they will meet as they press on to their coveted goal; conceptions which also hinder others from giving them, out of the Scriptures, much that they need to know of the spiritual world into which they are so blindly advancing. Conceptions which lull them into a false security, and give ground for, and even bring about, that very deception which enables the deceiver to find them an easy prey."

Cal

08-20-2008, 04:15 PM

I s'pose it's easier to talk about football. :)

I haven't met another group of Christians who got this whole thing perfectly right either.

Because it's not a group thing, it's a personal thing.

kisstheson

08-20-2008, 04:19 PM

Not to leave this interesting discussion of proper football fundamentals with Ohio behind, but...

Honestly, I think we in the LCs were more in love with the idea of Christ alone than we were with Christ alone. Sort of like the woman who is in love with the idea of being in love. We were in love with the idea of being pure and perfect more than we were in love with the pure and perfect One.

Dear Igzy,

Speaking of "Ouch! That has to hurt!" - I have to admit that there is a whole lot of truth in what you said. Your post has more truth in it than I normally admit to.

Speaking in very general terms, for many of us, our journey can be stated in the following way:

As newborn babes in Him, we fell with in love Him - He who truly is the most lovely One!
We naturally gravitated to that place that claimed to stand for Him and Him alone.
Gradually, over time, as you said, we very subtly shifted our focus from Him alone to the idea of Him alone.
We gave ourselves more and more to the ministry which exalted the idea of Him alone and which made us feel superior for "seeing" the idea of Him alone.
Praise Him! He began to stir in us as the Divinely-Jealous One. He would no longer tolerate our misplaced love - He brought us back to loving Him alone!
And so, here we are!

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 04:19 PM

also (from War on the Saints by JP Lewis):

CAN "HONEST SOULS" BE DECEIVED?

"One prevailing idea, which such believers have deeply embedded in their minds, is that "honest seekers after God" will not be allowed to be deceived. That this is one of Satan's lies, to lure such seekers into a false position of safety, is proved by the history of the Church during the past two thousand years, for every "wile of error" which has borne sad fruit throughout this period, first laid hold of devoted believers who were "honest souls." The errors among groups of such believers, some well known to the present generation, all began among "honest" children of God, baptized with the Holy Ghost; and all so sure that, knowing the side-tracking of others before them, they would never be caught by the wiles of Satan. Yet they, too, have been deceived by lying spirits, counterfeiting the workings of God in the higher ranges of the spiritual life.

Among such devoted believers, lying spirits have worked on their determination literally to obey the Scriptures, and by misuse of the letter of the written Word, have pushed them into phases of unbalanced truth, with resulting erroneous practices. Many who have suffered for their adherence to these "Biblical commands," firmly believe that they are martyrs suffering for Christ. The world calls these devoted ones "cranks," and "fanatics," yet they give evidence of highest devotion and love to the Person of the Lord, and could be delivered, if they but understood why the powers of darkness deceived them, and the way of freedom from their power.

The aftermath of the Revival in Wales, which was a true work of God, revealed numbers of "honest souls" swept off their feet by evil supernatural powers, which they were not able to discern from the true working of God. And later still than the Welsh Revival, there have been other "movements," with large numbers of earnest servants of God swept into deception, through the wiles of deceiving spirits counterfeiting the workings of God; all "honest souls," deceived by the subtle foe, and certain to be led on into still deeper deception, notwithstanding their honesty and earnestness, if they are not awakened to "return to soberness" and recovery out of the snare of the devil into which they have fallen (2 Tim. 2: 26)"

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 04:21 PM

and lastly (more from War on the Saints):

FAITHFULNESS TO LIGHT NOT SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARD

AGAINST DECEPTION

"The children of God need to know that to be true in motive, and faithful up to light, is not sufficient safeguard against deception; and that it is not safe for them to rely upon their "honesty of purpose" as guaranteeing protection from the enemy's wiles, instead of taking heed to the warnings of God's Word, and watching unto prayer.
Christians who are true and faithful, and honest, can be deceived by Satan, and his deceiving spirits, for the following reasons:--

( a) When a man becomes a child of God, by the regenerating power of the Spirit, giving him new life as he trusts in the atoning work of Christ, he does not at the same time receive fulness of knowledge, either of God, himself, or the devil.

( b) The mind which by nature is darkened (Eph. 4: 18), and under a veil created by Satan (2 Cor. 4: 4) is only renewed, and the veil destroyed, up to the extent that the light of truth penetrates it, and according to the measure in which the man is able to apprehend it.

( c) "Deception" has to do with the mind, and it means a wrong thought admitted to the mind, under the deception that it is truth. Since "deception" is based on ignorance, and not on the moral character; a Christian who is "true" and "faithful" up to the knowledge he has, must be open to deception in the sphere where he is ignorant of the "devices" of the devil (2 Cor. 2: 11), and what he is able to do. A "true" and "faithful" Christian is liable to be "deceived" by the devil because of his ignorance.

( d) The thought that God will protect a believer from being deceived if he is true and faithful, is in itself a "deception," because it throws a man off guard, and ignores the fact that there are conditions on the part of the believer which have to be fulfilled for God's working. God does not do anything instead of a man, but by the man's co-operation with Him; neither does He undertake to make up for a man's ignorance, when He has provided knowledge for him which will prevent him being deceived.

( e) Christ would not have warned His disciples "Take heed . . be not deceived" if there had been no danger of deception, or if God had undertaken to keep them from deception apart from their "taking heed," and their knowledge of such danger.
The knowledge that it is possible to be deceived, keeps the mind open to truth, and light from God; and is one of the primary conditions for the keeping power of God; whereas a closed mind to light and truth, is a certain guarantee of deception by Satan at his earliest opportunity."

Cal

08-20-2008, 04:21 PM

I do understand. But isn't there a contradiction when you are desiring after the person who would have you do one thing but you do another? Doesn't it suggest that they actually desire something else?

Not necessarily. It might just mean they come to misunderstand what he wants. This is much more likely to happen when groupthink is seen as a virtue.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 04:22 PM

Igzy that is exactly the impression I get about the LCS.

Cal

08-20-2008, 04:24 PM

Igzy,

You've got to stop quoting yourself. :)

SC

There, I quoted you this time. :)

Hope

08-20-2008, 04:24 PM

Nearly every time WL discussed our history of "storms and rebellions," he attempted to set the "axe to the root" and called it "hidden ambition." We all bought into that explanation. We thought he was a wise, old brother who could discern brother's hearts. I have now, for the most part, rejected that explanation.

Based on your comments here, Matt, why was the blame never placed on ones like BP, who was so "absolute." He was never called "ambitious." Whether he used WL or whether WL used him is another matter also. In the past 50-60 years, just about every brother of conscience, who steps forward with heartfelt concerns, was silenced and judged as being "ambitious."

In other words, following your line of thought, all those who leaned towards idolatry, by being absolute for WL and his ministry, later were rewarded by WL with positive encouragement and praise, while all those who ever resisted some part of his ministry, for conscience sake, were judged as "ambitious."

I find this part of WL's ministry just plain rotten.

Ohio,

Thanks for bringing out this fact. Benson and Ray were two of the most focused persons I have ever known. They were the poster boys for "Purpose Driven." And what was the focus? You guessed it. They wanted to be in charge. There was one sure way to get on Benson's bad side. That was to exert initiative without his approval. On the other hand there was a sure way to get on his good side. Be "useful" for his objectives. Of course you can find this phrase "useful to me" in Philemon. When he referred to a saint in a favorable way, he almost always used the phrase he or she is useful. I have heard him discuss up coming marriages from the vantage point of will the usefulness of the brother or sister be increased or decreased.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS My memory has failed me on who won that game with Texas for the national title. Help me out.:rolleyes:

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 04:29 PM

Ohio

08-20-2008, 04:29 PM

One prevailing idea, which such believers have deeply embedded in their minds, is that "honest seekers after God" will not be allowed to be deceived. That this is one of Satan's lies, to lure such seekers into a false position of safety, is proved by the history of the Church during the past two thousand years, for every "wile of error" which has borne sad fruit throughout this period, first laid hold of devoted believers who were "honest souls." The errors among groups of such believers, some well known to the present generation, all began among "honest" children of God, baptized with the Holy Ghost; and all so sure that, knowing the side-tracking of others before them, they would never be caught by the wiles of Satan. Yet they, too, have been deceived by lying spirits, counterfeiting the workings of God in the higher ranges of the spiritual life.

At my salvation, I was given 3 exceedingly precious gifts --- the love for Jesus, the love for His word, and the love for His people --- who could do such a thing in my heart?

My testimony -- the radical change in my life -- amazed literally hundreds of people -- nobody could even recognize me -- and you want me to believe that "HONEST SOULS CAN BE DECEIVED?" Before my salvation, I had no honesty to speak of! I was saved out of deceit!

I prefer to die for my faith, than to question the reality of Jesus Christ in my heart.

Hope

08-20-2008, 04:30 PM

Ohio

08-20-2008, 04:36 PM

Hope

08-20-2008, 04:44 PM

Hope you wrote this: "The LC/LSM did not promote or permit any of the horrible social issues and sins that dj listed. There was no more than what you might find in society and among other Christian groups" a couple of posts after a lady wrote the 14 out 15 marriage ended in divorce in one year. I have news for you: that stat is out of the ball park.

One of the features of addictive family systems is they don't like "outsiders" knowing and discussing the issues they confront. But outsiders offer a valuable service - if nothing else a sense of objectivity and the non adherence to "sacred cows" or if you prefer: white elephants in the living room.

Could you answer my question regarding where I claimed there was no relationship between the LCS and the problems in the families? See my previous post for the exact quote from your post.

I believe the sister from OK City said that of the marriages from the year 1980 or 81 eventually 14 ended in divorce. She did not say the divorces occurred in one year. But again what does a little accuracy or exact information matter?

Do you really believe we should think of you as an outsider who brings a sense of objectivity. You had to mean that tongue in cheek. Great sence of humor. I got a good laugh.

Don Rutledge

blessD

08-20-2008, 04:48 PM

I do believe it's fair to say that the more the leaders in a LC were "program zealots," the more their families suffered. OKC appeared to be the worst. My place also had a reputation in the GLA for being perhaps the most "absolute." That has never brought us the "promised blessing," rather much suffering to the families.

I am not so sure that "lessons were learned" in OKC, rather than the "chief zealot" has passed away.

Amen to the burden to pray for our families!

We sort of moved on since this post, but I have been in work meetings and working and was not able to respond till now.

Yes, maybe some change was brought about by the passing of a zealot. However, my parents, a couple of my 9 siblings, and my 20 year old daughter still go to meetings in OKC. At least in this one area, the failures seemed to cause the most change. The extreme divorce rate and hurt children did make an impression. It is more common for the young people in OKC to be individuals with their own mind (including who they marry).

Note: My family, including my daughter, and I decided a long time ago we would stay off the subject of the local church around each other - too many people in the family felt too strongly one way or another about it. This has worked pretty well for us - we have more love towards each other than ever before. I thought I would share this in case anyone else on these posts deals with a family where some members are still involved and some wouldn't touch foot on the property. I know some feel strongly about helping others get out of the system there, I'd rather have love and peace.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 04:51 PM

OBW

08-20-2008, 04:53 PM

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 04:57 PM

Ohio

08-20-2008, 05:02 PM

I’m sure that someone can find a hole in this theory.

Some have spoken their "concerns" in the past, but their voices were squelched. Hence those "concerns" never became known by the LC "rank and file." The "smear machine" took over to "silence" these voices. Due to fear, the concept of deputy authority, Christian honor, and other reasons, many have remained silent after they left.

It is the internet, invented by former VP Gore, that brought these few voices together.

finallyprettyokay

08-20-2008, 05:02 PM

dj said: I serve among evangelical Christians.

dj-- did I miss this? Serve how? I am not sure what you do, what you are referring to here. Would you mind repeating yourself on this? Thanks. :o

fpo

blessD

08-20-2008, 05:06 PM

Could you answer my question regarding where I claimed there was no relationship between the LCS and the problems in the families? See my previous post for the exact quote from your post.

I believe the sister from OK City said that of the marriages from the year 1980 or 81 eventually 14 ended in divorce. She did not say the divorces occurred in one year. But again what does a little accuracy or exact information matter?

Do you really believe we should think of you as an outsider who brings a sense of objectivity. You had to mean that tongue in cheek. Great sence of humor. I got a good laugh.

Don Rutledge

We had a period around 1980 where there was an "epidimic" of marriages. I said 15 because there was about 1 a month and a few months that year there were 2 a month - thus 15. Almost all my friends from college married during this period of time.

The divorces I spoke about occured over decades - not in the same year.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 05:07 PM

FPO I am answering Ohio's post #322.

I serve in an evangelical church teaching the bible, counseling young people etc.

finallyprettyokay

08-20-2008, 05:09 PM

dj --- so that means what you do as a volunteer? Or as your profession? Is this too personal? I think it's okay to ask, since it seems like something you must have stated. If not, I apologize.

thanks

fpo

Hope

08-20-2008, 05:12 PM

Hope I have said it before and I say it again: I don't care what you believe about me.

You are right the lady said they were married in the same year not divorced in the same year.

If you believe there is a cause and effect relationship between what I listed in my opening thread and the LCS what is that relationship?

I have already quoted my posts which were written early on the thread. Here they are again. Since you set up the topic for discussion, tell me to what else I would have been referring. Then tell me where I said there was no relationship between the family problems and the LCS.

But I understand that you may not waste your time on this since you don't care what I think of you. Of course this is not "dismissing me out of hand" as I earlier mentioned. I guess I got it all wrong.:o

# 13
There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

In the LCS there was a real lack of vision regarding the very crucial and critical role of the family in God's plan and purpose. Sadly, in the LCS, many parents made serious mistakes and did not receive needed healthy instruction regarding raising children for the Lord.

#56
The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing. I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

Don Rutledge

Ohio

08-20-2008, 05:12 PM

Ohio I serve among evangelical Christians. Overall the divorce rate is 34%. But in the specific church I serve it is a much smaller number. Rarely is there a divorce. However the general stat is a huge concern. We are not not sure what factor the church plays in this stat. Evangelicals tend to provide considerable teaching and resources and activities including counseling on marriage. We are asking: as a whole are we doing something wrong and if so what is it?

I notice that you didn't mention "the past" ... the time when you learned so much about WL, LSM, and the LC's.

DJ, I just don't like it when anyone takes "cheap shots" at another brother's integrity. As long as we agree on this, we'll get along just fine ... and for the most part ... we have. ;)

Ohio

08-20-2008, 05:27 PM

Hope you wrote this: "The LC/LSM did not promote or permit any of the horrible social issues and sins that dj listed. There was no more than what you might find in society and among other Christian groups" a couple of posts after a lady wrote the 14 out 15 marriage ended in divorce in one year. I have news for you: that stat is out of the ball park.

Hope and BlessD have said repeatedly that OKC operated under leadership by "extremists," who put the "program" far ahead of people. The results can be witnessed by the failure of marriages. This is a clear, present day example of "lording it over" the flock. It was just one of many N.T. concepts that WL nearly never mentioned ... far more pertinent to God's children than his teachings on "leprosy and quarantines." It would have been exceedingly good if many LC's became aware of what this verse meant, and would have been spared from many leadership abuses.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 05:41 PM

Ohio I learn more and more about the LCS almost on a weekly basis. If I have questions I go to those I know who use to be there and simply ask them. It's really a simple process.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 05:43 PM

blessD

08-20-2008, 06:00 PM

Ohio from what I have read from you and others on this forum the LCS to this day is run my extremists. Consider what happened to Peter's dad in Cleveland - a professional educator and founder of two Christian schools no less.

To the last few posts, and this one:

Some mentioned various childhood and family problems we have discussed are everywhere and close to the same level as any other Christian community. I have been a part of different Christian gatherings since 1988, and I have not seen anything even close to the same extremity of problems. Somehow, I am thinking Houston and OKC weren't just bad apples in the barrel.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 07:01 PM

Hope again I ask you if there is a cause and effect relationship between the behaviors I listed in my first post on this thread and the LCS what is that relationship? And if it exists who not what is to blame? I mentioned in a previous post that the idea you propagated that the "system" is to blame I consider a cop out. It is too sterile and abstract. People make and operate systems. I maintain, with exceptions, that Lee, the leadership and the parents who abdicated their parental responsibilities in pursuit of their Lee fixes are to blame.

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 07:17 PM

TJ,

I think JPL is onto something. But I’m not sure it is truly the advance guard that runs into these crazy deceptions. I think it is those who are somewhere in between. It is believers who have moved beyond milk and have a little knowledge. They are seeking more, and do not yet have sufficient defenses against the wiles, traps, sugary words that sway them away from the truth before they have the spiritual strength gained from further spiritual growth. They may be willing to follow “at any cost” but have not truly counted the cost. In other words, there is an aspect of the cost that is actually away from Christ and is not taken into account because of the exuberant desire to follow something that looks so good. Most of the early Texas contingent would be in this group. Even by 1973, that is probably where I would put my family. There may have been some exceptions, but it seems mostly true from my limited knowledge. They surely were strong seekers of Christ, but they were not yet an “advance guard” with wisdom to see through the wiles of the enemy. Even the now-senior Texas member (and often pointed to as a leader) of the BBs was just an enthusiastic kid in the mid 60s. He was far from any “advance guard.”

I believe that the true advance guard will not be so easily fooled. That means that virtually everyone who came to the LC was somewhat less than advance guard. Some may have been closer, but they were still captured by the less obvious and then carried into what should have been more obvious. Or they were captured by the less obvious and then spent time trying to reconcile the discrepancies as aberrations that could be overlooked or explained away. This would be those few that we consider more like true advance guard. The John Ingalls types and other more seasoned Christian ministers who joined the LC with some spiritual weight already under their belt. One way or the other, many of those have seen the light. If you take into account the ones who are charting a modified course in the GLA and other places, there are few of the true “advance guard” remaining in the old-line LC.

I’m sure that someone can find a hole in this theory. It is just that. I see several places to pick it apart. But like a good metaphor, it only tells the part it tells. If we try to make it fit the entire situation, it will fail, or our account of the entire situation will be faulty (depending on whether we want to throw an incomplete metaphor out or presume that a metaphor tells it all and applies in all possible analogies).

Now if JPL simply meant "those burning for more of Christ" by the term advance guard, then I see her point a little better. In that case, "advance guard" does not suggest weight of experience and knowledge, but desire for more. We already know that those who do not desire more probably have no interest in the LC.
Hi Mike,

This is the part that mentioned “advance guard”:

But there are others, who may be described as the advance guard of the Church of Christ, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost, or who are seeking that Baptism; honest and earnest believers, who sigh and cry over the powerlessness of the true Church of Christ, and who grieve that her witness is so ineffective; that Spiritism and Christian Science, and other "isms," are sweeping thousands into their deceptive errors, little thinking, that, as they themselves go forward into the spiritual realm, the deceiver, who has misled others, has special wiles prepared for them, so that he might render ineffective their aggressive power against him.

This is the best explanation I can find of what JPL meant by advance guard. I don’t think she meant “advanced” referring to people who were spiritually mature, but meant something more like out front in the pursuit of God.

She’s not around any more, so we can’t ask her. I’m sure she never imagined such a thing as the internet and her words being discussed like this. :)
Anyway, I don’t make a lot out of words that some one uses only a time or two. I just try to get to the main thrust of what is being said. She seems to be saying that intense seekers and/or those with new fresh experiences of the Spirit need to be alert to the possibility of deception.

This happened with the Welsh revival, where many were saved powerfully and there were many visible evidences of the Holy Spirit working. This was followed by many counterfeit manifestations that brought in confusion and had bad effects on people … but that’s another story.

Thankful Jane

OBW

08-20-2008, 07:26 PM

TJ,

I didn't remember JPL's contexts right off. But it almost sounds like what I mentioned. Strong salvations but not yet with significant depth.

Anyway, it was a reasonable spiritual and sociological (although she didn't think of it that way) analysis of some tendencies to get wrapped up in errors.

Thanks for the input.

Thankful Jane

08-20-2008, 07:33 PM

At my salvation, I was given 3 exceedingly precious gifts --- the love for Jesus, the love for His word, and the love for His people --- who could do such a thing in my heart?

My testimony -- the radical change in my life -- amazed literally hundreds of people -- nobody could even recognize me -- and you want me to believe that "HONEST SOULS CAN BE DECEIVED?" Before my salvation, I had no honesty to speak of! I was saved out of deceit!

I prefer to die for my faith, than to question the reality of Jesus Christ in my heart.

Dear Ohio,

This is what Jessie Penn Lewis said, not me. (Just want to make sure you caught that.)

I'm not sure what you're saying. She is not talking about salvation or Jesus Christ being in your heart, but about what can happen to those who are intensely seeking and very serious about following God after they are saved. The point is that Satan is afraid of such people because of the impact they can have on His dark kingdom. He uses his wiles to trick them and render them ineffective.

Jesus warned us to take heed that we not be deceived. Her point is that just having good intentions as believers does not guarantee we will not be deceived. We have to take heed by watching and praying and always staying aware of the possiblity of deception.

Hey, I just put this out because it offers a plausible explanation for why real seekers sometimes get caught in the devil's snare.

I didn't quote her whole book obviously, so there is a lot more to it.

Whatever the enemy does, God uses to grow us up. Part of that growing up is being delivered from deception and coming to an understanding of how we got deceived.

Nothing personal meant ... I think you misunderstood, maybe ???

Peace, Love, Joy

Thankful Jane

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 08:04 PM

Hope and BlessD have said repeatedly that OKC operated under leadership by "extremists," who put the "program" far ahead of people. The results can be witnessed by the failure of marriages. This is a clear, present day example of "lording it over" the flock. It was just one of many N.T. concepts that WL nearly never mentioned ... far more pertinent to God's children than his teachings on "leprosy and quarantines." It would have been exceedingly good if many LC's became aware of what this verse meant, and would have been spared from many leadership abuses.

Ohio, since OKC has been brought up let's use this place as a case. Suppose there's a brother who at one time is very active in the prophesying meeting, then he becomes dormant for a period of time and maybe draws away from the meetings because of the "extremists". Or it could have been the "lording over" that led to a period of dormancy. He and his wife relocate to another part of the country and become active in prophesying meetings once again. Sometimes relocation can be good for a person or persons to go on. It may be pure speculation on my part, but sometimes "lording it over" can cause one to be discouraged and dormant. OKC was only a case. There are other places this example could be applied to.

Terry

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 08:10 PM

I have really been enjoying lately some speakings and writings of non-LSM brothers who have/had very rich ministries, but who did not carry around all this "extra junk" that has corrupted the LCS. Brothers like Stephen Kaung, TAS, Ian Thomas, Bakht Singh, etc. How wonderful it is to be able to fall in love with our beloved Christ all over again, without all the extra baggage like the peer pressure in the LCS, "The Minister of The Age", "Quarantines", LSM headquarters in Anaheim, etc. O to be able to return to the freedom and simplicity in Christ that is ours by virtue of our new birth in Him!

kisstheson, I have not forgotten about this wonderful post of yours. It is so very true. When we've been locked in with one minstry for so many years, sight is lost of other rich ministries. From my exposure void of quarantines, void of lawsuits, etc. Just to have the freedom and simplicity in Christ that I yearn.

With grace,

Terry

Hope

08-20-2008, 08:13 PM

dj,

I spent some time searching my memory about any and all divorces that occurred in Dallas from 1971 up until today. I came up with eleven. Of course there could be more and two were the second and third of the same woman who had moved there. Three were troubled couples who picked up meeting with us after they were married and brought problems with them. Maybe that comes out to 3-5% but at worse way under 10%. If you take the entire history of OK City not just the 15, I wonder what the percent would be - 50%, 60%, or 40% or maybe even down to the level of your evangelical church, 34%. At any rate, it is a tragedy if it is 5%. Divorce is not what the Lord intended. I grieve for all Christian marriages that end in divorce. I do not agree that some marriages just cannot make it. If both spouses receive the proper care and learn to take Christ in reality as the solution to their problems then the Lord can do whatever is needed.

Here are a few informal practices and formal practices that hurt marriages and parenting in the local churches and in the church in Dallas. I would like you to reciprocate and share with us the faults in your church and ministry that you have identified that contributed to the high divorce rate of 34%. It may be a help to us on the forum.

Regarding singles who met and married in the church: Things often moved way too fast. You need to get to know a person before you enter into marriage. Often the person you see in the meetings may not be exactly the person you think you are marrying. I observed my wife for several months before I expressed any interest directly to her. By then I knew that if she would have me then I would be very blessed. Then, we had a 14 month engagement. We saw each other several times a week during this time. I visited with her parents. By the time we had the wedding we really knew each other and there were few surprises. But in Dallas singles moved very fast to be married. This was the church culture.

We had too many church related activities and it was expected that everyone would participate in as many as possible. Family time was not promoted.

The leadership in many places did not spend adequate time to get to know the members up close and personal. The leadership was often too heavenly minded to be of much earthly good.

Other than George Whitington, very few of the leaders spoke of the wonderfulness of marriage. WL himself was very negative in almost every instance in which he spoke of marriage. He had a very skewed view of marriage and family and it affected the leaders in the local churches.

In fact there was a great flat spot in teaching ministry and counseling labor regarding building up the family. The stress from Lee set up a false dichotomy between family and church.

The local churches were too legal and religious toward the children and often antagonized the children. When my son was 14, he let his blond hair grow very long. His hair was longer than any of his worldly classmates at school and really stood out in the church meetings etc. One brother (not an elder) approached me about his hair and rebuked me for not having my children in subjection. I shared with him that I was taking a long range view. While I was not happy within, I was not going to let a few inches of hair possibly lead to our estrangement. I knew he would cut it off in a short time. I wanted him to have the peace to come to me when he had some big problem to talk about.

This leads to my next point. There were codes of conduct that allegedly reflected a person's spirituality. How your children behaved was a reflection on the spirituality of the parents. There was a lot of peer pressure to be accepted and viewed as a member in good standing. Part of this was due to the excessive amount of activities and meetings. Too much of the Christian life was the meeting life. The family life was neglected since there are just so many hours in a day and so many days in a week. Dallas was probably the worst offender in having a jam packed schedule.

There was too much emphasis on the ministry of WL. He was the main staple. Whenever the local elders focused on meeting the needs in their place, someone like Benson or James Barber would come down on them. Sigh, sigh, how grieved I am for my role in not meeting the saints and their family's needs.

Finally, though if I took the time and thought I am sure I could come up with more, but finally, there was a great lack of prayer and fighting the spiritual warfare for the families and for the children in particular. No one knew how and few had any realization regarding what was happening in the unseen realm. I saw many of the children suffer injustices at school. Things that were illogical. We never knew that the demons may have been behind the harassment directed at the children. (Just an example of our need to be on the alert.) Perhaps dj this is a big shortage at your place. Based on the way you brushed this off when I mentioned it in post #13, you obviously could use some help in this area. Consider, maybe the ones you are seeking to help are suffering because you do not know these things.

Well it is now your turn. If you would share your experiences, we ex local churchers could probably get some help and see some of our shortcoming by seeing what a better family, parenting model looks like.

Don Rutledge

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 09:09 PM

Regarding singles who met and married in the church: Things often moved way too fast. You need to get to know a person before you enter into marriage. Often the person you see in the meetings may not be exactly the person you think you are marrying. I observed my wife for several months before I expressed any interest directly to her. By then I knew that if she would have me then I would be very blessed. Then, we had a 14 month engagement. We saw each other several times a week during this time. I visited with her parents. By the time we had the wedding we really knew each other and there were few surprises. But in Dallas singles moved very fast to be married. This was the church culture.

Other than George Whitington, very few of the leaders spoke of the wonderfulness of marriage. WL himself was very negative in almost every instance in which he spoke of marriage. He had a very skewed view of marriage and family and it affected the leaders in the local churches.

Don Rutledge

Don, you are speaking something that needs to be spoken. Regarding marriages, I believe at times there's too much credence given to what the leadership thinks of a particular spouse potential. I've been told from brothers in the past sister's they had a burden for was discouraged because the sister was considered too new to the churchlife or deemed too beautiful for the brother, etc. Instead of seeking out advice from a mature brother whose been married to the same sister for 40-60 years, fellowship is sought out with a leader who may or may not be the best candidate for seeking advice on marriage.
Some of us who grew up in the local churches may have experienced what I have. There's the teaching of not dating before you're ready for marriage. How do you know when that time is? If you do feel you're at that time, how do you get to know someone of the opposite gender whether there's compatability or not? Often there's an invisible barrier if you say anything beyond the superficial greeting in passing, you may make the other person uncomfortable or you may raise eyebrows from certain brothers. What do you do? Seek fellowship from the brothers? There's an invisible obstacle and not knowing how to proceed. In my case I considered the social situation in my locality to be indifferent so I opened my mind beyond the local churches. I took the iniative and got to know a non-lc sister as a friend first and then marriage. Of course marriage was such a crucial decision, it needed countless hours of prayer; month after month. As it is now marriage of 11 years, a son of 9, and a daughter of 8.

Terry

kisstheson

08-20-2008, 09:17 PM

kisstheson, I have not forgotten about this wonderful post of yours. It is so very true. When we've been locked in with one minstry for so many years, sight is lost of other rich ministries. From my exposure void of quarantines, void of lawsuits, etc. Just to have the freedom and simplicity in Christ that I yearn.

With grace,

Terry

Dear Terry,

In this very fast-paced thread, I had completely forgotten about that post! Thank you for noticing and thank you for the kind words.

We surely did lose sight of other rich ministries didn't we? Those other rich ministries could have had such a healthy, balancing, and healing effect on the LC. Much of what is being discussed here surely could have been prevented by an openess to receive the help available in other rich portions of the New Testament Ministry.

Like you, I yearn for a return to the full freedom and simplicity in Christ that the loving heart of our heavenly Father longs to give us. O, to just be simple in Christ! O, to just be free in Him! This is how human beings, made in the image and likeness of God, are meant to be!

That old Shaker hymn really had it right:
" 'Tis a gift to be simple . . . 'Tis a gift to be free."

Hope

08-20-2008, 09:33 PM

Don, you are speaking something that needs to be spoken. Regarding marriages, I believe at times there's too much credence given to what the leadership thinks of a particular spouse potential. I've been told from brothers in the past sister's they had a burden for was discouraged because the sister was considered too new to the churchlife or deemed too beautiful for the brother, etc. Instead of seeking out advice from a mature brother whose been married to the same sister for 40-60 years, fellowship is sought out with a leader who may or may not be the best candidate for seeking advice on marriage.
Some of us who grew up in the local churches may have experienced what I have. There's the teaching of not dating before you're ready for marriage. How do you know when that time is? If you do feel you're at that time, how do you get to know someone of the opposite gender whether there's compatability or not? Often there's an invisible barrier if you say anything beyond the superficial greeting in passing, you may make the other person uncomfortable or you may raise eyebrows from certain brothers. What do you do? Seek fellowship from the brothers? There's an invisible obstacle and not knowing how to proceed. In my case I considered the social situation in my locality to be indifferent so I opened my mind beyond the local churches. I took the iniative and got to know a non-lc sister as a friend first and then marriage. Of course marriage was such a crucial decision, it needed countless hours of prayer; month after month. As it is now marriage of 11 years, a son of 9, and a daughter of 8.

Terry

Question:

Where did this stuff you referred to come from? :eek: It was in Texas also. I did some of that awful fellowshiping about spouse potential. NOT GOOD. MY BAD. I only did it a couple of times but I feel like crawling into a hole even now.

It seemed like our culture regarding coutship, marriage and family was a strange amalgum of Chinese, Puritan and anti-modern. The elder, deacons and older sisters needed to seek the Lord for direction and knowledge regarding these matters and assist the young people not lord over them.

There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

finallyprettyokay

08-20-2008, 09:35 PM

Terry:

What a beautiful story of how you and you wife were married. And in the pictures you so generously share with us -- what a beautiful family.

Family -- marriage, children --- are truly the most beautiful, best gift given to us --- the divorce rate is so sad. All those broken people, lost chances. In the past 3 or 4 years, my husband had his relationship restored with 3 grown children from a first marriage. It had broken his heart for years, and having them in his life again is God's gift to him. Imagine this -- NINE grandkids came with the package. Wow, huh?

It's hard to pick out the most obnoxious doctrines/practices of the LC, but the one about 'she is too beautiful for you' (or him for her) has got to be in the top 10. At least. How completely against everything God is, and that Jesus taught. Can you imagine that being part of the Sermon on the Mount? Blessed are the ones considered outwardly beautiful, for they shall inherit each other? Obnoxious and against God.

Terry, you have written that your parents were great, and believe me, brother -- it shows. It's written all over every post from you. :)

fpo

finallyprettyokay

08-20-2008, 09:52 PM

Hope wrote: There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

Those are two true reasons for the damage. But, Hope -- remember that people (elders) were really in over their heads. Too young, too inexperienced. When I look back, it seems like it was a grownup game of 'church'. Like when we would play 'school' or 'store' when I was kid (do kids EVER do that anymore? I am dating myself here :D) -- we were playing 'church'. Only problem was that it was no game, and real people got hurt. Real bad. :(

It's all so sad. And so amazing that God is bigger than all of that, and we all are getting better. Anyone remember the Grateful Dead line --- What a long, strange trip it's been ? I am not a Deadhead, not at all :rolleyes: -- never was, but what a great line that is. That sums it up for me. Walkin' with God. Amazing.

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 10:18 PM

Question:

Where did this stuff you referred to come from? :eek: It was in Texas also.
In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Don, the first paragraph you quoted from me was based on Southern California. The second paragraph was my experience as a single brother in Washington state.

Terry

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-20-2008, 10:20 PM

Hope I appreciate your last post addressed to me. To be clear the 34% is among evangelicals in general not the specific church I attend. In any event like you said even 5% is a tragedy.

I will ponder your question in more depth and answer in detail but one thing comes immediately to mind: a certain looseness in our theology i.e by overemphasizing God's acceptance, love, forgiveness this gives people the impression that they can do whatever they want including divorce and God will just forgive them. Which He will but I think the way it is taught gives license to some people esp those who are spiritually immature.

blessD

08-20-2008, 10:26 PM

Question:
It seemed like our culture regarding coutship, marriage and family was a strange amalgum of Chinese, Puritan and anti-modern. The elder, deacons and older sisters needed to seek the Lord for direction and knowledge regarding these matters and assist the young people not lord over them.

There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

I second that!!!

blessD

08-20-2008, 10:28 PM

Process,

You make a good point. What a complex system we were all caught into! It's a culture of extremes.

A few years ago I went to a meeting for whatever reason...I ended up there. As I looked around the room, I noticed the faces of the sisters. It was remarkable. Many had an almost a blank look on their faces. Even if they were smiling, their eyes looked hollow. Based on what you've shared, I'll call this a "Stepford" look. I think it is probably very common. I have known one sister in particular for many years, who is the wife of a dominating elder husband. She has had that Stepford look, an almost permanent pained look on her face, as long as I can remember. So you're right, not all elder families were "privileged". Many women try to cope the best they can, and that often means denial.

Nell

In most areas of my life, I have reached a pretty objective and peaceful place, but I have a couple of odd leftover issues here and there - one is how I react to the word submission. It either makes me feel angry and make an internal fist to fight back or I may have physical reactions, too. Maybe it is some odd form of post-traumatic syndrome? When I hear the word, I think about sister's that behaved just like described in this and the posts by Process. During a time when I was trying to be a good* and fine* sister, I tried to behave like a stepford wife; the shoe never fit.

Recently, I decided to talk to a wise Christian counselor to gain better perspective of my ideas of submission and so I would stop having the cringe factor. I told the doctor some of the more bizarre memories of life and marriage in the local church. He said it will take some time to be "Normalized" in certain areas like submission. I am looking forward to the Normalization process so I can submit the way God means it. I know my marriage and husband will appreciate when I have a healthier idea on this.

(note to self: walk with God is sweeter and closer when I give up and confess I am not "good" and not "fine" )

TLFisher

08-20-2008, 10:42 PM

The leadership in many places did not spend adequate time to get to know the members up close and personal. The leadership was often too heavenly minded to be of much earthly good.

Don Rutledge

The key word is in many places, not every place. Some leaders had or have full time jobs while others serve as full-timers. Each brother serving in aleadership capacity are each different.
I've known some who've worked full time and still have time for people. There were others likewise worked fulltime, but I never got to know them and they never got to know me.
About 5 years ago I read an article called In Wake of the New Way. In it's content was an excerpt of Witness Lee charging elders to contact brothers and sisters in their locality. There's time during the week for people to be contacted. What happened with the time?
There is time. It's a matter of elders or deacons taking the responsibility to contact households. In the local churches, is there a real care why someone suddenly stops meeting? Do elders or deacons take the time to find out what happened? Or is there a presumption that this brother or that sister is cold towards the ministry?
Two problems here is:
1. lack of contact
2. placing value on brothers and sisters based on how one gravitates to Witness Lee's ministry instead or caring for them as a member of the flock.

Terry

Paul Cox

08-20-2008, 11:27 PM

Man, this thread moves so fast, I'm having a hard time keeping up. Gotta go to bed, but just wanted to say this:

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.

However, I do not agree with arranged marriages, where one or more party really has reservations, but buries them to keep favor with "the brothers."

Buenos Noche
Roger

TLFisher

08-21-2008, 12:12 AM

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.

Roger

Roger,

I agree with you that young people shouldn't date. Especially among the high schoolers there needs to be education on peer pressures and a proper understanding communicated effectively why they should not dating. Of course an extreme reason why not to, is giving into temptations of the flesh which could result in children being born out of wedlock.

This teaching still leaves aun unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

Terry

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 06:01 AM

Roger,

I agree with you that young people shouldn't date. Especially among the high schoolers there needs to be education on peer pressures and a proper understanding communicated effectively why they should not dating. Of course an extreme reason why not to, is giving into temptations of the flesh which could result in children being born out of wedlock.

This teaching still leaves aun unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

TerryWell, Terry, you are a parent and that is your job to figure out. This is none of the "church's" business. Each child is unique in the personality, needs, etc. This is why God gave children parents. He intended for each individual to be individually loved and nurtured and guided according to who they were, like He does us (when we let Him and quit looking to others for answers instead of looking to Him.)

Thankful Jane

Matt Anderson

08-21-2008, 06:10 AM

At my salvation, I was given 3 exceedingly precious gifts --- the love for Jesus, the love for His word, and the love for His people --- who could do such a thing in my heart?

My testimony -- the radical change in my life -- amazed literally hundreds of people -- nobody could even recognize me -- and you want me to believe that "HONEST SOULS CAN BE DECEIVED?" Before my salvation, I had no honesty to speak of! I was saved out of deceit!

I prefer to die for my faith, than to question the reality of Jesus Christ in my heart.

Absolutely, yes, you need to believe honest souls can be and are deceived. We are born into a deceived world. When God shines light into our hearts he does not instantly eradicate all of our deception. The light just begins to dawn. As we enter into a true and obedient walk in faith before Him the light continues to spread. We also have to get to know the Word. Our deceived state slowly but surely begins to be replaced with a renewed mind that can see who the Lord really is. It doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't even happen in a lifetime. The measure of light that the Lord gives us is what we need.

So, yes, you should strongly consider beliving that honest souls can be and are deceived.

I think this can be backed up by the Word of God, both Old and New Testament.

Matt

P.S. You've actually told us about your experience of being deceived by leadership in the LC on these forums until you started reading 'Speaking the Truth in Love' and other materials.

P.S.S. Were you deceived about meeting the Lord. No. Were you experiencing a mixture of the Lord and demonic influences in the early days of the LC. Absolutely yes. There's proof of it and especially in Lee who was very deceitful (even in the early 60's, into the 70's and beyond).

OBW

08-21-2008, 06:13 AM

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.On one hand, I agree a little. Just dating around because it's the thing to do is a potential trap. But even when we deal with lust, it is sin. And sin is sin. The problems that arise from the rapid marriages are also sin. And sin is sin.

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.) My sons have mostly been involved in group activities. That means they go do things with 4 to 8 people, guys and gals. The younger one met and dated one girl for a while. That has cooled for now, but they are still part of the same larger group from which these smaller groups continue to emerge for particular activities. Even this was discouraged in the LC. That is a reasonable alternative to the "on/off" of suddenly private dataing and then not dating.

Of course, doing much of anything that wasn't a meeting was discouraged in the LC. It would seem that the meeting schedule was designed to keep us all busy enough that having much private socialization was just hard to plan.

Ohio

08-21-2008, 06:25 AM

However, I do not agree with arranged marriages, where one or more party really has reservations, but buries them to keep favor with "the brothers."

Somehow we saints had the impression that if the elders "endorsed" a relationship, then God's "blessing" would be upon the marriage. Whether the marriage was "arranged" or not then became difficult to discern. With the belief that His coming was soon, and that marriage was only a means to "transformation," it was compelling indeed to many dedicated young people to have such a "blessing" from the leaders. In those days we could not believe that divorce could ever occur in the LC. We believed that God's grace was sufficient for any problem we might encounter.

I remember, as a young single brother in Cleve-ville, watching from "a distance" a time when TC "fellowshipped" with a group of single saints who were "marriage ready," but had no particular "interest" in any other brother or sister. Apparently all the other saints knew that TC had "one of those talks" with the group of singles, so I somehow found out too. I watched those saints, and right away they were all "paired up" and setting marriage dates. Everyone was happy for them. Life is so good! I somehow thought this was "God's way" for marriage in the church. It was so contrary to "the world," that it must be "of God." And ... it saved the young people from all the dangers of promiscuity. "Everybody's a winner," as they say. Right?

Years later, I learned that at least two of those specific marriages had ended poorly, with strange news indeed reported about them. Things too strange to repeat. Theirs were not the only marriages that were to fail either.

I must admit that the early days had many strange concepts that fueled off the "no dating" command. There were also strong forces compelling young ones to marry "inside" the LC. Think of the O.T. curses on "mixed marriages." Due to all the marriage failures, some saints I know decided it was far better to marry "outsiders," and some of them even married unbelievers. Church increase, right? While I wouldn't recommend this, they had to find someone they really loved and "connected" with, trusting God to work out salvation at a later date. Thus the dangers of control and legalism -- many will do just the opposite.

OBW

08-21-2008, 06:26 AM

I spent some time searching my memory about any and all divorces that occurred in Dallas from 1971 up until today. I came up with eleven.Don,

I came up with a clear 10, and another that showed up at my mother's funeral with a different wife and no explanation (which he was not obligated to give). And I have had suspicions about a couple of others that I never heard anything about. At least a couple of the ones I know of happened years after we left but were married during our tenures in Dallas if not before. I know little concerning any marriages since.

Now I doubt there were some large number above that, but we are probably ignorant of a few. Still, that is not so terrible statistically. Spiritually, one is a tragedy. But in that number, there are a couple that really bothered me in terms of how it played out.

I also kept running into a brother at IBC that was in Dallas, as was his former wife. They married in OKC, then moved back to Irving later, and eventually divorced. (He has now moved to New Jersey.) They may be among BlessD's 14.

YP0534

08-21-2008, 06:28 AM

This teaching still leaves an unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

Not everyone needs to or should go to college. (Another worldly LC myth.) The practical point for dating is the age of maturity for each individual. A generation or two ago, that age was generally much lower than it is has been since the invention of adolescence in our culture. Growing up is not a process that can be regulated like Henry Ford's assembly line but is a matter of life and maturity. One tomato plant bears fruit sooner than another and neither plant is defective.

But I would think that, generally speaking, children should be able to be equipped as adults by the age of lawful consent. Such equipping should probably include being able to make the determination for themselves that they aren't emotionally ready for such responsibilities as marriage and family. But, I mean, are helpful parents really going to try to prevent legal adults from having their own lives?

Did you really suggest 30 as a possibility? The current trend in our culture towards later marriage and child rearing is not a healthy sign, in my opinion. It demonstrates that the general culture isn't capable of producing healthy adult human beings. I think the enemy might really like a program where the only ones deemed fit to have families are the ones too old to have them!

Just throwing in my two-bits...

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 06:31 AM

While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry and trusting in Him to lead us concerning who to marry? Who are all these other church people that they should be involved in such a decision? I don't care if they are as experienced as Methusaleh, this decision is the man's and the woman's. Their job is to find out the mind of the Lord. The stories I know where this was done have excellent results.

Whoever involves his/her self in making such a momentous decision other than the two parties and God may one day get blamed for the outcome, as they well should.

I think this is what I hate most about the LC teachings and practices. People were robbed of opportunities to have real experiences with God by looking to "the brothers" for advice and answers. God was robbed of His opportunities to teach His children about who He was and about His ways.

This is part of the harm to the second generation as Terry just (innocently) demonstrated. He was taught both verbally and by example to look to others to get His answers. I commend him for stepping outside of the LC box to find the wife God had for him.

Here is a hodge-podge of some reasons God and His children got robbed: leaders' unhealthy teachings; "body life" emphasis, i.e., don't act "independently"; saints desire to please the elders; laziness--it's too hard to learn of Christ for yourself and a bit risky; fear of violating one of those many unspoken rules; fear of following the devil--only the brothers know what was the Lord; fear of rejection; fear of offending God by being being in your soul thinking about things ... fear of being made an example of in a meeting ... fear of ..., fear of .... fear of .... etc.; elders coveting to fulfill their ambitions; elders seeking to keep WL happy and present him with an model church for their own reasons; elder's needing to control things to please Lee and also fulfill their own ambitions ... etc., etc., etc.

The LC teaching and all the dependence on "fellowship" from others was flat out unhealthy. Stick hierarchy and absolute submission into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster (one that obviously works). We should have been taught first and foremost to learn to depend on our relationship with Him. I've heard it said, "Well, it's not easy for young ones to hear what the Lord is saying and they can get deceived or make mistakes." If I knew what I know now, I would have said, "Well, if you don't get yourself and you voice out of the picture, they'll never learn the Lord's voice. Do they really need you as an intermediary? God will be there for them even if they make a mistake. Where will you be when they make your mistake?"

God is jealous for His relationship with each of us. All the getting "fellowship" practices opened us up to a world of hurt.

When I heard that Benson considered a prospective marriage in terms of the usefulness of a brother / sister--whether it would be increased or decreased, I wanted to vomit. He was definitely in the business of "using." How gross. Usurping, robbing God, playing with people's very lives and souls, using them to build his pyramids and treasure cities. Sorry, I know I'm foaming at the mouth. I'm just too close to some of the messes he made out of lives of people who followed his voice.

Back to the point: What about Jesus. What about Him being first in all things? Who are elders that they give "advice?" Instead of meddling in the practical lives of people and cheating them out of their inheritance of knowing God for themselves, they should have been laboring in the Bible for themselves to see what it really said.

They should have taught what it taught about husbands sacrificing for their wives and winning their wives love and willing submission. They should have taught about fathers spending major time to bring up their kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (nurture takes time, time, time) and made sure that they had plenty of time, time, time. (Sending children to babysittiing 6 days a week and children's meetings on Sunday, and leaving all the rest of the care of children to a wife who is exhausted from waiting hand and foot on all the "needs" of the church first, as dictated by the elders and the absentee fathers, just doesn't cut it.) They should have taught people about what how to bring every single detail of their life to Jesus because Jesus was longing to be involved with them, instead of telling them God was only interested in the church. They should have taught people they were free to follow Jesus even if that meant he led them somewhere else other than the LC.

I better quit and take a walk. Looking back, I don't see one LC "elder" that was doing the job described in the Bible. Even the very best had two minds and two masters. They vascillated between obeying Lee and his empire and their conscience. I think that's why God fired them all (see Ezek.34 and Jer. 23) and gave the sheep one Shepherd. Now if they can just ever figure out they don't have the job they botched any more.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow Me."

I am one happy little sheep who has returned to the great Shepherd of the sheep. I have been and will continue to pray that He will deliver all His little sheep out of the mouths of evil, double minded, shepherds and that He will bring them all out of all the folds of men into His pasture.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 06:37 AM

On one hand, I agree a little. Just dating around because it's the thing to do is a potential trap. But even when we deal with lust, it is sin. And sin is sin. The problems that arise from the rapid marriages are also sin. And sin is sin.

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.) My sons have mostly been involved in group activities. That means they go do things with 4 to 8 people, guys and gals. The younger one met and dated one girl for a while. That has cooled for now, but they are still part of the same larger group from which these smaller groups continue to emerge for particular activities. Even this was discouraged in the LC. That is a reasonable alternative to the "on/off" of suddenly private dataing and then not dating.

Of course, doing much of anything that wasn't a meeting was discouraged in the LC. It would seem that the meeting schedule was designed to keep us all busy enough that having much private socialization was just hard to plan. Sounds like you are doing a good job of parenting. Do the folks in your current church dictate what the dating habits of your children should be?

Thankful Jane

Ohio

08-21-2008, 06:38 AM

P.S.S. Were you deceived about meeting the Lord. No. Were you experiencing a mixture of the Lord and demonic influences in the early days of the LC. Absolutely yes. There's proof of it and especially in Lee who was very deceitful (even in the early 60's, into the 70's and beyond).

Matt, what do you mean a "mixture of ... demonic influences" in the early days.

Overflow

08-21-2008, 06:38 AM

Ohio

08-21-2008, 06:44 AM

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.)

While I totally agree, I do know of a couple of blessed marriages of GLA leaders that had courtships of literally only days. The couples just met and fell in love and got married, and still love each other to this day. While they are not secretive about their short engagement, they don't recommend it as a pattern for others.

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 07:02 AM

I think this is something that really effected me growing up, not the dating specifically, but the fear of letting children sin. Until we sin, its hard for us to grasp the need we have for a Savior. I think LC protected children too much from making mistakes. And used one persons mistakes to try to teach the entire flock the errors of failure rather than the grace of our Savior. My prayer for my young children is that they will make mistakes and lots of them while they're under the umbrella of my husband and I's protection. And that each time we can remind them that their is forgiveness because of the cross. I pray that these little slips while they're young will protect them from the experience of huge sin when they're older....but even then, God's grace is still sufficient! I'm not saying...sin cause there's forgiveness, but the fact is we are NOT PERFECT beings and I think the LC really hoped to make us that! Woudn't need Jesus except as a bud if we were!!Hi Process,

You are right on. As children of God we need the freedom to follow Him and make our own mistakes. I still remember saying to someone when I was beginning to wake up from my stupor (still deep in the LC), "I wish I could be free just to have a problem." I wondered why I always had to come to the meeting praising and thanking the Lord like I was in "the victory" when many times I was just plain having a hard time. I needed to be able to be sad when I was sad, mad when I was mad, struggling when I was struggling, etc. without having to perform like a monkey on a chain.

If you have a houseful of other people living with you, as I did, you had to be in performance mode 24/7. Of course, I never made that standard. I think the real help came to those sisters that lived with us when my performance ability failed. I still remember one sister who had heard one of my husband and my not too quiet "discussions" through the wall of our house, saying to another sister who was dying to get married, "If you want to get cured of that, just come live with the Andersons!" Well, maybe we did some good after all.

Thankful Jane

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 07:35 AM

I remember, as a young single brother in Cleve-ville, watching from "a distance" a time when TC "fellowshipped" with a group of single saints who were "marriage ready," but had no particular "interest" in any other brother or sister. Apparently all the other saints knew that TC had "one of those talks" with the group of singles, so I somehow found out too. I watched those saints, and right away they were all "paired up" and setting marriage dates.

Ohio,

Here's another TC story but with a different interpretation.

A young sister from southern California, born and raised in the LC, came to stay with us. She was a student at Purdue and stayed with us in the summer. Anyway, she went to one of TC's college summer schools (or whatever they called them). TC had a question and answer session. Someone asked about marriage. TC answered, "Marry the one you love." He talked at length about romantic love, falling in love, and just being with the one you love. This young sister was floored. She came back and told us, "I've never heard anything like that in California."

I know you, Ohio, have some issues with TC and I understand where you're coming from. But have you ever considered how the brothers that were "trained" by him are so much more interesting a people than those coming out of the BB boot camp? Compare the speaking of Peter Debelak's father with any of the BB: is there any doubt who's better? The same could be said for most of the brothers TC trained. JM and TM (Tom McNaughton) could make a living as standup comics. Spend a weekend with a group of these guys and I guarantee you one thing: you won't be bored.

I'm not a TC apologist despite how this post may sound. I do know this though about him and it is a crucial point which I think needs to be made: he never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of "oneness." A lot of the negatives I'm reading on this thread came out of situations where that was done.

There. I'm done.

SC

Paul Cox

08-21-2008, 07:38 AM

While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry...

Hi Jane,

Good points all. In the Local Church we were indeed robbed of the opportunity to have a personal relationship (outside the LSM agenda) with the Lord.

However, in any church, not just an LSM church, the eldership does have the responsibility of oversight. Part of that oversight has much to do with preserving a healthy atmosphere where the saints can go on unhampered.

In our locality, the most predominant Evangelical Church does an excellent job with the youth. They even provide a youth activity center. On several occasions it was clear that without the proper oversight, it would have just become a meat market, and certainly an opening for the destruction of the Church. The elders' responsibility for oversight is very well established in the Scripture, and the writers were indeed specific on certain issues.

It is important that we have a very personal relationship with Jesus. But the right personal relationship with Jesus will always lead to a gathering of the saints (assembly/church). This is indeed the Lord's corporate expression. At least in word, Witness Lee didn't get that wrong.

I feel that the LSM model is an extreme example of how not to do things. And...I think that the way things went had more to do with the fact that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were Chinese, than anything else.

Roger

Paul Cox

08-21-2008, 07:46 AM

Ohio,

I'm not a TC apologist despite how this post may sound. I do know this though about him and it is a crucial point which I think needs to be made: he never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of "oneness." A lot of the negatives I'm reading on this thread came out of situations where that was done.

There. I'm done.

SC

Thanks SC.

"He never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of 'oneness'." As a result the LSM body spit him out. Regardless of what faults you can find in him, that is a wonderful example for us to follow.

I have listened to some of the recent audio of brothers from the Midwest. I was compelled, impressed, kept awake, and fed. Compare that with the current speaking of the "Blendeds." Unless you are under the hypnotic trance, and blending into the incessant drone of "amen," you are either bored, or can't wait to turn it off.

I have suffered through many of their messages in recent years, simply to be able to know what I am talking about when speaking of them. But, believe me, it was a suffering.

Roger

OBW

08-21-2008, 08:09 AM

Sounds like you are doing a good job of parenting. Do the folks in your current church dictate what the dating habits of your children should be?

Thankful JaneAbsolutely not. And within a congregation of beyond 4,000 there have been all kinds of things happen. However, for a congregation of 4,000, the track record is really pretty good. Far from perfect. And I obviously do not know the entire 4,000. Within that number, sometimes it's hard to find some of the 300 that were there when we started 21 years ago. They are mostly still there, but hard to find.

As for our job of parenting, we did go through a scare a few years ago. During our oldest's second year in college, he met a girl that he went mildly insane over. We met her that fall. Before the end of the semester, they were thinking about getting married. I sent some long emails to reason with him. He agreed to take it a little slower. By the end of February, it was over. A year later, she was married (already pregnant). She was excessively needy due to problems in her home (and we had seen that). It would have ended their college careers and probably not ended well for them. Now, 7 years later, we are trying to not push him to get into more social groups so that he has a "fishing hole." He is just too busy with grad school (seminary), work, church, and the little socialization he does with his friends on campus (quite a small group). In his case, waiting a little longer is probably best.

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 08:16 AM

I have suffered through many of their messages in recent years, simply to be able to know what I am talking about when speaking of them. But, believe me, it was a suffering.

Roger,

That's my biggest beef with them, bigger even than their idiotic quarantine. They're boring, incredibly, utterly boring. Sure, occasionally we're all boring. But the BB have perfected it to an art form. They ought to have a class in that at their seminary: "Lifeless Speaking 101." They could have one unit on how to cheerlead: EM could teach that. Then another on how to threaten and warn: MC could teach that. Another on how to use jargon no one understands: they could team teach that. And maybe a unit on long speaking: again, a team project.

The semester exam could be to have students give testimonies that never end. The rest of the class could pick up points for every rote Amen they uttered (one point per Amen) and the speaker would get an A if and only if he could put them all to sleep. He'd get an extra credit point for every Amen uttered from a sleeping soul.

I'm too hard. But hey, if the shoe fits ...

SC

OBW

08-21-2008, 08:23 AM

I think this is something that really effected me growing up, not the dating specifically, but the fear of letting children sin. Until we sin, its hard for us to grasp the need we have for a Savior. I think LC protected children too much from making mistakes. And used one persons mistakes to try to teach the entire flock the errors of failure rather than the grace of our Savior. My prayer for my young children is that they will make mistakes and lots of them while they're under the umbrella of my husband and I's protection. And that each time we can remind them that their is forgiveness because of the cross. I pray that these little slips while they're young will protect them from the experience of huge sin when they're older....but even then, God's grace is still sufficient! I'm not saying...sin cause there's forgiveness, but the fact is we are NOT PERFECT beings and I think the LC really hoped to make us that! Woudn't need Jesus except as a bud if we were!!I have to agree. And agree with Jane's comments on this as well.

I also think it goes deeper. We need to let our children encounter the opinions of the world. They do not need to be ignorant of the popular culture of the day, whether it is the trend to immorality, or efforts to define God our of existence through science and other academic pursuits. They need to have had a serious consideration of evolution, postmodern's "no absolute truth," and even many of society's ills before they leave the home. While there are valid reasons for home schooling, I have always tended away from it for this reason. It is better to send them to a Christian private school.

If we have an open relationship with our children, they can come and talk about anything. And even when we butt heads, they will know that we are not just being mean and controlling. The best way to prepare for life in the world is to begin that experience with an adviser. Who better than the ones who managed to keep you alive to age 5 and beyond.

(On the Christian private school suggestion, I remember someone (I think it was Ray Graver) talking about his daughter's experience with the girl's basketball team at the little Christian school she went to (Baptist, I think). It was not some "protected" environment, even if the adults and teachers thought it was. They stopped at a convenience store on the way to a tournament and most of the girls were shoplifting.)

bookworm

08-21-2008, 09:18 AM

[QUOTE=Thankful Jane;2627]While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry and trusting in Him to lead us concerning who to marry? Who are all these other church people that they should be involved in such a decision? I don't care if they are as experienced as Methusaleh, this decision is the man's and the woman's. Their job is to find out the mind of the Lord. The stories I know where this was done have excellent results.

Thanks, Jane, for the word about learning to seek the Lord and hear his speaking. It helped the light go on for me regarding realizing anew that as a single person I had, indeed, “given up” so to speak and asked the Lord to choose a husband for me—and amazingly enough I had this experience in the LC! Now I see why our marriage was not coerced or arranged! The Lord did this for us in His wisdom. There have been times since during our 36+ years of marriage I admit I have asked the Lord if He was sure this was such a good plan :o—however, there is no doubt in me or my husband that this is His plan.

The only item I regret is that we were talked into having a wedding meeting centered on the LC and a testimony of it. The theme was loving the Lord, but it was a wedding meeting even so and my poor family wanted to crawl under the floors. I am sorry I put them through this and wish I had not.

finallyprettyokay

08-21-2008, 09:30 AM

Roger said this is a fast moving thread. Boy oh boy. Some of us need to be getting more sleep!:D

So, there are a couple of things I would like to add to, and I think I am not going to take the time to find the quotes -- most of them have several places and people to quote, anyway.

About dating: Not dating does go some distance with avoiding falling into lustful sin. Unfortunately, I think the very quick marriages are one of the results of not having any sort of natural contact and situations with each other. So there has to be something in the middle. Girls on one side of the meetings, boys on the other just doesn't give young people a chance to learn about the other gender and about themselves in those situations. What kind of person you like and what kind you don't like, who would be a good lifetime partner and who wouldn't. I was shooting in the dark with this stuff, had no idea how to know a good partner when I saw one.

So the idea that several people have put forth about group situations, 6 or 8 people hanging out doing something together is a great idea. Or the very innovative idea I wrote about somewhere, where the parents said yeah, you can 'date' -- in the front yard.

But if you are not 'allowed' any contact with the other gender, those fast marriages are one result. My husband and I knew each other across the meeting hall for two years, but really I barely knew his name, we certainly didn't know each other at all. One day, the thought occurred to both of us and it might have been 3 weeks later that we were married, but I think it was two. Strangers married to each other. Next month will be 35 years for us, so I think we are going to make it. :thumbup:

Here's something I'll throw into the mix, see what comes of it. Regarding arranged marriages, I know of 2 or maybe 3 marriages that were arranged after the brother had gone to the 'elders' and shared that he was gay, or thought maybe he was. The 'fellowship'? Get married. That will solve the problem. One of the instances I am thinking about, the elders went to the brother and told him they thought he was gay, and that he should get married ASAP. In none of these cases were the sisters in on the discussion or given any information. Interestingly, the marriage where the elders were the ones who thought there was a problem worked out pretty well. At least, they are still married. They seem happy, I assume they are what they seem. (I knew that brother well, and am here to tell you that all the sisters liked him lots. He treated women well. He was kind and very much a gentleman.) But the cases where the brothers had self-identified as gay --- a disaster. And what a devastating thing for both the brother and the poor sister that had no idea she was supposed to be a 'cure'.

Anyone else know of similar cases? Tragic.

And, as I have written before, alot of the problem was young, inexperienced, untrained 'elders', in way over their head.

This thread has traveled over many paths, but I think it is still on topic -- how does the LC influence effect children, families.

Matt Anderson

08-21-2008, 10:33 AM

Here's something I'll throw into the mix, see what comes of it. Regarding arranged marriages, I know of 2 or maybe 3 marriages that were arranged after the brother had gone to the 'elders' and shared that he was gay, or thought maybe he was. The 'fellowship'? Get married. That will solve the problem. One of the instances I am thinking about, the elders went to the brother and told him they thought he was gay, and that he should get married ASAP. In none of these cases were the sisters in on the discussion or given any information. Interestingly, the marriage where the elders were the ones who thought there was a problem worked out pretty well. At least, they are still married. They seem happy, I assume they are what they seem. (I knew that brother well, and am here to tell you that all the sisters liked him lots. He treated women well. He was kind and very much a gentleman.) But the cases where the brothers had self-identified as gay --- a disaster. And what a devastating thing for both the brother and the poor sister that had no idea she was supposed to be a 'cure'.

The sad thing here is that I just read this and didn't react to it. I wasn't shocked by it. I should be. It just kind of fit with so much of what I have seen and heard. I do know of one situation like this, but I cannot speak of it.

Matt

Hope

08-21-2008, 10:48 AM

The issue of dating vs courtship and marriage opens the door to many considerations. I have been reading with great interest the various posts and to me it is very clear that different cultures have a great impact on the various points of view and emphasis. While in college one of my majors was sociology. When I received my BA in addition to my declared major I had six minors. How come? Well to me the university was like a candy store that I had full access to. Since I was on scholarship for most of the time I was not limited in what I could take. Even though a good focused student could graduate with 120 hours, I wound up needing 173 to meet the criterion. I had a minor in behavioral psychology. So please bare with me for just a little bit. Our various cultures had a lot to do with our lc experience and our reaction to it.

My culture effects me to this day. I try to watch out for it lest it derail me from following the Lord purely but often I realize I am doing many things not because of the Bible Truth or the Lord’s leading but because that is the way my mother raised me.

A big problem comes from spiritualizing our culture and then imposing it on others. People came up hard in my culture. The individual was called upon to sacrifice his own personal interest for his family and for the community. When I was a senior in high school, I was the captain of the football team and the middle linebacker on defense and called the defensive plays. During the second game on the first play from scrimmage, I broke my foot. I told the coach I was hurt and needed to come out. He replied we must have you on the field. You are the team leader. You must just get through it. I even punted twice but they let me out of those duties after the second pathetic punt. Of course they did not know at the time my foot was broken. I had a very high pain threshold but that night was the worst agony I have ever experienced. I often looked back and wondered why I put myself through that. The coaches never apologized to me and did not feel they needed to. It happened because the team needed me and the individual must sacrifice for the community. I did a lot of that in the lc not because of the lc but because it was my natural culture. I promoted denial of personal interest for the sake of the community, church. I do not blame others for my cultural slant but with real spiritual maturity you will learn to recognize when your culture is being spiritualized.

I see a conflict going on between the culture of "every tub must sit on its on bottom" and "it takes a village." Is child raising the exclusinve responsibility of the parents, or does the extended family need to get involved or how about the village, a la Hillary Clinton?

The Texas culture puts rugged individualism and personal responsibility way way up there. Boy do I hear that coming through loud and clear from some of the posters. It is just me and God. On the other hand the Texas culture demands strong leaders who focus the community on the job at hand. The model for all real Texans is William Travis and drawing a line in the sand at the Alamo. All Texas school kids are raised on that tale. You choose death for the sake of the whole.

Another problem is that people may exalt superstition and myths and they become part and parcel of the culture. Things like James Barber’s the Lord is coming maybe as soon as 1994, therefore give your all for Christ and the Church. Things like Jacob getting the blessing and we should all desire the blessing and the blessing comes from close association with anything from WL or the co-workers or the elders. Or the flip side of that, this is the way to be immune to problems and failures. Of course, superstition and myths never work out but when they are an intergal part of the culture great disapointment and hurt is sure to to follow.

I have read a lot about our relationship to the Lord. That is surely a given. But is it just “me and God?” It is certainly that but watch out rugged individualist. We also should hear the Lord and be in a relationship with Him as we read the Word. Do not just pick up principles and doctrines. When I am with another believer, whoever they may be, I am very excercized to hear what the Lord is saying to me. THE BODY OF CHRIST IS A REALITY. The Lord speaks to us through His members. When I am reading the posts on this forum, I am seeking to know more of the Lord and hear what He is saying to me. I seek to especially listen up when someone is giving me a hard time or disagreeing with me. We just have to shut off some of the natural defensiveness or prejudices that flare up.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS If you have problems with this post because I once was a lc elder,an evil shepherd who was fired by the Lord, I apologize. Please have mercy on me.:o

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 10:57 AM

The sad thing here is that I just read this and didn't react to it. I wasn't shocked by it.

I know what you mean, Matt. I heard of a local church where a brother lived openly in incestuous sin with another woman and the elders said nothing. This same church had regular love feasts where the saints sat segregated and didn't even intermingle. They were famous for suing one another. They were divided, idolatrous, immoral. A disgrace to God's kingdom ...

What I find shocking, though, really shocking, is how Paul addressed his letter to them: "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:"

Brain cramp there, eh?

SC

Shawn

08-21-2008, 11:00 AM

Hi Matt,

I wanted to comment on your position that all in the LC have unknowingly fallen into idolatry, due to the fixation of that group to the teachings of Witness Lee.

First, your critical examination of the fruit of the hearts of the LC’ers falling into idolatry, seems to parallel the BB’s “examination” of contemporary Christian music leading to idolatry that is being enjoyed by the Young People around the GLA. To argue against their criticism is to attempt to prove there are no idols before the listeners; and who can say we are without idols? So, your argument is valid only on the base that anything and everything can lead to idolatry, or, who is without idols cast the first stone.

The second charge is the focus on the oneness of the body of Christ. The difference I see is whether this is a practice, or a replacement of the consecration of our hearts to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes, it can be a replacement, but only if one applies his teachings in the way of making it a necessary tenet of the faith, versus the way of practice. I know many who practice the oneness without making it a doctrine of faith.

I believe from my start in the LC in the late 80’s, that I have attempted to live seeking the oneness of all believers as a practice, carried out by my faithfulness in following my Lord as led by the Holy Spirit. No, my walk has not been “idol free,” but I believe I have been led in the process of being stripped of the idols as I grow in the grace of our Lord and savior, Jesus! Yes, even though I am still in the “idolatry wrecked LC!”

A more practical presentation of idolatry would be in the recognizing of the two paths that have developed among the LC believers as shown by our brother Hope, in following the “ministry” as opposed to following the Lord.

Shawn

Overflow

08-21-2008, 11:07 AM

Hope - I definitely think the bible instructs both...but my years in the LC was definitely distracting from my relationship with my personal Savior! The source of Hope is Him alone!!!

1 Peter 1:17-25 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;

18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,

19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

22Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

23for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

24For,
"ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "
And this is the word which was preached to you.

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 11:16 AM

Hope,

I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Culture is a huge factor in all these matters we are discussing here. We should none elevate our earthly culture to a special status, especially a divine one. That was, I believe, one of the key reasons for many of the problems that flowered in the local churches.

That said, I don't believe we should diminish our cultures. Did you hear Chris Collinsworth's interview with Kobe Bryant at the Olympics? He asked him, "Is that a ‘cool’ thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you’re fighting for the red, white and blue? Seems like a day gone by." I wasn't sure if he was prodding Bryant to stand up for the USA or he was mocking that kind of attitude. The blogosphere seems to think he was mocking. Google it and you'll see what I mean.

Well, no matter his intent, I disagree with the idea that we are somehow more elevated beings if we have no national pride. The people I know who are like this -- and I sat near one last night in my home watching the Olympics -- strangely will cheer for other countries ... anyone but the USA, their homeland. To me, they are most lost of souls.

I don't mind that Witness Lee was a Chinese man and brought his culture with him to the US. I do mind that somehow we all thought that culture was the Kingdom culture. Sorry, but Chinese culture for all its politeness and corporateness is just another fallen human culture. It does have great positives which were on display in the Olympic opening ceremonies. But the dark side is always there lurking like that madman who killed an American that very night.

Our American culture has much to be proud of: we're a people who look to the stars, not the ground. When presidential candidates tell us to turn down the thermostat, put on a sweater, stop eating so much and eat certain foods that they will determine, drive a Prius or better, walk ... that message meets bigtime resistance in a true American's heart. We're not about that. We're about the West, self-reliance, tomorrow. There is always a new frontier awaiting the American.

Well, I've gone and waxed philosophical. Let me bring this home to the LC situation. I think that the present schism in the LC is really just a grand reassertion of American culture. The LSM side has embraced the culture of Lee. The GLA is rejecting that. Since I stated above that all cultures have their strengths and weaknesses, you might infer that I must now say neither is right or wrong. Well that ain't my conclusion. The GLA is right. Why? Because guess where the GLA is located? In North America.

I'm done.

SC

Paul Cox

08-21-2008, 11:25 AM

Roger,

That's my biggest beef with them, bigger even than their idiotic quarantine. They're boring, incredibly, utterly boring. Sure, occasionally we're all boring. But the BB have perfected it to an art form. They ought to have a class in that at their seminary: "Lifeless Speaking 101." They could have one unit on how to cheerlead: EM could teach that. Then another on how to threaten and warn: MC could teach that. Another on how to use jargon no one understands: they could team teach that. And maybe a unit on long speaking: again, a team project.

The semester exam could be to have students give testimonies that never end. The rest of the class could pick up points for every rote Amen they uttered (one point per Amen) and the speaker would get an A if and only if he could put them all to sleep. He'd get an extra credit point for every Amen uttered from a sleeping soul.

I'm too hard. But hey, if the shoe fits ...

SC

Hey, you must be a teacher ;)

blessD

08-21-2008, 11:37 AM

I have to agree. And agree with Jane's comments on this as well.

I also think it goes deeper. We need to let our children encounter the opinions of the world. They do not need to be ignorant of the popular culture of the day, whether it is the trend to immorality, or efforts to define God our of existence through science and other academic pursuits. They need to have had a serious consideration of evolution, postmodern's "no absolute truth," and even many of society's ills before they leave the home. While there are valid reasons for home schooling, I have always tended away from it for this reason. It is better to send them to a Christian private school.

If we have an open relationship with our children, they can come and talk about anything. And even when we butt heads, they will know that we are not just being mean and controlling. The best way to prepare for life in the world is to begin that experience with an adviser. Who better than the ones who managed to keep you alive to age 5 and beyond.

(On the Christian private school suggestion, I remember someone (I think it was Ray Graver) talking about his daughter's experience with the girl's basketball team at the little Christian school she went to (Baptist, I think). It was not some "protected" environment, even if the adults and teachers thought it was. They stopped at a convenience store on the way to a tournament and most of the girls were shoplifting.)

The successes I have seen in this area (both mine and others) seem to have these key factors irrespective of the culture, background, or church community:

1. Unconditional love & open, unselfish communication
2. Early and continuous training & consistency in teaching
3. Prayer & Faith
4. Staying calm
5. Trusting your kids & helping them to know they can trust you
6. In the area of teaching the virtue of abstinence, follow steps 1-5.

OBW

08-21-2008, 11:45 AM

I see a conflict going on between the culture of "every tub must sit on its on bottom" and "it takes a village." Is child raising the exclusinve responsibility of the parents, or does the extended family need to get involved or how about the village, a la Hillary Clinton?Great points. And the one above is quite important because both are correct.

We are all responsible, yet none of us can do it alone. The way we do our individual parts is of utmost importance. But the way we involve the extended family, the church, and/or the "village" is also important. We surely do not accept just any kind of help, but we risk great peril if we think that excluding it all is the way.

Somewhere in there is the truth. I cannot say that we found the best mix. It did work fairly well. Might it have been better? Probably so. Do I have any idea what I should have changed? Not really.

OBW

08-21-2008, 11:47 AM

BlessD,

No particular comment but to say "amen." Your short list is more complete than my longer discussion of particular items.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-21-2008, 12:06 PM

Hope

08-21-2008, 12:24 PM

Hope further to my post #352 I would add the following:

1. Evangelical kids tend to marry young mainly due to raging hormones. In their early 20s they are ill-equipped and lack the maturity to handle marriage esp in the midst of the complexities and demands of modern life.

2. Hypocrisy of some high profile leaders who teach against divorce, get divorced themselves for non biblical reasons and remain in public ministry.

3. Lack of spiritual growth and depth among evangelicals of all ages i.e. the absence of a deep reservoir of wisdom inside of people.

4. Selfishness, self-centeredness and self-glorification which is exacerbated by the performance based atmosphere of "stars" on center stage with an audience watching as a church model.

5. Hyperactivity and number growth emphasis teaches multi-dimensional busyness as a way of life. When carried into marriages it can create an atmosphere of overcommitment and emotional exhaustion.

I of course would add the Satanic influence which you mentioned. My intent when it was first mentioned by you was not to blow it off but to suggest it was a given.

From your post #352

Hope I appreciate your last post addressed to me. To be clear the 34% is among evangelicals in general not the specific church I attend. In any event like you said even 5% is a tragedy.

I will ponder your question in more depth and answer in detail but one thing comes immediately to mind: a certain looseness in our theology i.e by overemphasizing God's acceptance, love, forgiveness this gives people the impression that they can do whatever they want including divorce and God will just forgive them. Which He will but I think the way it is taught gives license to some people esp those who are spiritually immature.

dj,

Thank you for an excellent summary of issues Christians are facing today. The entire American society is anti-family, and anti-good parenting. We Christians need to face this head on and be on the alert. I would say all of your points plus the post #352 are worthy of a serious consideration and sober minded search before the Lord for meeting each of those challenges.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all. (Without him we will not win but in Him we have won the victory we just don't always see it in the present time.)

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope

08-21-2008, 12:30 PM

Dear Forum,

I happened to notice that there have been over 5,000 views of this thread. Consider why? Could it be that there is a huge witness within that this is very very important to the Lord?

Just a thought.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Matt Anderson

08-21-2008, 01:01 PM

I believe from my start in the LC in the late 80’s, that I have attempted to live seeking the oneness of all believers as a practice, carried out by my faithfulness in following my Lord as led by the Holy Spirit. No, my walk has not been “idol free,” but I believe I have been led in the process of being stripped of the idols as I grow in the grace of our Lord and savior, Jesus! Yes, even though I am still in the “idolatry wrecked LC!”

A more practical presentation of idolatry would be in the recognizing of the two paths that have developed among the LC believers as shown by our brother Hope, in following the “ministry” as opposed to following the Lord.

Shawn

Shawn,

As for the parallel with the BB, I get what you are saying. Here is the only real big difference I see. I'm not out to sway a group of people under my wings and I don't have control over their lives by means of saying This thread is God's Oracle on the Earth Today.

I'm just speaking as truthfully as I know how for those who are willing to listen. I believe you can take it or leave it as the Lord leads.

As for any current idolatry in the LC... Please consider the following:

In 1986 almost all the elder's in the LC signed a written document that gave allegiance to the indispensable nature of Witness Lee to the Christian faith. This is an oath. This is specifically called out in the law of God as a NO, NO. This has a binding effect. It binds both the elders and the commoners who submit to the elder's authority into a very serious form of idolatry.

So, I am not just trying to say, "Idolatry is everywhere in the LC, idolatry is everywhere in the LC". I'm really not. The fact is that what is in the LC has hit a very high threshold of very serious idolatry. Through repentance of oath's like this one, I believe light will start to shine in. Light is needed.

I am reposting the letter here for your reconsideration in light of the recent discussions on idolatry and to give you a sense that I am not just crying "wolf" on this issue. There is something very substantively large here on this issue of idolatry and the LC.

I consider the following letter to simply be objective evidence of an underlying and pre-existing condition that was already fully in place. This oath further steeped the LC deeper into an idolatrous condition.

February 21, 1986
Anaheim, California

Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression.

We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy.

Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end.

Your brothers for the Lord's recovery

Matt (little drummer boy with just one drum for now)

Cal

08-21-2008, 01:21 PM

Well, I've gone and waxed philosophical.

Well, at least you didn't quote yourself.

Hope

08-21-2008, 01:26 PM

How bad can it get!!!

What a terrible insult to the headship of Christ, to the believers in Christ and to God's Administration!!!

Note date on letter, Feb. 1986. I left Dallas on 7/13/86. I spent two years reconsidering and studying the scriptures and the elders messages that were coming out. Finally, the booklet that attacked the elders in Anaheim came out. The incredible forsaking of the truth in the letter and booklet, both authored by BP, convinced me there was no turning back or repenting. Shortly after that I met with two LSM advocates and told them they were a division. They told me that my wife and I spoiled their meetings by our presence alone. We shook hands and never spoke again. They went their way and I went my way. I never spoke to any of the old Texas group until I spoke to Don Looper 11 years later.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Shawn

08-21-2008, 01:27 PM

Hi Matt,

No doubt more light is needed, the greatest drifting I have ever experienced from the Lord began with a self assurance that I was clear concerning a matter, I later had to repent over.

May the Lord continue to shine in our hearts that all the distractions that take our eyes from our Lord be exposed and diminish, that only His glory would remain.

Thanks,

Shawn

blessD

08-21-2008, 01:41 PM

Overflow

08-21-2008, 01:43 PM

The following words in CJ Mahaney's book Humility True Greatness, support this forum so strongly I believe.

'Without others help to see my self clearly, I'll listen to my own arguments, believe my own lies, and buy into my own delusions. I'll forget God's warning: "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice." (Proverbs 12:15).

Of course, I am accountable first to God, but I need to be humble enough to consider the spiritual blindness (because of the pockets of sin in my life) that the bible warns about in Hebrews 3:12-13.

The words Matt quoted from 1986 is shocking to me. This commitment was strongly against the Lord. Hope, sounds like you denounce this horrible letter/vow!?! Besides yourself, are there other elders that you are aware of that have repented for this vow!?!? Who is Don Looper? What's the healing process biblically to get out of such bondage!?!?

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 01:47 PM

I had this post written to Ohio about his question to Matt, but because the thread was moving on at lightning speed, I set it aside. It fits with the topic of idolatry that keeps surfacing, so I decided to post it now, even though it's a bit late.

Matt, what do you mean a "mixture of ... demonic influences" in the early days. Dear Ohio,

I believe that a mixture of demonic influences would be found in the hierarchy that was sown among us in the USA from the early days. You referred to those early days in an earlier post when you said, “How do we deal with the fact that nearly all the LC saints were the most dedicated and given bunch of Christians ever assembled. That's why I put all the blame on the leaders, and not the saints.”

If the reason you don’t blame the saints is that they were the “most dedicated and given bunch of Christians ever assembled” (ever? <-- :eek2: ) then how can you blame the leaders because they were also in that “elite” group. What happened to them that made them blameworthy? Did nothing happen to the common saints?

Travelling on down the road a few decades we start to see the result of the growth of the bad seed of hierarchy that was mixed in among us from the time of the early days. The 1986 letter Matt just posted is one big, ugly bud that was about to bring forth its ugly black fruit.

In what was about to happen, you see not just demonic influence, but demonic control, not over just the leaders, but the common saints.

In the "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" which Lee published a few years later, he pronounced John Ingalls and Bill Mallon as rebellious. This was a false accusation and a sinful act.

God’s Word says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Whoever says “amen” to something that is not true is bearing false witness, so common saints who agreed with this false accusation also sinned.

A common saint cannot excuse themselves by blaming the leader for providing false information. Each of us is responsible to give due diligence to know the truth. If we sin in ignorance it is still sin (See Lev. 4). If I hear such a demand from a leader, I should go to God and ask Him what is true. Then I should ask John Ingalls and Bill Mallon for myself about what was happening. After gathering information I can make my own determination about what is true and decide for myself which master I will serve.

WL also required that all the saints quarantine these men. Whoever submitted to this directive, sinned against God, because he/she was submitting to someone other than God alone. You cannot serve two masters. If you obey a leader to commit sin, you have disobeyed God. You have bowed to another master and have another god. You are in violation of commandment two which shows that anyone who bows to and serves another god is committing idolatry. In this case, that would be leaders and common saints alike. A group isn't to blame. I am. You are. Whoever bowed bears the blame.

When I reduce things down to measuring my own behavior by the commandments of God, then suddenly everything, including the definition of idolatry, becomes a lot simpler and clearer. That's one big example. I think you can see there are many more.

Hope said earlier that the root cause of all that went wrong was deputy authority. I agree that deputy authority was a huge part of the problem, but it wasn’t the root. More later.

Thankful Jane

Cal

08-21-2008, 01:56 PM

Why do true seekers often end up in weird groups? Besides the quite definite possibility that there just aren't enough non-weird groups to hold all the true seekers, I would say that another explanation is that today's idealist without ideas is tomorrow's fanatic.

Said another way, one way to increase enthusiasm for an ideal is to discourage ideas, which is why almost all fanatical groups are suspicious of independent thought.

Matt Anderson

08-21-2008, 02:05 PM

Besides yourself, are there other elders that you are aware of that have repented for this vow!?!?

Process,

I'm not aware of too many elders that have reconsidered their signature. I know there are some and I know that there were a small number of the 400+ who recanted shortly after they signed. Here is one elder who wrote about this more recently with some good insight into the situation. (Click Here (http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=39376))

Matt

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 02:49 PM

I believe that a mixture of demonic influences would be found in the hierarchy that was sown among us in the USA from the early days. ... In what was about to happen, you see not just demonic influence, but demonic control, not over just the leaders, but the common saints.

Matt & TJ,

Demons again, eh? Sin. Idols. These charges are so severe -- and so ridiculous -- that I don't even like discussing them.

That letter that you proffered, Matt, as some kind of proof that there was idolatry ... this is the best you can do? A bunch of men pledging allegiance to a kind of oneness? Do I agree with that letter? No. But to parade it around as some kind of display of idolatry is absurd and offensive.

And to tell you the truth, Matt, I'm gettin' a little weary of you telling me I have been an idol worshipper. You may have been one back in your day in the RV, your mother may have been one, but I wasn't and I don't appreciate being told I was.

SC

Suannehill

08-21-2008, 03:14 PM

I don't know about letters or overt demonic manifestations...but I DID see and hear plenty that was superstitious and Lee-worship.

1. 1976 an older mature sister told me that since they all left the denominations and came to the church...no one has died...say what?????
2. You have to marry someone "in the church"
3.We were told how WLee kept his bookshelf, sock drawer, his eating habits...
4. We could not get through 20 minutes without someone invoking the name of Witness Lee.
5. The brothers are always right, even if they are 100% wrong do what they say.
6. Just make all of the meetings and God will take care of your kids.
7. Bro Lee will not die till the Lord cames back (that was just a personal belief by someone, not a teaching)

There are hundreds more that I think you all could add to the list.
Are there demonic elements in those things? Of course!

OBW

08-21-2008, 03:28 PM

I still think that the general line of inquiry into idolatry is not that profitable. And Shawn has said it in a different way:

First, your critical examination of the fruit of the hearts of the LC’ers falling into idolatry, seems to parallel the BB’s “examination” of contemporary Christian music leading to idolatry that is being enjoyed by the Young People around the GLA. To argue against their criticism is to attempt to prove there are no idols before the listeners; and who can say we are without idols? So, your argument is valid only on the base that anything and everything can lead to idolatry, or, who is without idols cast the first stone.While I am more than sure that there is plenty of idolatry in the LC, are we really able to discern what is and what is not idolatry in any particular LC member or leader? No matter how hard you try to make a case, I believe the answer must be “No.”

Why? Because we do not know the thoughts and intents of the heart. All we see are actions, and they may give an indication, but they do not reveal the truth of the heart.

Outside of the LC, there are many who would be excited to get to hear certain particular Christian minister who has come to town for some kind of seminar. Is this idolatrous? For one person entering the seminary, the answer may be “Yes.” For the one following them in the door, the answer is “No.” Can we tell the difference from the outside? No.

Neither can we make such sweeping statements about any of the LC members or leaders. And if we are simply painting everything that could come between a person and Christ as idolatry, then search your own heart. Is ambition idolatry? Maybe. Paul mentioned that some may seek to be an elder (or desire to be, or whatever the translation you look at says). This is a level of ambition. Is this ambition sinful? No. But some ambition is. Some ambition becomes something that is put above Christ. In the broader definition of idolatry, it now fits. Do we know where any particular ambition fits? We may guess, and that guess may be good in some cases. But do we really know?

Rather than collect a lot of things together that we think we know the underlying heart about and put a label on it — idolatry — why don’t we just look at each clear error for what it is. It is unnecessary to search the heart about why Benson took a trip to Houston to slander Jane. That he did says enough. He did the deed. It speaks volumes without the label of idolatry attached to its motives. It even says something about whether he should be in leadership.

It is unnecessary to figure out why a series of elders and their wives went to such great effort to convince BlessD to marry someone she didn’t want to marry. They did it (unfortunately successfully) and the consequences fall partly (mostly?) at their feet. (We can never avoid our own part, no matter how small we think it is.)

Was any of this because they put something ahead of Christ? Isn’t every error we make for that reason? Isn’t the reason that we are unable to forgive that person (or whatever) because we put our holding the anger/offense over and above the command of Christ to forgive? Doesn’t that technically fit the definition of idolatry if it is something that is simply above Christ? Doesn’t that make the label of idolatry almost meaningless?

Now I’m not diminishing true idolatry, even the kind where some have elevated the LC, or Lee and his teachings effectively above Christ. But can we truly identify that (other than within ourselves)? Or can we merely speculate, and if we have the position, make that speculation to the person potentially guilty of the sin so that they might be awakened from their stupor and see their error. I do not see that identifying the LC leaders as complicit in the underlying problems of the LC second generation and/or their marriages as due to idolatry solves anything. Instead it seems more to be a way to point a finger and say “that’s really bad.” We already know that. But we’re going to keep saying it over and over. “Let’s all say ‘that’s really bad’ together for three minutes.”

I won’t actually put it in, but that “beating a dead horse” smilie is tempting right now.

Last. As I said in my second paragraph (the first one after Shawn’s quote), “I believe.” This is my opinion. Some think that this discussion is important. I wasn’t sure at first, but now do not agree. I have now said why. Consider it. It would be better to not just dismiss it without thought. But either way, take it or leave it as you will.

Matt Anderson

08-21-2008, 03:52 PM

Rather than collect a lot of things together that we think we know the underlying heart about and put a label on it — idolatry — why don’t we just look at each clear error for what it is. It is unnecessary to search the heart about why Benson took a trip to Houston to slander Jane. That he did says enough. He did the deed. It speaks volumes without the label of idolatry attached to its motives. It even says something about whether he should be in leadership.

Here is my response to both OBW and SpeakersCorner.

OBW, you're right we need to look at objective evidence. That's exactly what I offered up. I offered up a letter where almost all of the LC leadership swore their allegiance to the indispensable nature of Witness Lee's leadership.

SC, it's fact and yes it is clear and objective evidence of idolatry. If you don't think you fell into it, then good for you. If it upsets you, then show me my offense against you. How have I sinned against you by telling you that you were party to idolatry? Do I bear false witness? No. I do not. I am speaking the truth. I'm not judging the hearts here. I'm presenting objective facts and examples. Sorry, you can't hide from them.

If you don't think that letter was serious, then that is your estimation of it. My estimation before the Lord is that the letter was (and still is) serious. It was a pledge to a man other than Jesus Christ. It was an oath to a system.

The Lord asks for our personal obedience to His commands and our sole attention. Almost all the eldership of the LC was compromised on this point.

Would you like to pick the letter apart and prove me wrong? How about the historical context of it? I know a lot about what went into the formulation of the letter. I know who probably offered it up. I know how important it was from their point of view that a signature sheet was made and everyone was asked to sign and noticed if they didn't do it.

Now back to yesterday. You offered up Jeremiah 2:1-2 as evidence of how God appreciated the devotion of the children of Israel in the wilderness. I agree. He did appreciate their devotion.

Jer 2:2 Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, I remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals; how thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.

At the same time, He did not ignore their idolatry:

Act 7:42-43 But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, Did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices Forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? (43) And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of the god Rephan, The figures which ye made to worship them: And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

He did not appreciate their idolatry.

Yes, idolatry is pervasive. It infects every aspect of the lives of almost all of the children of Israel in the OT. Steering clear of idolatry was the exception and not the rule. According to the Word of God, we each should acknowledge this reality in a present context.

It's not me saying that you should acknowledge it. It's Paul.

1Co 10:1-14 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) and did all eat the same spiritual food; (4) and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (5) Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. (7) Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. (8) Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. (9) Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents. (10) Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. (11) Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. (12) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (13) There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it. (14) Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

And John.

1Jo 5:18-21 We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not. (19) We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one. (20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (21) My little children, guard yourselves from idols.

So, if you are going to put up an defense against what is being said, try a better one.

Are there no demons?
Is it impossible for you to have been party to some idolatry?
If the letter wasn't a clear act of an idolatrous condition, then what exactly do you say that it was?

I do understand the various attempts to provide some 'balance'. I don't have a problem with any of them. It's good for the reader to consider all the inputs.

Matt

P.S. Idolatry came up because of the impacts of the LC on the family. Idolatry has just the same kinds of impact on the family as what has been described on this thread.

Cal

08-21-2008, 04:21 PM

Matt & TJ,

That letter that you proffered, Matt, as some kind of proof that there was idolatry ... this is the best you can do? A bunch of men pledging allegiance to a kind of oneness? Do I agree with that letter? No. But to parade it around as some kind of display of idolatry is absurd and offensive.

Not as absurd and offensive as that letter.

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-21-2008, 04:46 PM

Idolatry comes in many shapes and sizes. Anything the usurps the place of Christ on the throne of our hearts is an idol. I have no doubt that for some in the LCS Lee is on the throne. The letter in question is merely a manifestation of this idolatry.

OBW

08-21-2008, 05:02 PM

While the NT verses are not entirely clear, for the most part, the use of the term idolatry in the Bible is not some catch-all for everything that we turn our attention to. It is mostly about actual active worship of some other god or image of a god.

I do not disagree with the general expansion of the term as it gets to issues of our hearts. But I do not believe that you can show objective evidence of idolatry with the examples provided, although each one of them points to impure hearts and motives and says all they need to say about the persons that did what they did.

But have we accomplished anything by calling it idolatry? Have we made their error worse than it already is? Or have we made ourselves feel better by pointing out how bad they are? We know they are bad. As John McCain recently said, there is still evil in the world. Some of it is the BBs.

It is sort of like noting that someone killed someone else. It is then determined that that person hated the other one. Now it's a hate crime. So we should execute them twice.

My point, and I think SC's (at least at some level) is that this is not accomplishing anything except making us madder than @#&$^ at those dirty idolatrous $&^$#s.

I think this horse is dead. Yeah, at some level, you can sweep it into idolatry.

What is the real reason that we are looking into this? Will it help any of us who suffered at their hands get any better? Only to the extent that we come to realize that they were wrong to do what they did. I think we already got there. Even where they did it with more pure motives and we can't find any true idolatry, it was still wrong and not our faults. Heaping more stones on them won't make the pain go away. It is an expression of anger, and no matter what the psychologists say, hitting a pillow does not really help. It just reinforces your anger. It may diffuse the rage, but it does nothing for the anger because it does not address the actual issue. We have to heal from it. We have to forgive them even if we would not let them or their voices within 10 miles of us again.

Still my opinion. And I'm entitled to it.

Nell

08-21-2008, 06:18 PM

Matt,

I can't help but wonder why there is so much resistance to discussing this topic of idolatry. Why so much denial? It's like pullin' teeth. It must not be a "dead horse" after all. What's the worst that could happen if we all are exposed down to our core as people who worshipped at the altar of Witness Lee. I'll confess now that I did it. By God's mercy, He shined the light and I confessed my sin.

If so many want to "drop it", I think that's the very reason we need to pursue it. Someone I know said that once. :)

Nell

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 07:10 PM

Nell,

I'm not afraid to admit anything about myself that is wrong. If I worshiped idols, I'd admit it. I've confessed many personal mistakes I made over the years in these discussion groups. It isn't that tough for me to do.

My problem is, I don't buy Matt's definition of idolatry and I don't buy his mother's definition of demonics. These are serious charges and the level of proof must be very high. Matt's production of the '86 letter does not rise to the level of proof I think is required and I plan to respond to it. Jane's accusations of demons (or evil spirits as she previously said) has offered no real evidence.

You have no problem admitting to this because you have completely rejected the LC. I have not. I wonder if I came online here and started accusing all those here who have left the LC as being under the influence of demons and worshiping idols what kind of response I would get.

SC

TLFisher

08-21-2008, 07:28 PM

So the idea that several people have put forth about group situations, 6 or 8 people hanging out doing something together is a great idea.

This thread has traveled over many paths, but I think it is still on topic -- how does the LC influence effect children, families.

FPO, I just have to share this experience. It's from a Young People's Conference held at a camp near Yucaipa, CA in the spring of 1985. Talk about young people hanging out. That's exactly what we were doing in mid-afternoon. There was about 3-4 of us high school brothers from my locality with one of the brothers talking to a sister and several of her friends from a Orange County locality. Suddenly a serving brother comes running over and promptly admonishes us for talking to one another.
I'm on board for dissauding high schoolers from dating, but from not talking? How could they get used to social interaction without having to shudder in condemnation should this brother or that sister start speaking to her or him.
Maybe times have changed how the young people are taken care of? Maybe it's ok for young people of opposite genders to communicate without bizarre overreactions in 2008? In 1985, it wasn't.

Terry

finallyprettyokay

08-21-2008, 08:51 PM

Terry:

You know who gets it right with activities for the young people? Mormans. I know I talk about them alot, but just remember I am in the SLC region, and believe me, the LDS church is noticeable here :eek:.

Most of their buildings have gyms in them, basketball courts and all. They have dances :eek: and all sorts of things. They have 'wards' (the designated meetings) that are Singles Wards --- all sorts of single adults in them. And they have College Wards --- obviously, college kids. They figured out how to help young people stay pure (so they can get married in the Temple :eek:) and stay busy at the same time. I know of one college girl who converted just because she figured being in that church increased her chances of getting married :eek:. It did.

Something to think about --- they get it right in this area.

fpo

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 08:59 PM

One reason to talk about idolatry is because we don't seem to know what it is. The whole Old Testament is about God's people going after other gods and worshipping idols. The New Testament says plainly that these things are written for our learning. So what's wrong with us learning?

I used to wonder why there was so much talk about idols and other gods in the O.T. because it didn’t seem to apply to us anymore. Paul, however, was very clear that it does apply.

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. (I Cor. 10:11-14)

In the Old Testament those who practiced idolatry came under all the curses God had warned them about, including harm to their children. Since we’re here talking about the effects of the LC system on our children, it seems like we ought to get a grasp on this matter and how it applies to us.

There are some here who seem to think that those talking about idolatry are in need of some kind of bat with which to whack on others. ??? I don’t see that at all. I’d say the topic is about God warning us in order to rescue us from danger.

God sent Ezekiel to the house of Israel to speak His words of warning to them. In advance He warned Ezekiel repeatedly that He was being sent to a rebellious house and that he was not to pay attention to whether they heard or rejected his speaking. God told Ezekiel that if he didn’t speak to warn the wicked, their blood would be on his hands, but if he did speak and they didn’t listen, then their blood would be on their own hands. It seems that God was pretty serious about Ezekiel delivering His message.

Guess His big topic was?

Eze 14:6-8 … Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

As to whether or not this topic is important, I think I’ll go with God’s and Paul’s assessment.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

08-21-2008, 09:10 PM

My problem is, I don't buy Matt's definition of idolatry and I don't buy his mother's definition of demonics. SC

So what are your definitions?

I wonder if I came online here and started accusing all those here who have left the LC as being under the influence of demons and worshiping idols what kind of response I would get. SC If you made a good case, I'd certainly listen. I do not want to be found loving or serving anyone but Jesus.

Thankful Jane

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 10:39 PM

SpeakersCorner

08-21-2008, 10:44 PM

So what are your definitions?

Actually, Thankful Jane, the burden to define is upon you. You are the one who has accused the LC of being demon-influenced from day one. What is your definition of demon (or evil spirits as you formerly called it) influence?

I'm also waiting for you to give some concise evidence that Witness Lee was under the influence of evil spirits from the outset of the recovery in the U.S.

SC

Paul Cox

08-21-2008, 11:18 PM

When Ron Kangas stands on the pulpit and declares that Witness Lee is the "Acting God," that's idolatry.

But for the average Living Stream Church member, I'm not so sure. They will be judged, as will we, according to the heart. There is little doubt that the "Blended Brothers," for the most part, are guilty of idolizing Witness Lee. We know this because of their words. And the Lord Jesus said that out of the mouth comes the abundance of the heart.

Roger

blessD

08-21-2008, 11:37 PM

I had some terrible experiences in the local church, but I don't get the focus on idolatry and/or demons. Some of my immediate family members remain involved, and they are terrific people. I don't think they are idolatrous and I don't get the feeling of demons when I am around them. I detest the place and the whole Witness Lee deal, but I respect and trust their decision. I think many of the Christians there are sincere too and not evil as some posts portray.

I don't see a lot of difference in this extreme and the LC members condemning Catholic church members for being a part of the Great Harlot. At the end of the day, isn't it about the heart?

Nell

08-22-2008, 03:54 AM

...I'm also waiting for you to give some concise evidence that Witness Lee was under the influence of evil spirits from the outset of the recovery in the U.S....SC

SC,

Do you think Satan himself, as God's sworn archenemy does his work himself, or do you think he has worker bees (demons) to do his work for him? If the sins of Witness Lee, which can be traced back to the outset of the recovery in the US, are not due to the influence of the evil spirits sent forth by Satan himself, to what do you attribute this sinful behavior?

Satan is not omnipresent. He is not omniscient. He cannot and does not do his work alone. Does God have another enemy? Inquiring minds want to know.

Nell

YP0534

08-22-2008, 05:22 AM

It does seem to me that someone who writes using unfamiliar terms or terms used in unfamiliar ways has an obligation to define those terms for the sake of their readers who otherwise may generally be put off by the unintelligible writing that results.

Sometimes, in a book, an author will even include something like a glossary to help with those terms which are intended by the author to have a meaning different from the ordinary definition.

At least, I think I may have seen that done somewhere.

Thanks for your helpful comments, SC.

Ohio

08-22-2008, 05:28 AM

I know you, Ohio, have some issues with TC and I understand where you're coming from. But have you ever considered how the brothers that were "trained" by him are so much more interesting a people than those coming out of the BB boot camp? Compare the speaking of Peter Debelak's father with any of the BB: is there any doubt who's better?

SC, I totally agree. And I have come to believe that both types of reports are true. All the good reports and all the bad reports about TC are true ... hence the dilemma -- some love him and some quarantine him.

You mentioned PD's dad ... but don't forget that he, like many others, can't work with TC any longer ... and not for messages like "marry the one you love."

Let me say this too ... did TC share that "marriage gem" just because she was from SoCal ... knowing that could heighten the contrast between him and the blendeds?

I have said this repeatedly ... I love brother Titus and appreciate his ministry, but can no longer accept the pattern of mistreatments he displayed, and often got duplicated in his workers. He never needed to do this. He was "shooting himself in the foot." He learned bad things from WL.

.................................................. ................................................

I see that this thread has really moved on ... again ... now to idolatry ... what's next? ... I can't keep up! ... kind of like the old Bereans "cry room" thread ...

The good thing is, they're not "beating up" on Hope any more ... the bad thing is that SC is now "getting it" ...

Hey SC, I'll ask Hope to Fedex that 2x4 back to you ... I had passed it on to him ... maybe he don't need it any more! :D

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 05:37 AM

I'm also waiting for you to give some concise evidence that Witness Lee was under the influence of evil spirits from the outset of the recovery in the U.S.

SC

I've heard many people say that they thought Witness Lee was repentant during the early years he was in the US (early 60's) about what had happened in Taiwan. As a result they claim that he was in a more blessed condition and even though he got off track later on, he was doing okay at that time.

If Lee was still up to his same ole' tricks during that window of time and there was no time in which 'fruits of repentance' were there would it make any difference in your mind?

What exactly would you consider to be 'concise evidence' of demonic influence for Lee? Give a hypothetical example.

Matt

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 05:43 AM

Matt,

I guess my biggest objection to your judgment of the LC is the level of accusation you take. I am sure every person and group has some hidden idols in the saddlebags (as did Rachel) that at some point in the journey become exposed and must be discarded. If that were all you were pointing out, I'd have no problem.

So, if I say that not every person in the LC was in idolatry would you be happy? What level of watering down would I need to accomplish to make you happy with the fact that something God hates was systematically integrated into the LC? (And yes, I'll offer more proof of it even though there is already a ton of it on the other forum).

Remember, I'm happy to agree with your Jeremiah 2:1-2 verses in relation to the LC. To what extent are you willing to accept that there was idolatry. Was if 5%, 10%, 50%, 75%? Was it systemic? Was it just a few individuals? Be specific.

I think it affected everyone. I think the exceptions were very limited. I'm being specific and I'm happy to be wrong. I making definitions and supporting them Biblically. Your defense so far is very subpar in my view.

Look, I think those so-called pictures of Jesus hanging in 90% of the churches of the world are idols. But I certainly don't think the churches that have them are idolatrous and every single member is guilty of idol worship simply for attending meetings there.

SC

Have you heard about the 'shrine' to Witness Lee in Taiwan? How about the cemetery built here in the US? How about the fact that Witness Lee's name is invoked more often that Jesus Christ's in most of the LSM/LC meetings these days?

Do any of these count towards my claims of systemic and widespread idolatry in your mind?

Please remember where this got started. We were talking about the impact of the LC system on the next generation. I pulled out the topic of idolatry because God is very specific in his judgment against idolatry. It will affect subsequent generations because of the deeds of the fathers. I'm actually still on that topic. There was a systemic problem that was pervasive. I've shown evidence and there are others that have spoken up to say, "Yeah, guys, there's a real problem here."

Matt

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 06:06 AM

I don't see a lot of difference in this extreme and the LC members condemning Catholic church members for being a part of the Great Harlot. At the end of the day, isn't it about the heart?

BlessD,

You right about this. Idolatry is a tough discussion because it seems other-worldly to people. It's taken me a long time to get a grasp on it from a Biblical and Godly point of view. It has become an exercise for me to try to look at things from the Lord's point of view because it has helped me so much to guard against the wiles of the Enemy. Most have all but forgotten about idolatry except as it applies to the Roman Catholic Church. This leaves most with their guard down.

Let me give a current example that applies to me to help explain where I am coming from on this issue. I'll start to translate from 'other-worldly' terms into modern day ones. It may seem random at the start, but if you follow it through I think you may start to see where I am coming from. It will take more than just one post.

Let's say you take a job. Let's say that it turns out that the company you went to work for is run by some pretty bad people. They are not downright criminal, but they are so greedy that they can't see straight to know how to conduct business in a fair an equitable manner towards customers or employees. Let's say you survive in this job for a longer period of time (more than 12 months). As you do your work in an honest and sincere way you find yourself confronted with situations that you did not create but that start positioning you to compromise your integrity (i.e. moral uprightness).

For example, your managers tell the customer they will get something in a certain timeframe. You don't find out what the customer has been told after you are assigned to do the work. You look at the work and realize, it's not possible.

What do you do here? You talk to your boss. Your boss says, we can't tell the customer differently. We already promised them we will get it done by that point in time.

So you go to work, knowing that it cannot be done by that point in time. You try not to tell the customer anything, but you are compromised. You have to work directly with the customer throughout the process of the work and from time to time they ask about the timeliness of the work. You never tell an outright lie, but you don't tell them what you shared with your boss about the impossibility of timely completion.

You didn't create the situation/environment, but now that you are in it you are compromised. In your heart, you intend to do your best. You would never do this of your own accord. So, your heart is good, but your situation is bad. Let's say that the work ends up failing as you anticipated. Now, you have done wrong to the customer.

Are you innocent in this situation? Why or why not?

Matt

P.S. I'm drawing out a point here about how people become environmentally compromised by a situation. It is relevant to this discussion. The choice of a job example is because a job is mandatory for most. The LC became mandatory in the same manner because people really thought it was the one true thing of God on the earth. There weren't options.

blessD

08-22-2008, 06:18 AM

Thanks Matt,

The analogy explained it very well - I better understand where many are coming from on the idolatry point.

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 06:42 AM

Thanks Matt,

The analogy explained it very well - I better understand where many are coming from on the idolatry point.

By the way, my example isn't hypothetical. It's been my life for a while. The Lords been working on me to open my eyes. It's taken me a while to be willing to even look.

Matt

P.S. I've been looking at the issues of idolatry long before this job, but the job has helped to bring it into focus for me in regards to the LC situation. My jobs have been my "trainer" when it comes to the Lord's instruction.

Ohio

08-22-2008, 06:56 AM

You know who gets it right with activities for the young people? Mormans. I know I talk about them alot, but just remember I am in the SLC region, and believe me, the LDS church is noticeable here .

Most of their buildings have gyms in them, basketball courts and all. They have dances and all sorts of things. They have 'wards' (the designated meetings) that are Singles Wards --- all sorts of single adults in them. And they have College Wards --- obviously, college kids. They figured out how to help young people stay pure ...

FPO, how very right you are. Isn't there a verse about the gentiles being wiser than the children of God?

I have found that the "powers that be" are often far more interested in the maintenance of their own powers, than in the welfare of our children.

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 07:02 AM

Actually, Thankful Jane, the burden to define is upon you. You are the one who has accused the LC of being demon-influenced from day one. What is your definition of demon (or evil spirits as you formerly called it) influence?First you say you don't buy my definition, which means you think I gave one. Next you say the burden id on me is to give a definition. So which is it?

I'll take this as your way of refusing to answer my question. That's okay by me. I will also take your refusal to mean that you don't have a definition or that if you do, you don't care to share it and help us understand what you believe about the topic, or that you just want to give me a hard time.

In the interest of seeking truth, not becoming a Webster's contributor, I was already planning on sharing more of what I see about the topics of idolatry and how Satan's hosts fit into that picture. I am not trying to produce a formal definition for others.

I am open to input on the topic itself to help clarify. However, I don't hear any of that yet.

I'm more than willing to be proven wrong in my assessments, but not just by a few statements that people don't think there are demons involved. I'd like to see the scriptural basis for saying this.

I'm also waiting for you to give some concise evidence that Witness Lee was under the influence of evil spirits from the outset of the recovery in the U.S.SC I don't remember making this statement. If I did, please quote me so I can see the context.

Thankful Jane

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 07:11 AM

I see that this thread has really moved on ... again ... now to idolatry ... what's next? ... I can't keep up! ... kind of like the old Bereans "cry room" thread ...

The good thing is, they're not "beating up" on Hope any more ... the bad thing is that SC is now "getting it" ...

Hey SC, I'll ask Hope to Fedex that 2x4 back to you ... I had passed it on to him ... maybe he don't need it any more! :D

Ohio,

I get the fact that I am in the extreme here. I'm going to stay out here in the extreme for a while and really backup what is being said. The main reason why is because it is one of the root causes of the destruction of families and something that has had a lot of impact on the 2nd generation. I really can back this up. I know that not everyone will buy it. That's fine with me and I will defend my position rigorously on this issue. I'll also challenge the likes of SC and Hope when the defense that is attempted is subpar.

And yes, there is a Cry Room of sorts on this forum. I can Leed the way over there and show it to you.

For years, you listened to Lee castigate the RCC and didn't have a problem with that. Why do you have a problem with this?

I'm wondering if you realize that your stance has completely changed based on one apparent factor.

When you thought that these issues are pointed only at the Leedership then you didn't have as much of a problem with it. However, when it changes to possibly apply to everyone (Leedership and Leemen), then you interpret it differently. I'm not 'beating you up', just making a pretty simple observation for consideration.

No one, including me, likes it when the topic points homeward.

Matt

P.S. Couldn't resist a few Leeisms in memory of Reuben.

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 07:11 AM

What exactly would you consider to be 'concise evidence' of demonic influence for Lee? Give a hypothetical example.

Oh, how about a report that someone saw something floating around in the room. I'm serious. I recently heard such a report from a woman about her husband, a psychologist, who was dealing with what he thought was a demon-possessed young woman.

Evil spirits are dark and scary. Your evidence better be dark and scary. Something that won't have to be spun to appear evil.

SC

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 07:14 AM

Oh, how about a report that someone saw something floating around in the room. I'm serious. I recently heard such a report from a woman about her husband, a psychologist, who was dealing with what he thought was a demon-possessed young woman.

Evil spirits are dark and scary. Your evidence better be dark and scary. Something that won't have to be spun to appear evil.

SC

Can demonic activity be more subtle?

Matt

OBW

08-22-2008, 07:26 AM

I've heard many people say that they thought Witness Lee was repentant during the early years he was in the US (early 60's) about what had happened in Taiwan. As a result they claim that he was in a more blessed condition and even though he got off track later on, he was doing okay at that time.

If Lee was still up to his same ole' tricks during that window of time and there was no time in which 'fruits of repentance' were there would it make any difference in your mind?

What exactly would you consider to be 'concise evidence' of demonic influence for Lee? Give a hypothetical example.

Matt
To All,

While I think that pursuing this in terms of "demons" is a waste of time, the underlying question as to whether Lee was ever anything more than soft-peddling during the 60s and early 70s has always been a significant issue for me.

So acting in an evil manner has now been promoted to all-out demon possession?

Even if you can make a case, we have moved far from the topic, which was describing how the LC was responsible for the failings of their children.

The examples of demonic influence in the scripture, OT and NT, were much more than just doing badly. The whole of the Jewish rituals, especially those of the Pharisees, was corrupted from what God had ordained. Surely that was influenced by Satan.

Nell has said, “Do you think Satan himself, as God's sworn archenemy does his work himself, or do you think he has worker bees (demons) to do his work for him?” On one hand, I agree. But when Satan throws his fiery darts at us and we respond to act according to them, we do not suggest that we have become Satan possessed. Demons effectively do the same thing. I am not denying actual demon possession. But it is not the norm. People follow the suggestions too easily for Satan or his demons to need to actually possess us very often.

Even when Jesus addressed Peter by saying "get thee behind me Satan" he did not put his hands on Peter and command that a demon come out.

I must protest that this has become everything we have cursed the LC for in terms of their constant mantras of "poor pitiful Christianity, Whore of Babylon Catholicism, demonic Judaism." We should now tie weights on them and throw them in the water. If they float, they are witches. If not, they are not guilty — but dead.

If we continue this folly, it will be without me in any part of this forum. I must say that this is becoming a dark alley that even I am beginning to fear. My desire is to help people see the error in the LC doctrines and teachings, to help people deal with the pains of their sufferings, and to help some extricate themselves from that system of errors.

I really questioned SC months ago when he slipped away from the BARM for a period. I may not have agreed with his position, but he had a point of order that even I would not accept at the time. This line of reasoning, although very different in character, is worse that what he was dealing with at the time. I have indirectly been accused of being in denial because I think this is terribly off-topic and much ado about nothing. I do not think that idolatry is meaningless or not a possible issue. But our discussion here is nothing more than a bunch of Pharisees pointing at the rest of the scum of society and pounding on our chests.

And the first harsh word back is proof of my point. I doubt that the people who should hear this are really listening. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but I honestly believe that if you merely take offense instead of listening and considering, then you missed the point.

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 07:29 AM

First you say you don't buy my definition, which means you think I gave one. Next you say the burden on me is to give a definition. So which is it?

Sorry, Jane, but this won't fly. It was your implied definition I said I wasn't buying. You have one, of course. What you don't have is a clearly stated one.

I'll take this as your way of refusing to answer my question. That's okay by me. I will also take your refusal to mean that you don't have a definition or that if you do, you don't care to share it and help us understand what you believe about the topic, or that you just want to give me a hard time.

Huh? I've got no reason to refuse to answer your question. I would define evil spirits as the minions of Satan flying around a person, tempting, taunting, influencing. Was there any of that going on in Lee's quarters that you know of? Got any recorded phone calls with that kind of evidence?

I'm more than willing to be proven wrong in my assessments, but not just by a few statements that people don't think there are demons involved. I'd like to see the scriptural basis for saying this.

If some whacko decided to make the claim the George W. Bush was influenced by evil spirits in initiating the Iraq war, dontcha think they'd need to offer a little evidence? Would the rest of us be required to prove he wasn't?

I don't remember making this statement. If I did, please quote me so I can see the context.

It was on the other forum. Do you really expect me root back through all that and find your quote? You did say the following in this thread: "I believe that a mixture of demonic influences would be found in the hierarchy that was sown among us in the USA from the early days. ... In what was about to happen, you see not just demonic influence, but demonic control, not over just the leaders, but the common saints."

It's statements like this I'm reacting to.

SC

Ohio

08-22-2008, 07:31 AM

Ohio,

I get the fact that I am in the extreme here. I'm going to stay out here in the extreme for a while and really backup what is being said. The main reason why is because it is one of the root causes of the destruction of families and something that has had a lot of impact on the 2nd generation. I really can back this up. I know that not everyone will buy it. That's fine with me and I will defend my position rigorously on this issue. I'll also challenge the likes of SC and Hope when the defense that is attempted is subpar.

And yes, there is a Cry Room of sorts on this forum. I can Leed the way over there and show it to you.

For years, you listened to Lee castigate the RCC and didn't have a problem with that. Why do you have a problem with this?

I'm wondering if you realize that your stance has completely changed based on one apparent factor.

When you thought that these issues are pointed only at the Leedership then you didn't have as much of a problem with it. However, when it changes to possibly apply to everyone (Leedership and Leemen), then you interpret it differently. I'm not 'beating you up', just making a pretty simple observation for consideration.

No one, including me, likes it when the topic points homeward.

MattReuben, is that you? :D

Matt, eventually I and my family suffered much when I "put into action" all that WL "hate talk" against the RCC back during the Revelations Training. One brother who initially helped me in the LC, wanted me to go back to the RCC and "publicly resign" and rebuke those people. Fortunately I didn't do that. But ... I did accuse my family of idolatry, and it did little good ... other than to puff me up as some present day "Elijah." Did you read my story about getting a rope tied to my car and pulling down that huge idol a couple doors down from the Cleveland Meeting Hall? Fortunately, I didn't do that either.

I do believe the loving gospel of grace is far more effective.

Matt, it does NOT help to take extreme views here. When you said "challenge the likes of SC and Hope," it seems to me that you are more bent on creating enemies than helping people. This is why I appear in my posts to be concerned.

And just to prevent any confusion, the joke about the 2x4 was in no way intended to hit someone, but rather to "prop them up" when the pressure is on.

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 07:37 AM

OBW,

Who ever said 'demon-possession'? You. That's it. Your introduction of this is your bad in the process of dialogue. No one else.

To be honest, I don't care whether you call out the demonic activity or not. We can focus on the specifics and the deeds and connect it to the underlying sins. Where there is sin, there is probably Satan's influence. So, if you can accept that then good enough. If you can't accept that then we have a real problem.

Let's be clear. It was Hope that started this line of reasoning at the beginning of the thread if you want to be factual about the introduction of influences from the dark side. He said, "remember there is an enemy". You didn't object to that.

He did this to deflect attention from some aspects of individual responsibility for sin. I started pushing on this fact by drawing out the issue of idolatry. Idolatry is a sin. It is a deed that each one of us can commit and must take responsibility for it when we do. If we take care of our sin, then God will protect us from the Enemy.

Matt

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 07:37 AM

Can demonic activity be more subtle?

Matt

This is why I would like a definition here. Without one, any claim could be made.

As for your question, I don't believe demons are ever shown to be subtle in the Bible. You got guys tied up by trees away from the village, foaming at the mouth type deals. I'd hardly call that subtle.

I just did a search of the term "demon" throughout the Bible and couldn't find any NT references that would indicate subtle demons. Maybe you can do better.

SC

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 07:40 AM

On one hand, I agree. But when Satan throws his fiery darts at us and we respond to act according to them, we do not suggest that we have become Satan possessed.OBW, you are introducing an idea that has not been represented here. This is not a discussion about demon possession. I think the introduction of this into your argument is what you call a straw-man.

I am more than willing to drop the term demon or evil spirit and just say devil. I'm not into demonology or casting out demons, etc. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the enemy behind the scenes. These terms that SC jumped on were mainly introduced in the quotes I put out by Jessie Penn Lewis. The point of the quotes was not to define or focus on demons or evil spirits but to talk about deception.

The only reason to mention the devil behind the scenes is to keep the whole problem in perspective. The real problem is that behind idolatry is the devil. Witness Lee even told us this. Maybe someone knows where that is.

Thankful Jane

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 07:47 AM

MikeH,

Good balancing word.

SC

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 07:51 AM

I just did a search of the term "demon" throughout the Bible and couldn't find any NT references that would indicate subtle demons. Maybe you can do better.

SC

Here are three references that come to mind quickly which all point to something a bit more subtle and environmental, not just dark things flying around the room.

1Ti 4:1-3 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.

1. Take note of the 'giving heed'. This is a mental thing.

What is your interpretation of a 'seducing spirit' or 'doctrines of demons'?

1Jo 5:19-21 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one. (20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (21) My little children, guard yourselves from idols.

2. The whole world is everyone and everything. The Enemy is in control here. He has strong influence over the whole environment.

This last verse reference is grayer, but I believe it is still relevant.

1Co 10:18-22 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? (19) What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? (20) But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. (21) Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. (22) Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

3. This means that partaking of something that has been offered to a demon by someone else can put you in a position to partake of the 'cup of demons'. What is not so clear here is what things are 'sacrificed to demons' by the Gentiles?

Matt

YP0534

08-22-2008, 07:59 AM

I would again advocate that we attempt to keep this little corner of cyberspace as holy as possible.

I've never had much confidence about the long-term prospects, but, saints, seriously, can we at least just try to come back to the reality of Christ?

If localchurchdiscussions is now become the place to denounce all things Lee and Local Church as idolatrous and demonic, as opposed to merely heretical and cultic, I'm already packing my bags....

Overflow

08-22-2008, 08:09 AM

I want to say that myself (a 2nd generation LCer) completely agrees with what you are saying Matt. The agenda set and followed for 20+ years by my parents has shaped who they are. I could create an exhaustive list that would validate that my parents are still trapped because they have not denied completely the work of Lee, the false doctrine, or fallen on their knees to confess following man rather than God. It is a tragedy that continues to live out in the life of my entire family even with 17 years spent being exLCers. (I have been processing a lot of this with the Lord lately - even when my faith in Jesus really began - hard stuff). I guess what is a mystery to me is why my parents - and others on this forum have so much trouble denouncing the horrible ways and impacts that LC has created and the way it completely distracted personal walks with the Lord (and no I don't think the Christian walk is walked alone - but I think we all agree the one on one is pertinent). So my question is why is it that there are some that get so angry when the subject of the devil being at work (in the past and present) within the LC!?!? I just don't get it....the Freedom is in Christ...not in following Lee or anything to do with that group that's completely destroyed my family unit.

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 08:18 AM

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 08:28 AM

Matt, Jane,

I need to exit this topic. Nothing personal. I've made my case against the claim of evil spirits influencing the recovery from the outset so no need to continue repeating them. I went back on the other board and found a sequence pretty much the same as this one here.

SC

Okay. I know I'm a little charged up on this and even if I respond personally on some levels, I haven't taken offense and I don't take offense. I've always liked you and still do!!! :D

I will present some more evidence that Lee's methods of instituting hierarchy and top-down control were already well in place in the 60's. One of Lee's ingrained tactics was taking control of a group of believers and getting them fully under his authority. This was before and after coming to the US. There was no lull in this behavior. Conditioning people into submissive behavior to something other than the Lord God is part of instituting an idolatrous system. I know the idolatry word is hard to take, but the core of it is 'bowing down and worshipping' something/someone other than the Lord Himself as pre-eminent in your life. It can happen unknowingly (in ignorance) at first. This is one of the reasons why John says "Guard yourself from idols". To guard, you should be informed.

These things I will present happened long before the BB's. The evidence is anecdotal and you may dismiss it, but it is worth reviewing. I'll post a link to it on this thread over the weekend.

One last point: In all the history of Israel only one king got rid of all the idols. Idolatry existed from Exodus 20 onward. There were about 40 kings. Most of them were into idolatry. The few who did not go into idolatry dealt with it to some extent, but only one was really thorough and of him it was said that he walked in the ways of the Lord, not turning to the left or right. He also celebrated the best passover since the times of Samuel. He was the last king of Judah before Israel became a vassal state of Babylon.

His behavior was pleasing to the Lord, but he also screwed up and got himself killed because of his disobedience to the Lord's command.

So, in mixing the good with the bad, the bad is always there but before God judged Judah, he did a thorough cleanup. Part of that cleanup was exposing and destroying all the idolatry. He was dealing with everything (and I mean everything) that would take their hearts off of the Lord and onto other things.

Matt

Paul Cox

08-22-2008, 08:51 AM

Look what's happening folks. Since the introduction and over stressing the matter of idolatry, the thread has become, "yes it is,"

"no it's not,"

"yes it is,"

"no it's not"

What's the point? I thought we were making headway before. Can we just let the matter of idolatry and demon possession step to the background, and let every person be persuaded in their own mind?

I hate to see people saying they are stepping out of the discussion because it has become a tug of war over something that is so open to subjective interpretation.

If you want to talk about doctrine of demons influencing the church, there is no end. I'll give you one example. There is nothing more demonic than lesbian-led, radical feminism. It is a worldly movement being headed up by a small group of men-hating lesbian women who, for the most part, were hurt by a man, or some men, at some point in their lives. Christians who have been influenced by this doctrine of demons, to one degree or another, will see gender issues in every verse of the Bible, just the way Witness Lee saw “church-life” in every verse of the Bible.

Another example is the prosperity gospel that has swept the Church. Where did that inclination come from? Yet, you see preachers on the television every day finding “prosperity” in every verse of the Bible.

We might thump our Bibles and openly declare that this is of demons; at first I did. But, there are hundreds of thousands of genuine seekers who are just coming to the Lord through this preaching. Many of them really see the Lord providing them with just the right amount of money in an unexpected check to keep their lights on as the gentle care of the Father. Would we blow them away by saying: "Doctrine of Demons"

These are just two examples. There are too many to mention. These things have all infiltrated the Church (the Church at large), to some degree or another. If all Christians were to get into a discussion about what is, or isn't idolatry, based on their own subjective interpretation, we would all become bogged down in endless finger pointing.

The thread is about spiritual abuse. Most of us can agree that the problem stems from the leadership and their improper view of Witness Lee. Whether or not that is idolatry, obviously most of us can't agree. So how will this discussion, as it has developed, help those who are standing by trying to figure out what's going on with them? And with most of those Local Church lurkers standing by, the last thing that is going to persuade them is telling them that they are steeped in idolatry.

Roger

OBW

08-22-2008, 08:58 AM

I will present some more evidence that Lee's methods of instituting hierarchy and top-down control were already well in place in the 60's. One of Lee's ingrained tactics was taking control of a group of believers and getting them fully under his authority. This was before and after coming to the US. There was no lull in this behavior.This much is enough. I believe it is the truth. And it is fully off topic here. You know this better than anyone else.

I just got a PM from a frustrated member. I realized that the problem here is not that the expanded definitions of idolatry and demonic influences are wrong, but that they are being misapplied.

I will provide a parallel that should make the case. In Matt 5, Jesus expanded the definitions of adultery and murder. He even commanded that to fail to teach it was to become least in the Kingdom. And so we diligently do so.

But what do we do when someone is caught in the very act of lusting after a woman in his heart? There's the problem. You can't do it. You can only deal with actual, all-out adultery. The expansion was to place boundaries in each person's heart and mind so that they did not do everything but "do the deed." It was to stop the "slippery slope" to open sin. It was to make us clear that it was a matter of our heart as much as a matter of deeds.

But when it comes to matters of the heart, the only judge is God. And the only other person who clearly knows is the sinner himself. Even if the temporal punishments of the OT had been left in place, there would be no "stone the person who lusted in his heart" because it is an unknown. It remains a sin that can be publicly dealt with only at the level as originally defined.

Now the issue in the heart may play out in mistreatment of a spouse, physically, mentally or emotionally. It may result in a reduction of affection and abandonment. It may even lead to full-scale adultery. Those can be dealt with. But the underlying sin in not ours to claim as true because it is the heart and not something tangible and visible.

I used this quote on the BARM shortly after joining there, I believe with reference to the BBs being just more WL. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." It is beginning to have a new twist. No matter how strongly you point to the rightness of taking this current approach, rather than being righteous, and loving, we are becoming just like them. It is beginning to look like the last chapters of Animal Farm. And some of the things being said about the people here really makes calling anyone else's words and deeds "demonic" quite hollow.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Cal

08-22-2008, 08:59 AM

Matt, Jane,
I've made my case against the claim of evil spirits influencing the recovery from the outset so no need to continue repeating them.

Actually, you haven't made a case. You've made some statements, but you haven't explained your logic behind them. I'll still wondering why you have a problem with the idea of demonic influence. Don't demons follow Satan?

As far as I can tell you still have some blinders on. I'm wondering how on the one hand you have little problem believing Satan's nature indwells people, yet are scandalized by the thought that those Satan-filled folks might be influenced by demons as well. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

It seems you differentiate between Satan's influence and demons' influence. Is that your point? If errors like the "one publication" don't come from Satan, where do they come from?

Igzy

Nell

08-22-2008, 09:05 AM

This is why I would like a definition here. Without one, any claim could be made.

As for your question, I don't believe demons are ever shown to be subtle in the Bible. You got guys tied up by trees away from the village, foaming at the mouth type deals. I'd hardly call that subtle.

I just did a search of the term "demon" throughout the Bible and couldn't find any NT references that would indicate subtle demons. Maybe you can do better.

SC
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

The serpent started out more subtle than any beast of the field. He has gotten so subtle that folks don't even believe that he is an influence in the lives of Christians today. He has gotten so subtle that people expect a little red critter with a tail, pitchfork and horns, or foaming at the mouth, or tied to trees. Are his minions any less subtle? I don't think so.

The presence of evil is proof enough of the presence of evil spirits!! This seems obvious to me.

Nell

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 09:07 AM

This much is enough. I believe it is the truth. And it is fully off topic here. You know this better than anyone else.

I just got a PM from a frustrated member.

I clearly said I would provide a link to it. Which means I know it is off-topic from this particular thread. I'll place it somewhere else.

Don't start the bad practice of saying, 'I'm getting PM's from other forum members'. You'll get a bad reaction from me on that bad practice. :mad: If someone is offended with what I am saying, tell them to tell me directly (PM or on-line). What you do when you 'pass it on' without names is wrong.

If you don't like what I am saying, then just conclude that I've lost my marbles. We both know that I haven't. I'm just presenting an extreme view which just might hold truth and be part of the root cause for much of the spiritual abuse in the LC.

Matt

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 09:23 AM

Actually, you haven't made a case. You've made some statements, but you haven't explained your logic behind them. I'll still wondering why you have a problem with the idea of demonic influence. Don't demons follow Satan?

As far as I can tell you still have some blinders on. I'm wondering how on the one hand you have little problem believing Satan's nature indwells people, yet are scandalized by the thought that those Satan-filled folks might be influenced by demons as well. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

It seems you differentiate between Satan's influence and demons' influence. Is that your point? If errors like the "one publication" don't come from Satan, where do they come from?

Igzy

Good point.

Methinks the reaction here is way overboard for what has been said. As believers we are not to be ignorant of the enemies devices. What is wrong with discussing what the Bible tells us about the devil and how he afflicts us. I'm not seeing that in every verse, but I see it in some.

The topic of this thread is spiritual abuse.

So I ask you, just who carries out spiritual abuse? It isn't God. It isn't us when we are walking with God. So who is it? Is it just mean old people all by themselves? I'm fine with going there, but it seems a little more soberminded to say that it is men who have been deceived by the devil to carry out acts of spiritual abuse all the while believing they are serving God.

I think there is a verse that says that there are those who will kill people and think they are serving God. (John 16:2)

We really don't have to be afraid of hearing about the wiles of the devil. If it gets too scary for people, then they can just go to another thread. Right? There are a lot more threads on this forum. :)

Thankful Jane

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 09:32 AM

We might thump our Bibles and openly declare that this is of demons; at first I did. But, there are hundreds of thousands of genuine seekers who are just coming to the Lord through this preaching. Many of them really see the Lord providing them with just the right amount of money in an unexpected check to keep their lights on as the gentle care of the Father. Would we blow them away by saying: "Doctrine of Demons"

Roger,

Good points. Paul hit this when he said no matter how Christ is preached, I rejoice.

I believe Nigel Tomes is touching on a key related point here in his present writings. His "translatable Christ" series (a new one is up at "keepitintune.net": "Christ Incarnated in Culture." It's a must read, I think.) is touching on the idea that God uses the existing cultures He comes to. John chose the word "logos" because the Greco-Roman culture understood it. Watchman Nee said the reasons we worship on Sunday is because it was a handy cultural set-aside (I paraphrase). The early apostles used the synagogues the same way.

Most of us here will agree that the BB in their quest to institutionalize the LC have sought to effect a kind of faux uniformity. Not only is it faux, but it isn't scriptural or in the tradition of the apostles teaching and practice.

As for the "Demons, Idols, and Other Things (did the Cowsills sing that?), I understand Matt and Jane's attempt to find the root causes of some of the problems in the LC. I don't agree with their conclusions (or even some of their premises) but I don't think it a senseless quest. I too have sought to find the "root causes" and my main conclusion is this culture thing.

SC

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 09:40 AM

Actually, you haven't made a case. You've made some statements, but you haven't explained your logic behind them. I'll still wondering why you have a problem with the idea of demonic influence. Don't demons follow Satan?

As far as I can tell you still have some blinders on. I'm wondering how on the one hand you have little problem believing Satan's nature indwells people, yet are scandalized by the thought that those Satan-filled folks might be influenced by demons as well. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

It seems you differentiate between Satan's influence and demons' influence. Is that your point? If errors like the "one publication" don't come from Satan, where do they come from?

Igzy

Igzy,

On the first point (I haven't really made an argument) you're probably right. I will sum up what I was fumbling to say: Saying the LC is idolatrous and that every member was engaged in idolatry is way over the top. Saying there are idols is fair ... but then, you can make this claim for all Christians, all groups.

As for my having blinders on, again, I agree. I've got a lot of them on. I yearn to be rid of all of them but it takes time, my friend, it takes time.

I really am done with this one for now. When I get into these heated skirmishes, a lot of things happen. One, I usually overstate something or the other. Two, I offend someone. Three, I learn something. Four, I get ticked off. Five, I get over it. Six, I get a PM from someone which is always nice. Seven, I repent. Eight, I ask myself, why am I spending so much time here? Nine, I vow to back off. Ten, I read a fresh post and break my vow. Eleven, I make a new vow and go public with it to help me keep it. Twelve, I discover I've neglected something in my "real life" (like turning off the hose) and run to do it.

There's about seventeen more things I could list, but I've lost you all by now so why bother?

SC

Ohio

08-22-2008, 09:58 AM

I understand Matt and Jane's attempt to find the root causes of some of the problems in the LC. I don't agree with their conclusions (or even some of their premises) but I don't think it a senseless quest. I too have sought to find the "root causes" and my main conclusion is this culture thing.

I agree about the culture thing.

Early on I felt the root cause was control, rivalry, ambition, and power. Hope summarized these as "deputy authority" and the "work," both of which I feel are helpful and descriptive to all those like myself who casually pass by here looking for answers. Answers to gnawing questions like "what happened to us?" and "where's the joy I once knew?" and "haven't we forgotten about the love of God?" and "why are so many people hurting?"

For decades I read and heard the condemnations about "cults" and "heretics." I dismissed them all as ignorant persecutions. And I had more than a few "battle scars" to prove that. Now I am faced with being in "denial" about "idolatry and subtle demons," and I have to also dismiss them as extremist generalizations. They are not helpful. These comments never helped my Catholic family and friends. Naive ones reading these loaded charges of demonic activity could arm themselves and take hurtful actions.

What does help people, and I do believe all forum members desire this, are facts, stories, eye-witness accounts, etc. Love can point out faults, but love does not judge. Let the Lord be the judge, He is fair and holy.

Ohio

08-22-2008, 10:07 AM

Don't start the bad practice of saying, 'I'm getting PM's from other forum members'. You'll get a bad reaction from me on that bad practice. :mad: If someone is offended with what I am saying, tell them to tell me directly (PM or on-line). What you do when you 'pass it on' without names is wrong.

Matt, I always knew you as one very considerate of posters' views and feelings, but now you call this comment "bad practice," and dismiss the comment completely. Of course, direct communication is the best, but how much more "direct" can I be? I have been pleading with you on nearly every post, while still struggling to maintain my kind-hearted respect for you and your views? I'm at a loss here.

SpeakersCorner

08-22-2008, 10:23 AM

Cal

08-22-2008, 10:57 AM

Igzy,

On the first point (I haven't really made an argument) you're probably right. I will sum up what I was fumbling to say: Saying the LC is idolatrous and that every member was engaged in idolatry is way over the top. Saying there are idols is fair ... but then, you can make this claim for all Christians, all groups.

As for my having blinders on, again, I agree. I've got a lot of them on. I yearn to be rid of all of them but it takes time, my friend, it takes time.

I really am done with this one for now. When I get into these heated skirmishes, a lot of things happen. One, I usually overstate something or the other. Two, I offend someone. Three, I learn something. Four, I get ticked off. Five, I get over it. Six, I get a PM from someone which is always nice. Seven, I repent. Eight, I ask myself, why am I spending so much time here? Nine, I vow to back off. Ten, I read a fresh post and break my vow. Eleven, I make a new vow and go public with it to help me keep it. Twelve, I discover I've neglected something in my "real life" (like turning off the hose) and run to do it.

There's about seventeen more things I could list, but I've lost you all by now so why bother?

SC

No, actually this is the most understandable post you've made in awhile. :) So there is hope.

I see both sides of this argument. I can see how the continuous claims of idolatry and demon influence could become tiresome. I think there are more sophisticated ways of addressing the problems in the LC than that. I have Catholic friends and I wouldn't get to first base with them if I accused them of idolatry, even though that's what praying to Mary is, as far as I'm concerned.

I also see how the infamous letter pledging allegiance to Lee and to the republic for which he stands as a first step to setting up an idol. I think if you ran into a group which venerated, say, Billy Graham, like the LC venerates Lee, it would make you uncomfortable.

Anyway, the other night, NBC Olympic host Bob Costas asked his partner Chris Collingsworth whether woman's beach volleyball would be as popular if the players were required to wear sweatsuits. Collingsworth assented that it probably wouldn't be. In other words, Costas had a point.

Matt has a point, too, as do you.

Matt Anderson

08-22-2008, 11:16 AM

I think almost everyone would agree that the 10 Commandments are really, really important.

I'd like to understand why there are a number of posters on this forum who feel that it is not beneficial or productive to look at the very real possibility of violation of this very important subject.

I'm taking God's side on this one.

He started with the most important thing:
1. I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Then He goes to the second most important thing:
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, (6) and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

So please explain to me in a 1st grader kind of way why it is we shouldn't look at this real closely in the terms God uses (idolatry)???

And as for the subject of this thread, please see the bolded section of what God says.

So, with all of the complaining going on right now, please see if you can make a reasoned argument as to why we shouldn't give this close attention and look at it very closely with scrutiny.

If you think I am being rough, I'm sorry. How do you think God feels when all of those who He gave His own Son to redeem out of the world forsake Him? Do we think He is happy with us?

We know He is a loving and merciful God. We know he will always accept our repentance, but He does expect us to learn and agree with Him.

With that said, I'll go into a 24 hour pause.

Matt

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-22-2008, 11:26 AM

SP I agree with your point that it is counterproductive to hammer people over the head with the Bible or any other instrument. An ex Catholic friend of mind was gently weaned off of Mary and ultimately knew how to put her in her proper place based on Scripture and not Tradition. It took time but the lack of condemnation and love displayed to him by the home group he was a part of was instructive.

I think the terms cult, idolatry, etc have to be qualified. In the LCS context I would suggest that for some there is a cult of personality where Lee was idolized resulting in a form of hero worship. How to gently convey this to actual members of the LCS and lovingly nudge them towards a healthier perspective is a question that is worth exploring. Obviously a public forum fiercely debating the issue will not necessarily be effective to this end.

Cal

08-22-2008, 11:33 AM

I'd like to understand why there are a number of posters on this forum who feel that it is not beneficial or productive to look at the very real possibility of violation of this very important subject.

I think everyone agrees that idolatry is wrong. I think what people disagree on is what constitutes idolatry.

For example, Witness Lee claimed in the 1st Corinthians training that idolatry was "to eat, drink and rise up and play," thus pouring cold water on picnics and Frisbees everywhere. Are picnics and Frisbees idols? Ridiculous.

So the real question is not whether idolatry is wrong, but rather what is idolatry? That's where you have to make your case.

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 12:49 PM

I think what people disagree on is what constitutes idolatry....so ... what is idolatry? That's where you have to make your case.

So, just how does the Bible define idolatry?

The first 2 commandments seem to be a likely starting place. In brief:

. I am the Lord your God. Do not serve other gods before Me.

. Don't make any graven image or likeness of anything.... don't bow down and worship them.

Questions/Thoughts:

1. In commandment #1, what is God referring to when he says "other gods?" Whatever they are, they can be served.

2. What is an actual idol? In the O.T. people literally made physical objects and bowed down to them. Ezekiel also refers to "idols in the heart." What is an idol in the heart?

I am not aware of a checklist of things in the Bible that are idols, so it seems we can't go there. The fact that an idol can be set up in the heart, shows it isn't always a visible thing.

According to Paul, we are to learn something from the idolatry in the O. T. So, just what is that?

In simple terms, it seems that an idol is something we love and therefore serve, more than we love and serve God. Romans says "whoever you yield yourselves, servants to obey, his servants you are."

I agree that only God and I know if I love something more than Him, that is, unless I publicly proclaim I love something else and that I will serve that with all my heart. Then others can also know.

Any one else have any thoughts?

Thankful Jane

Cal

08-22-2008, 01:25 PM

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." (Col 3:5)

I'm not sure that Paul he is saying all these are idolatry, or only greed. But certainly we can surmise that greed is idolatry. Why is it idolatry? Probably because greed means you want something so bad that you will compromise God's principles to get it, meaning it possesses you, i.e. you worship it.

So idolatry encompasses having a desire so strong for something that you are willing to compromise God's principles to get it.

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 01:47 PM

Here is an interesting link where someone has organized and presented many verses from the Bible that speak about idolatry:

http://www.acts17-11.com/idolatry.html

There is a little commentary in the organization of the material, but it is mostly verses from the NIV. I'm not saying one way or the other about the commentary.

Thankful Jane

Suannehill

08-22-2008, 03:37 PM

I have done a small amount of teaching concerning idol worship and the context may be different, but it is no less real. The context of the teaching is to Vietnam veterans wives. Battered and abused, they really have major wounds. They have often told and retold the stories of abuse. In a very long teaching we taught that these women had made IDOLS of their wounds, going there frequently to "worship" or repeat the story over and over.
Psalms 135:18 says of idols that "They that make them shall be like them". So again there was much teaching in between this. Whatever I return to repeatedly and repeatedly hold up is an idol, and without quoting the OT we all know God's thoughts about idols.

So, I create an idol and go there repeatedly and now the Word it says I am like the idol. I become what I speak of and worship.

The next verse appears in Hebrews 12:15 "...lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you and through this many be defiled" We not only destroy ourselves with our idol worship, but we also defile others.

To keep from this of course we need the Lord. The verse here was Luke 6:37 "...release and you will be released. Through the Lord we break the idol's hold on us by releasing the thing we are holding in worship. It may be forgiveness or just simply walking away. But by releasing...we are released!!!!

Forgive me for condensing hours of teaching this way, but I hope you can pick up what I am saying.

Sue

Arizona

08-22-2008, 04:06 PM

All -

It seems obvious the different definitions of idolatry and/or demons makes discussion difficult. This has gone from addiction, to legalism, to idolatry. Strange as it may seem, I agree with much that has been said, in one way or another. But let me add something else to this that I have found to be much more profound in its effect on the LC experience, and particularly on the younger generations. I hope it fits.

For many years I considered that an idol was something or someone that replaced God in my heart. Thus W Lee's fellowship that children could be a "wrapper" to mothers. (please dont react!) A few years back I happened to read a commentary by G Campbell Morgan on the topic of the building of the golden calf by the Children of Israel that changed my thinking radically.

Campbell's point: That the golden calf was in fact the peoples misunderstanding, misconception, misaiming concerning the character and nature of God. The Word refers often to idols as that which man creates by his own hands. Men create their own conception of God which is not according to the Truth. It is a "false" god! An idol. Aaron said "behold your god". The false, I suppose, can be considered a replacement, but the much more important idea to me is whether we hold a concept of God that is according to the truth and not just a god of our imagination,, created by our own hands.

After years of my own analysis concerning the LC, and according to my experience, I believe I had myself accepted a concept of God that was not according to the truth revealed in the Bible. At the least it was an incomplete view, or unbalanced. I fear that I may very well have aided in passing down this wrong view to my own children. I pray God He will correct that falsity that I conveyed. There is the True God, revealed and testified to us in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. May we know Him. And may we worship Him in truth. I believe the Father desires such.

Grace.

Arizona

Suannehill

08-22-2008, 04:24 PM

Dear Arizona,
I think many of us find ourselves repenting of influence that we had on others!
Sue

Cal

08-22-2008, 04:31 PM

I'm sitting here babysitting a computer program, so I'll chime in again.

It's seems to me that talk of the influence of Satan and demons can get a bit redundant. What is mean is, assuming we all recognize that Satan is the ultimate source of evil and that demons are more or less in cahoots with him, then it's sort of obvious that all error in some way originates with him and/or them.

It's sort of like dealing with physical things falling and always feeling the need to mention that they were influenced by gravity. No one says, "That vase tipped off the table and gravity pulled it to the floor." It goes without saying that gravity pulled the vase down, which is why no one mentions it. The real problem is the vase is busted.

In like manner, if all moral error originates with Satan, then that goes without saying, and we can get down to the real business of dealing with the error. There's really no need to remind people over and over that they've been somehow influenced by Satan or demons, unless the goal is to try to shock them into changing their ways.

I'm not saying it's never appropriate, just that it seems to me the point should be to convince someone of their error, not of the source of their error, since the source, ultimately, is always the same.

Ohio

08-22-2008, 05:09 PM

Igzy,

One more thing (see what I mean in my above vows?).

It occurred to me that what I see going on in this line of thought (idolatry, demons, etc.) is similar to the arguments we used to make in the LC about Christmas and Halloween. Yes, these holidays definitely have a mixture of Christian and pagan practices. But, 1) I have a hard time accusing a family sitting around the Christmas tree opening presents of being idol-worshipers and 2) as Ohio is pointing out, even if true, what value is it to ruin their tradition by pointing it out?

There. I really am done with this one. SC

SC, are you suggesting that we do random "tree-checks" this December for all those who are screaming idolatry? Is that really spelled "I doll a tree?"

It's been a long time since I used my Jeremiah 10 sword. I'll have to dust it off and sharpen it up for some "serious winter sport." Do I get points for slaying my own family members before I move on to other posters?

Well folks ... are we serious about idolatry or not? Who is on the Lord's side? Who will serve the king? Who will slay his brother? Others, death to bring?

Did I get this song right? Matt, get your sword ready!

Thankful Jane

08-22-2008, 05:24 PM

Campbell's point: That the golden calf was in fact the peoples misunderstanding, misconception, misaiming concerning the character and nature of God. The Word refers often to idols as that which man creates by his own hands. Men create their own conception of God which is not according to the Truth. It is a "false" god! An idol. Aaron said "behold your god". The false, I suppose, can be considered a replacement, but the much more important idea to me is whether we hold a concept of God that is according to the truth and not just a god of our imagination,, created by our own hands.

I think this is right on point. The most important thing is worshipping and serving the true God, the "I am the Lord your God," of the first commandment. Wrong concepts and beliefs about him are certainly false gods. What we believe about Him affects our experience of Him. Thanks for sharing this, Arizona.

Thankful Jane

Matt Anderson

08-23-2008, 05:26 AM

SC, are you suggesting that we do random "tree-checks" this December for all those who are screaming idolatry? Is that really spelled "I doll a tree?"

It's been a long time since I used my Jeremiah 10 sword. I'll have to dust it off and sharpen it up for some "serious winter sport." Do I get points for slaying my own family members before I move on to other posters?

Well folks ... are we serious about idolatry or not? Who is on the Lord's side? Who will serve the king? Who will slay his brother? Others, death to bring?

Did I get this song right? Matt, get your sword ready!

What is your point, Ohio? I don't get it. Are you whining? Can you put some more substance on this so that it is intelligible? It seems you are obviously reacting to the substance of this thread. Nobody is asking you to do anything. If you think there is screaming going on here, then there must be some crying and pouting to. Sorry, but I'm getting tired of the mean little comments by you. I'm addressing something difficult, substantive and very important to God. No one is asking you to do anything. Maybe you have a tendency to take what other people say and act out on it (like almost tearing down an idol at another building), but surely no one is asking you to do anything. This is in your own mind.

If you have the strong need to continue to speak out like you are, then go ahead but please understand that as long as you are not presenting a reasoned argument it is probably just encouraging me to continue. Why? Because, I know that I am striking a chord on this. It may be tough to hear, which it has been for me when I look at it in relation to my own life, but I guarantee you it has been helpful to me. It's helped me understand that I need to pay real close attention to the Lord and His instruction for the sake of my family.

Matt

P.S. I do think I said something about the need to repent for idolatry, but only in the case that it applies to you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 06:34 AM

It's seems to me that talk of the influence of Satan and demons can get a bit redundant. What is mean is, assuming we all recognize that Satan is the ultimate source of evil and that demons are more or less in cahoots with him, then it's sort of obvious that all error in some way originates with him and/or them.

It's sort of like dealing with physical things falling and always feeling the need to mention that they were influenced by gravity. No one says, "That vase tipped off the table and gravity pulled it to the floor." It goes without saying that gravity pulled the vase down, which is why no one mentions it. The real problem is the vase is busted.

In like manner, if all moral error originates with Satan, then that goes without saying, and we can get down to the real business of dealing with the error. There's really no need to remind people over and over that they've been somehow influenced by Satan or demons, unless the goal is to try to shock them into changing their ways.

I'm not saying it's never appropriate, just that it seems to me the point should be to convince someone of their error, not of the source of their error, since the source, ultimately, is always the same.
In another post I said I was willing to drop talking about demons and evil spirits. Others have continued to post in this vein, so I want to just say again, that since this topic seems to have really upset the apple cart, I am refraining from talking about demons or evil spirits, etc. If I find it necessary will just refer to “the devil” or “the enemy.”

I don’t want to detract from what I am beginning to see that is significant about understanding idolatry.

Concerning idolatry, of course, there is the idea that anything we put before God in heart and mind can be an idol. There is no question about that. But, could we set that aside understanding aside for now and consider something else?

In the O. T., idolatry wasn’t just something practiced by individuals alone in their individual lives. Idolatry also referred to the religious systems of worship and service that existed.

The book of Revelation refers to “Mystery Babylon the Great, Mother of the harlots of the earth...” which appears to be pointing back to Babylonian worship and idolatry of antiquity. It can be historically proven that many of the characteristics found in this idolatrous religious system have found their way into the worship of God’s people in both Old and New Testaments. Hence, the cry, “Come out of her my people” occurs both in the Old and New Testaments (Jer. 51:6-7; Rev. 18:4).

I no longer think that the cry to come out of her means that all of God’s people must leave any form of organized religion, as I did when in the LC; however, I do think it is a serious warning that there is something we need to come out of.

I can elaborate with some support for my current belief, but for now just let me state it simply:

One of the chief characteristics of idolatrous religious systems is a hierarchy whose structure and practices bring people under its control. In other words, an idolatrous religious system has two kinds of people: 1) those who usurp God’s place by believing they speak for God and have the right to tell others what to do, and actually do so 2) those who are willing do what they are told to do, even if it violates scripture and their conscience. Because of these behaviors, people participating in idolatrous systems cannot say that they serve God and Him alone.

I believe that God calls us out of participating in either of these behaviors. We are called to be followers of the Lamb and to follow Him wherever He goes.

To see whether or not we have “come out of her,” we can ask ourselves two questions: 1) as a believer do I act in the place of God over another human being; do I believe I am supposed to direct them and tell them what to do? 2) as a believer do I look to God for direction or do I look to others who direct me and tell me what to do, submitting to what they tell me, even if it violates scripture and conscience?

If I can answer both of these questions, “no” then the call to “come out of her” my people does not apply to me. (i.e., it is possible to be a part of what we so affectionately refer to as “organized Christianity” J and not be in “her.”) But if I have to answer either of these questions “yes” then the call to come out of her applies to me.

As I said, I can elaborate further on why I have made certain statements in the above, but for now I will leave it at this.

Thankful Jane

Ohio

08-23-2008, 07:07 AM

What is your point, Ohio? I don't get it. Are you whining? Can you put some more substance on this so that it is intelligible? It seems you are obviously reacting to the substance of this thread. Nobody is asking you to do anything. If you think there is screaming going on here, then there must be some crying and pouting to. Sorry, but I'm getting tired of the mean little comments by you. I'm addressing something difficult, substantive and very important to God. No one is asking you to do anything. Maybe you have a tendency to take what other people say and act out on it (like almost tearing down an idol at another building), but surely no one is asking you to do anything. This is in your own mind.

If you have the strong need to continue to speak out like you are, then go ahead but please understand that as long as you are not presenting a reasoned argument it is probably just encouraging me to continue. Why? Because, I know that I am striking a chord on this. It may be tough to hear, which it has been for me when I look at it in relation to my own life, but I guarantee you it has been helpful to me. It's helped me understand that I need to pay real close attention to the Lord and His instruction for the sake of my family.

The point is simple. If you go hunting for idols and demons in every home of every saint who ever loved a message by WL in the LC, then you better have a home and a heart that is "squeaky clean," and passing regular inspections.

Whining, no. I was just reminiscing about "the old days" when I too was convinced that God was into "idol-smashing" rather than into saving people. I was only hoping that my mistakes would help you. Sorry, if my points are too brief, lacking "substance."

The "chord" you are striking is the "ding" from my sword. It's sharpened. Do you still want to use it? You mentioned the first idols in Exodus. Is it time for us all to become like Levi and slay his idol-worshiping brothers with the sword? I don't think so.

I'm not the only voice here that has been pleading with you to drop your current course of action. You are not my enemy. I'm just afraid for all the others you may "kill." You came to this forum with an unrecognizable passion that frankly has scared me. I realize that I may take a few hits, but that's OK, if I can protect others.

Nell

08-23-2008, 07:36 AM

...In like manner, if all moral error originates with Satan, then that goes without saying, and we can get down to the real business of dealing with the error. There's really no need to remind people over and over that they've been somehow influenced by Satan or demons, unless the goal is to try to shock them into changing their ways.

I'm not saying it's never appropriate, just that it seems to me the point should be to convince someone of their error, not of the source of their error, since the source, ultimately, is always the same.

Igzy,

The source of something is always the point. Without dealing with the source, the "error" as you call it, error will continue. I don't think "error" is an accurate term: we're really talking about sin...not "error".

I'm reminded of the old hymn: Glory to His Name

Down at the cross where my Savior died,
Down where for cleansing from sin I cried,
There to my sin was the blood applied;
Glory to His Name!

Is there a need to remind people that they have influenced by Satan? Yes, of course! The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about being saved from the influence of Satan, which resluts in sin, and that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin. First we have to acknowledge our sin. God is holy. Where there is sin in our lives, our walk with him is hindered.

I think it's important that people understand that the source of all suffering on this earth today is the result of sin. Where there is sin, Satan and all his demons have legal ground to torment the sinner. Once you deal with the sin through repentance and forgiveness, the ground is taken away from Satan and his demons to torment you. This is not a once for all thing, but a daily matter.

This is not just a mental exercise as you suggest of "OK now I know. Next...." as though there is nothing you can do about it. As though that's just the way it is and it has no relevance in my life today.

The point of knowing the source, and that the source is not God, is to take action in your own life and deal with the gound the enemy has in you to influence your life, your living, and most important, your walk with God. For example, confess the sin of idolatry. In so doing, ask Him to show you all the idols in your life that replace His leading. If that's Witness Lee, fine, if not, what? Maybe there is nothing, but we need light to see what He would say and not just resign ourselves the influence of demons. This is in fact just what keeps the subtle one in control: our own ignorance. In most cases, our choice to remain ignorant.

For awhile, when I first started educating myself to this topic, there was a demon behind every bush. Eventually, I reached the point that I felt like I was giving them too much credit and paying more attention to demons than they deserved. At that point, I felt like I was no longer ignorant to the wiles of the devil, because I knew who he was and what he was capable of in my life. I also knew that God was greater, and my life was not "demon centered" but "Christ centered". I didn't reach this point out of ignorance and resignation to the existance and influence of the spirit world, but out of a clear understanding (I think) of the source.

There will always be resistance to a complete understanding of this truth. We have seen plenty of resistance on this thread---even to the point of mockery. This is an indication that the truth is starting to hit home, and the devil doesn't like it. I say we go forward and expose him and his helpers to their ugly core.

Nell

Nell

08-23-2008, 07:56 AM

...I'm not the only voice here that has been pleading with you to drop your current course of action. You are not my enemy. I'm just afraid for all the others you may "kill." You came to this forum with an unrecognizable passion that frankly has scared me. I realize that I may take a few hits, but that's OK, if I can protect others.

Ohio,

We haven't arrived at the truth of this matter. The truth doesn't "kill" and we don't need protection from the truth. This is no different from the program we all followed before: men presuming they knew what we needed and taking steps to "protect" us according to their own thought.

We have a protector in Jesus Christ the righteous. He is able.

Nell

Cal

08-23-2008, 08:29 AM

There will always be resistance to a complete understanding of this truth. We have seen plenty of resistance on this thread---even to the point of mockery. This is an indication that the truth is starting to hit home, and the devil doesn't like it. I say we go forward and expose him and his helpers to their ugly core.

Nell,

I've already conceded that Satan is the ultimate source of all error. And by error I don't just mean mistake, I mean sin. The definition of sin is "missing the mark," which is another way of saying "error."

I appreciate your point, surely exposing Satan is important. But exposing Satan takes more than saying that someone's been influenced by Satan. I do think people need to realize that there is a conscious, active person who is trying to deceive and hurt them. That is Satan. I never denied that or mocked it.

(That said, just because someone uses sarcasm to blunt over-the-top or misapplied Satanology, that doesn't mean Satan is somewhere snickering about it and exchanging high-fives with his minions, otherwise the path to deliverance is just to talk about Satan more and more.)

While exposing Satan is important, when it comes to discussing disagreements on how Christian and church lives should be lived, it seems to me that people need to be convinced of their error, or sin, before they can be convinced they are influenced by Satan. Telling someone over and over they are under Satan's manipulation might just be a desperation move brought on by the inability to formulate a solid argument as to why their beliefs or behaviors are wrong.

To me that is always the challenge on a forum such as this: putting ideas into words that convince, rather than trying to spook someone. This is why the "God is going to judge you someday for your error" arguments usually ring hollow. The obvious reply is "No, he's going to judge you." And where does that leave the discussion?

Pat Cooksey pulled this on Roger the other day. He called Roger "the dragon," claiming that Roger was trying to "devour the woman and her child." That kind of statement might get a lot of style points, and I'm sure Pat believes it, but it's not going to move someone who has half a brain. A declaration is not a proof.

Once you've convinced someone they are in error, or sin, it naturally follows that they've been under Satan's influence. This seems to me a more efficient path than trying to scare someone with Satan talk.

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 08:38 AM

The point is simple. If you go hunting for idols and demons in every home of every saint who ever loved a message by WL in the LC, then you better have a home and a heart that is "squeaky clean," and passing regular inspections.

Whining, no. I was just reminiscing about "the old days" when I too was convinced that God was into "idol-smashing" rather than into saving people. I was only hoping that my mistakes would help you. Sorry, if my points are too brief, lacking "substance."

The "chord" you are striking is the "ding" from my sword. It's sharpened. Do you still want to use it? You mentioned the first idols in Exodus. Is it time for us all to become like Levi and slay his idol-worshiping brothers with the sword? I don't think so.

I'm not the only voice here that has been pleading with you to drop your current course of action. You are not my enemy. I'm just afraid for all the others you may "kill." You came to this forum with an unrecognizable passion that frankly has scared me. I realize that I may take a few hits, but that's OK, if I can protect others.Hi Ohio,

Good morning.

I can see how you think that this line of discussion is going to kill or hurt people, but isn't that a little far-fetched? We're just talking about these topics. Discussion never killed anybody (except in the LC :) ). Out here in the real world, there really is no need to protect others from hearing or participating in a discussion.

It isn't right for anyone to try to dictate or derail or side track a discussion just because they feel it will hurt others or because they do not like the topic for some reason. That has been going on for a day or so now. (To be clear, I'm not talking about the demons topic that got blown up to be more than it was ever intended to be. I'm talking about the discussion about idolatry. However either topic is valid for discussion.)

We don't have to worry about what people reading it will think. It's their right to think whatever they want to think, including rejecting everything they read.

If you want to end this discussion and prevent the bad impact you fear, then the easiest way is to do so with biblical refutation of the things being said. It isn't good for either you or Matt to make comments about each other's persons or manners such as "I've never seen this side of you" or "there must be some crying and pouting, too" or using adjectives like "scary" and "whining." Why can't we just stick to the topic and put the swords to it, not each other?

Part of the problem with the whole LC dynamic was the inability to have discussions. They got labeled as "negative" "rebellious" "not profitable" etc. We are free to discuss or not. We shouldn't be found in a position of preventing other's discussion.

The truth is let each man decide in his own mind. This implies let each man hear the arguments.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 08:49 AM

Once you've convinced someone they are in error, or sin, it naturally follows that they've been under Satan's influence. This seems to me a more efficient path than trying to scare someone with Satan talk. I agree with you on this, Igzy. The point is uncovering sin. There is no question that idolatry is sin. As you said in another post, the question is "what is idolatry." That's the discussion I would like to have. I'm more than willing, as I keep saying, to drop the discussion about who sets the mousetrap and instead define/describe the mousetrap itself, so all us little mice can recognize it and run away from it.

Thankful Jane

Cal

08-23-2008, 09:03 AM

I agree with you on this, Igzy. The point is uncovering sin. There is no question that idolatry is sin. As you said in another post, the question is "what is idolatry." That's the discussion I would like to have. I'm more than willing, as I keep saying, to drop the discussion about who sets the mousetrap and instead define/describe the mousetrap itself, so all us little mice can recognize it and run away from it.

Thankful Jane

Jane:
Me, too.
Ohio:
As to Matt, I believe Matt felt a genuine call from God to moderate the other forum and sacrificed a lot to do so. It's possible when everyone moved here, he saw that as a kind of rejection of his efforts, and is still ambivalent and perhaps frustrated about it. I don't know, I'm just speculating. So, forgive me, Matt, if I'm off base.

I'd just like to say to Matt, that the demise of the other forum was not a failure, it was a step forward, and his efforts were absolutely not a waste. This forum would probably not exist as it does without Matt's commitment. (Not to take anything away from UntoHim.)

Nell

08-23-2008, 09:17 AM

Nell,

I've already conceded that Satan is the ultimate source of all error. And by error I don't just mean mistake, I mean sin. The definition of sin is "missing the mark," which is another way of saying "error."

I appreciate your point, surely exposing Satan is important. But exposing Satan takes more than saying that someone's been influenced by Satan. I do think people need to realize that there is a conscious, active person who is trying to deceive and hurt them. That is Satan. I never denied that or mocked it.

Igzy,

Sorry...no you didn't deny or mock. I was referring to Ohio's mocking post regarding the Christmas tree.

(That said, just because someone uses sarcasm to blunt over-the-top or misapplied Satanology, that doesn't mean Satan is somewhere snickering about it and exchanging high-fives with his minions, otherwise the path to deliverance is just to talk about Satan more and more.)

It also doesn't mean that Satan and his minions aren't somewhere doing high-fives either. :) Does it?

While exposing Satan is important, when it comes to discussing disagreements on how Christian and church lives should be lived, it seems to me that people need to be convinced of their error, or sin, before they can be convinced they are influenced by Satan. Telling someone over and over they are under Satan's manipulation might just be a desperation move brought on by the inability to formulate a solid argument as to why their beliefs or behaviors are wrong.

I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.

To me that is always the challenge on a forum such as this: putting ideas into words that convince, rather than trying to spook someone. This is why the "God is going to judge you someday for your error" arguments usually ring hollow. The obvious reply is "No, he's going to judge you." And where does that leave the discussion?

... A declaration is not a proof. ...

Once you've convinced someone they are in error, or sin, it naturally follows that they've been under Satan's influence. This seems to me a more efficient path than trying to scare someone with Satan talk.

We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.

I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.

When I first started trying to figure this stuff out, I was a wreck. I was hurt and I cried a lot. All these matters, I went to the Lord and asked Him. I really wanted to know what was so wrong with me and the way I had spent the last years of my life being so totally disceived that I no longer felt like I had a walk with Him but a walk with a bunch of controlling men who never had my best interest at heart, but their own. I believe this was an answer to my prayers, because it made sense to me.

There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Otherwise, as TJ said, we're free to discuss and be convinced in our own minds.

Nell

TLFisher

08-23-2008, 09:24 AM

As you said in another post, the question is "what is idolatry." That's the discussion I would like to have.

Thankful Jane

Jane, my understanding is anything that is given preeminence in place of God.

Terry

Cal

08-23-2008, 09:36 AM

It also doesn't mean that Satan and his minions aren't somewhere doing high-fives either. :) Does it?

My point was we can talk about Satan too little or too much. He's happy either way.

I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.

Yes, but they won't know what to be convinced of if "all these things" are not put into words that make sense to people.

We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.

Eventually a belief has to put into words, otherwise how do you even know what you believe, and how can you communicate it?

It troubles me that people are suspicious of intellect, because intellect is a gift from God. He gave us brains so we would use them. Certainly it can be misused. But so can religious fervor, subjective "leadings," and even faith and prayer. Why intellect is always the red-headed step-child of the bunch, I'm not sure. But I think the bias is an error. And we all know who the source of those are.

There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 10:11 AM

Ohio:
As to Matt, I believe Matt felt a genuine call from God to moderate the other forum and sacrificed a lot to do so. It's possible when everyone moved here, he saw that as a kind of rejection of his efforts, and is still ambivalent and perhaps frustrated about it. I don't know, I'm just speculating. So, forgive me, Matt, if I'm off base.

I'd just like to say to Matt, that the demise of the other forum was not a failure, it was a step forward, and his efforts were absolutely not a waste. This forum would probably not exist as it does without Matt's commitment. (Not to take anything away from UntoHim.)

Dear Igzy,
I think I know Matt pretty well, so for the sake of us all understanding each other better, let me say that in no way was Matt hurt by what happened on the other forum (and he doesn't know I'm writing this ...). He took that as a job from the Lord and did it. As often as I was accused of it, I had absolutely nothing to do with him being on that board. He actually was there before me. God is the one who sent him there and he took that job seriously.

He saw the move over here as something orchestrated by God and was pleased about it. (I think he is still a moderator over there.)

On this forum he is not under the constraint of being a moderator and having to enforce rules. He is just under the constraint of his conscience. What I see happening in his current stance, is his willingness to go toe to toe when he feels it is important to do so. He's never been one who is into worrying what others think about him. He's very much into what God thinks of him and being obedient. I agree he has come across strongly, but that's been only about a topic, not about or against any person or persons. Knowing him, He wouldn't be sticking to this topic like he is, if he didn't believe God wanted him to.

So yes he can come on strongly, but he also backs down quickly and easily when he is convicted of sinning in some way (he wasn't always that way--and I got to have the fun of being on the other end of that), but all to God's credit, it is the case today :). Sorry, Matt ... :verycool: for my little disclosure.

One more thing, while I'm in the mode of disclosing some things, when Matt first began to seriously follow the Lord, he fell in love with the Bible. He told me one day that in order to get his school work done, he had to go somewhere where there wasn't a Bible or he'd end up reading it.

Now to the interesting part. He loved the Old Testament. He loved the books of Kings. He would come and talk to me about all the various kings and what they did, which were good, which were bad, etc. Like a good mom I listened, but I didn't share his fascination with the subject. It was clear to me God was behind his interest. After all, how many 17 year old boys love to read about the kings in the Old Testament in their spare time. Then he found Josiah. He loved Josiah and talked about him for days. Over the years Josiah has been a key figure to him, and his love of the O. T. has not waned.

So, knowing about Josiah, I am not surprised with his interest in this topic. He sees the role idolatry has played among God's people and how it is on topic for this thread on spiritual abuse. The kings were God's people who continually sinned against God and His people. Matt has pointed out to me many times how there was not even one good king in the northern kingdom. All of these kings were idolaters.

Josiah was a king in the southern kingdom who went through all the land and even into the northern kingdom destroying idols.

So now you get a little more of the story. I believe God has put this matter in Matt's heart from his youth for His own reasons. I suspect Matt has some leading from the Lord to bring up this topic. So, I don't think you're going to be able to shut him up with a few water balloons or spit wads.

Thankful Jane

Nell

08-23-2008, 10:34 AM

...Matt has pointed out to me many times how there was not even one good king in the northern kingdom. All of these kings were idolaters.

Josiah was a king in the southern kingdom who went through all the land and even into the northern kingdom destroying idols.

So now you get a little more of the story. I believe God has put this matter in Matt's heart from his youth for His own reasons. I suspect Matt has some leading from the Lord to bring up this topic. So, I don't think you're going to be able to shut him up with a few water balloons or spit wads....Thankful Jane

Picture this:

A nice little visit to the Andersons on a lazy Saturday afternoon in Plano. Nell is in the den cornered by Matt and the Kings. I've got square eyeballs by now and decide to go to the kitchen for a drink of water and...here come the Kings! I drink what seems like a half-gallon of water and move on to the living room...where are this kid's parent's? :eek: I suspect the "better Nell than Me" syndrome at work here, 'cause John and Jane have left the building!

Finally, my one last retreat down the hall with the patter of little feet behind me as I turn and say "Well, Matt. How much trouble are we in?"

Nell

Sorry Matt...for throwing you under the bus. :)

finallyprettyokay

08-23-2008, 11:35 AM

Josiah has always been one of my most favorite people in the Bible. Read about what he did, if you haven't read it lately. He completely cleansed the land of idols -- all the way to digging up the bones of the dead priests of Baal, and burning the bones on the altar for Baal, which took care of those dead bones AND rendered the altar unclean. He was a wild man, and always one of my favorite guys.

Now, there was some dealing with idolatry!!

fpo

----

Nell

08-23-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Nell http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=2764#post2764)
I think the best is to be convinced by prayer, by the Word of God and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that people reading this thread would take all these things to the Lord and be convinced in their own minds.
Igzy: Yes, but they won't know what to be convinced of if "all these things" are not put into words that make sense to people.

So those who choose to continue the discussion should be free to continue. The solution presented here has been to stop the discussion for whatever reason. I think we're trying to communicate in a way that makes sense...we just aren't there yet.

Quote:
We can have an intellectual discussion and ultimately, there is little to win or lose either way. However, these topics, on this forum, to this group of people who may have been the victims of spiritual abuse and may have not been able to acknowledge the possibility, I think is another matter altogether.
Igzy: I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'll make a comparison to this forum and the BARM. The BARM is an apologetics forum and I don't think they ever understood our desire to help people, and that this is the most sincere form of apologetics (my opinion). They seemed to want intellectual doctrinal debate without the people factor to "muddy" the water. I don't know this to be true, but it seems to me to be true, and that's the reason I post here instead. To "win" a debate in that arena is simply a "hello win column." To really win would be for someone who's hurting to be able to find the Lord again.

Quote:
I'm not out here on this forum because I want to convince anyone of anything, though to the reader it may not seem that way. Sometimes I wonder myself why I do this...spend so much time here ... . I was not convinced of any of these truths because someone beat me over the head with them and I finally got the point and now I agree.
Igzy: Eventually a belief has to put into words, otherwise how do you even know what you believe, and how can you communicate it?

Igzy: It troubles me that people are suspicious of intellect, because intellect is a gift from God. He gave us brains so we would use them. Certainly it can be misused. But so can religious fervor, subjective "leadings," and even faith and prayer. Why intellect is always the red-headed step-child of the bunch, I'm not sure. But I think the bias is an error. And we all know who the source of those are.

I'm not suspicious of "intellect" per se. I'm suspicious of "knowledge" of spiritual matters which is attributed to "culture", or "rugged individualism" or even "Texas individualism" or some other "influence" that in effect, denies the power of the Holy Spirit and it's working in our lives. The tendency has been to discredit some spiritual realities because these matters are looked down upon by society and dismissed as little more than "nonsense". For example, the very existance of this little icon: :littledevil: discredits or minimizes the spiritual reality of the spirit world. That's the "intellect" I'm talking about.

Quote:
There have been few topics on this or the other forum that have met with this much resistance. I have to ask myself "why?" I believe I know. I can't convince anyone of anything, but I can present what I've seen and encourage others to take it to the Lord to see what He would say.

Igzy: Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Idolatry as practiced by the leaders, resulting in the spiritual abuse of the flock.

Nell

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 02:11 PM

Jane: Me, too.

Okay, so let’s do it. What is idolatry? Not just doctrinally but also practically. I agree that things need to be put in understandable words. As I explained in an earlier post about idolatry, I am not referring to loving and bowing to personal idols (another topic), but to a system of idolatrous service and worship. I explained this in a post I wrote earlier this morning, which I think got lost in the fray of the toe to toe. I would like feedback on that. Here’s a link to that post:

http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2755&postcount=466

I would also like feedback on the following, which is my current explanation of how I believe such a system (kin to idolatrous Babylon) developed among us. I’m open to my observations being questioned, adjusted with facts, etc.

Earlier, I made a statement that I believed the seeds of something bad were present from the earliest days of the Local Churches in the USA. We are now in a position some 40+ years later to look at the fruit that has grown since those days and make some assessments. For sure, today we can see an evil tree standing before us in full view. It came from somewhere.

Some here have introduced the idea of going back to some point in time and determining where things went off among us. I agree that is a good exercise and would like to do so. If I remember correctly, Hope has told us on another forum that things went off somewhere in the 70s when we started to make the Lee’s ministry the central focus. Later, when questioned further, he agreed that deputy authority was the real culprit. He also told us that to his memory the seeds of deputy authority in Texas went as far back as 1965. So, to discover where we went wrong in Texas, we have to go back to at least 1965.

We also need to look at the system of the evil tree, which I am saying is an evil idolatrous system like the RCC and the Babylonian ones before, so we can lay the ax to its root, not just to its base, and we all can be saved and fully delivered from it. (Just to keep away confusion, please remember that I am not talking about Babylon in the sense we talked about it while in the LC. The source of such an idolatrous system is the heart of man and the resultant problems can only be corrected when our heart is corrected. It is not corrected by labelling organizations or smashing them or running through the camp killing people with swords, or whatever, as we errantly did in the past.)

The Bible shows us that very quickly after the apostolic church had come into being, the enemy began to work in seed form by introducing things among God’s people which Paul called “the mystery of iniquity.” John revealed the development of that seed when he told us about Mystery Babylon the Great. Most agree today that this mysterious woman, who sat on seven hills, is the Roman Catholic Church.

Why is she called Mystery Babylon? Because she is a mixture. God’s people are there in her, but so also is a structure and system of worship that parallels the Babylonian religious system of antiquity. Here are a few of that old pagan Babylonian religion’s high level characteristics that are clearly relevant to us today:

· There was a hierarchical system with the masses subject to a priestly class who were subject to one priest at the top of the hierarchy. All were in absolute subjection to top priest, held in that subjection through secret initiations (the mysteries) by which their consciences had been compromised.

· The high priest was the sole repository of all dogma and knowledge and mysteries and dispensed the one dogma to the people as he saw fit.

· The high priest led the worship of the Babylonian gods including the sacrifices to the idols.

The fact that these things can be seen clearly in the RCC and that they appear in varying degrees again and again among God’s people throughout church history gives us a window into the devil’s persistent scheming to gain control of the obedience of men. It also shows how susceptible we are to falling into his scheme. I believe that this is one of the devices of the devil of which we are charged to not be ignorant.

In Texas in 1965, the elder papers and a reel to reel tape about the deputy authority topic (maybe the same as the elder papers?) came to Waco, Texas and into the hands of some very young and zealous brothers. Only a select few were allowed to hear these tapes. This is a documentable case of something being done in secret among us in our very earliest days. They bought what they heard and the evil seed was planted. At that time the practice of what they learned began. Later the related teaching (deputy authority) was given to all of us by Lee in the early 1970s kingdom messages. He had waited he said, until we were ready for it.

Remember I am not speaking at this point to when the deputy authority/hierarchy teachings began to enter through Lee in southern California. I don’t know about that clearly yet, though I have some clues.

Prior to the sowing of these seeds in Texas, the general appearance was that we were all just brethren on an even plane, all under the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit. From that time forward some took (literally) a place among us as elders. Their thought about themselves began to change. Our thought about them also began to change. They were a notch above the others. And as we know one of them thought he was even one more notch up. The seed of a priestly class of intermediaries had been sown and its source was southern California.

In the Babylonian system the people bowed to whatever the priestly class with the high priest at the top said. In the RCC it was the same. We were now on that same path to an idolatrous system like the RCC, though we were oblivious to this. No one could have said this then, but I think we have sufficient evidence to say it now.

In the Old Testament, the children of Israel wanted a visible King like the nations. God consented but pronounced “they have rejected Me from being king over them.” We all began with one King only, but from that day, we began to let others rule over us.

It was a slow slope downward, but as we more and more surrendered not only our right but our responsibility to be directly under the leading of the Holy Spirit, the enemy had a way to infiltrate. He didn’t have to control each of us directly. All he had to do was convince us to come under the control of others, who came under the control of others, who came under control of the one at the top .... Then with relative ease he could secure our obedience and lead us where he wished. Over time, he could cause leaders to abuse God’s people and feel justified in so doing because they believed they were following God. The abused submitted to abuse because they believed it was God correcting them.

I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate this picture.

The truth is that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. That is part of our inheritance, that is, unless we give it up by falling into the mystery of iniquity and begin to allow someone else’s voice to come between us and Him.

Thankful Jane

Remember please that although some of my statements may sound like I’m making pronouncements, I expect this to be treated like a hypothesis.

blessD

08-23-2008, 03:25 PM

finallyprettyokay

08-23-2008, 03:43 PM

TJ wrote: Remember I am not speaking at this point to when the deputy authority/hierarchy teachings began to enter through Lee in southern California. I don’t know about that clearly yet, though I have some clues.

I wonder what you mean by this. Explain?

It is interesting to me that you trace this idea of deputy authority back to 1965. Those papers and tape came from WL, am I correct? I have heard it suggested that this doctrine/practice came into the lc with Max R. I 'came into the lc' at the exact same time as Max, part of his gang from San Clemente. That system of hierarchy was already firmly in place at that time --- summer of 1970. Firmly. This is one that no one should try to blame on Max. :nono: (I am not suggesting that you suggested that).

You know, I never heard the term deputy authority. Clearly, the practice was full-blown while I was there, but I never heard the term used until I came to this forum. It took me a while to make sure I knew what it meant, exactly. Let me run this by everyone, make sure I got it right. Okay?

A deputy is second-in-command to the top authority -- so God is the top authority, and lee was second in command? Am I right, that this is what was meant by this? Because I always think of it in terms of a deputy is usually the second-in-command to the sherrif. Like Sherrif Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife.

Now, don't get me wrong --- I love Barney Fife --- I just don't want to follow him!!! :rolleyes: :rollingeyes2: :eek:

fpo

---

finallyprettyokay

08-23-2008, 03:51 PM

blessD:

I am not sure we can ever make sure this doesn't happen again, somewhere. All we can do is understand it for ourselves, and help each other understand it. One of the biggest themes of healing is to know that you are not alone, that the same thing happened to other people. That's one of the things that can and does happen on this forum. We tell our stories, compare notes and start (or continue) to heal.

But we can make sure that we are not part of it, ever again. It may happen in some places, but I am pretty sure I won't be there. And I bet you won't either. God grant us the wisdom ---

fpo

---

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 04:01 PM

I wonder what you mean by this. Explain?

It is interesting to me that you trace this idea of deputy authority back to 1965. Those papers and tape came from WL, am I correct? I have heard it suggested that this doctrine/practice came into the lc with Max R. I 'came into the lc' at the exact same time as Max, part of his gang from San Clemente. That system of hierarchy was already firmly in place at that time --- summer of 1970. Firmly. This is one that no one should try to blame on Max. :nono:

You know, I never heard the term deputy authority. Clearly, the practice was full-blown while I was there, but I never heard the term used until I came to this forum. It took me a while to make sure I knew what it meant, exactly. Let me run this by everyone, make sure I got it right. Okay?

A deputy is second-in-command to the top authority -- so God is the top authority, and lee was second in command? Am I right, that this is what was meant by this? Because I always think of it in terms of a deputy is usually the second-in-command to the sherrif. Like Sherrif Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife.

Now, don't get me wrong --- I love Barney Fife --- I just don't want to follow him!!! :rolleyes: :rollingeyes2: :eek:

fpo
Deputy authority was also called "representative authority." It didn't mean second in command exactly, but more like "in place of." In other words a man was representing God on the earth. He had the direct connect to God and we got God's up to date messages through him. In our localities we looked at elders the same way. I guess its kind of like the vicar of Christ (the Pope) and the cardinals, bishops, etc. No one questioned the directives of such ones.

Someone else may be able to do a better job of explaining this.

As for what I meant about Lee, I meant that I believe he was the source of this kind of thought and teaching and that he brought it to the brothers he was with in southern California. Those in Texas got in from someone in southern California who was passing it to them. I'll have to go check on the other forum, but I think that Hope said someone sent it to Benson, maybe James Barber. I'll check and post again.

Thankful Jane

Ohio

08-23-2008, 04:06 PM

Thankful Jane

08-23-2008, 04:18 PM

I'll have to go check on the other forum, but I think that Hope said someone sent it to Benson, maybe James Barber. I'll check and post again.

I checked and it was possibly Don Hardy (not James Barber). Here is a link where I assumed it was Lee and Hope corrected me to say it may have been Don H.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=356134&postcount=184

Thankful Jane

Cal

08-23-2008, 04:38 PM

Igzy: I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'll make a comparison to this forum and the BARM. The BARM is an apologetics forum and I don't think they ever understood our desire to help people, and that this is the most sincere form of apologetics (my opinion). They seemed to want intellectual doctrinal debate without the people factor to "muddy" the water. I don't know this to be true, but it seems to me to be true, and that's the reason I post here instead. To "win" a debate in that arena is simply a "hello win column." To really win would be for someone who's hurting to be able to find the Lord again.

One thing you might need to understand is that some people cannot be ulitmately "helped" until their minds are convinced. Men tend to be that way. I know I am. Much of the problem with ex-LC men is that they hold conflicting concepts in one mind, causing inner conflict, the simplest being the "I'm supposed to be the the LC/I can't be in the LC" dichotomy. These people need emotional support, but they are not going to be set right until their minds are set right. Emotions are persuaded by sentiment; the mind is persuaded by facts. A solid logical argument, inspired of course by the Holy Spirit, goes a long way in these cases.

I'm not suspicious of "intellect" per se. I'm suspicious of "knowledge" of spiritual matters which is attributed to "culture", or "rugged individualism" or even "Texas individualism" or some other "influence" that in effect, denies the power of the Holy Spirit and it's working in our lives. The tendency has been to discredit some spiritual realities because these matters are looked down upon by society and dismissed as little more than "nonsense". For example, the very existance of this little icon: :littledevil: discredits or minimizes the spiritual reality of the spirit world. That's the "intellect" I'm talking about.

I believe God uses many things and meshes with many things that you might call "earthly" or "natural" or even "cultural." For example, familial and romantic love, team spirit, qualities of leadership, music, community, dedication, concentration, discipline, the list goes on and on. These things alone are not enough, but the Holy Spirit uses them. I no longer believe in a Holy Spirit that never works with the things of man's psychology or sociology. In fact, the more I go on the more I realize that's primarily the sphere in which he works.

Igzy: Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Idolatry as practiced by the leaders, resulting in the spiritual abuse of the flock.

Nell

I have no problem with such a discussion. I would just suggest the case be made with evidence supporting accusations. Make the case. Like I said, the challenge is to turn ideas into words that convince, of course with the Holy Spirit's help.

Paul Cox

08-23-2008, 04:45 PM

djohnson(XLCmember)

08-23-2008, 05:35 PM

Deputy authority was taught by Watchman Nee in his book Spiritual Authority. Lee took it from there and built his kingdom based on it. The notion that Mr. Rapoport introduced the idea as late as the mid 70s is ludicrous.

kisstheson

08-23-2008, 07:34 PM

Regardless of who passed it around here in America, the idea of “deputy authority” was firmly enschonched in Witness Lee’s heart all the way back in China.

In a meeting in Pasadena, in 1988 (or maybe ’86) he was asked about being God’s only “Oracle.” He stated that ever since 1948 he could not see anyone else on the earth who was speaking as God’s Oracle. At the time, he viewed Watchman Nee to be that one.

If you read his book, “The Vision of the Age,” he makes it clear that the mantle was passed down to him. That’s if you use “Deputy Authority,” “Oracle,” “One Trumpet,” and “Apostle for the Age,” interchangably.

With each one of these titles he has either implied that it is him, or has come outright and said so. His successors certainly have not been shy to put all these lofty titles on him, and even more.

Roger

Dear brother Roger,

How sad it is that WL would take this exalted view of himself and how sad it is that his successors would perpetuate this view of WL. This really grieves my heart. By the sheer mercy of God, I have been devouring the speakings and writings of other ministries ever since He led me out of the LC one and one-half years ago. Without a doubt, it is clear that Lee was most definitely NOT the sole "Oracle of God" on the earth since 1948.

First and foremost, this date of 1948 discredits almost the entire time period of "The Resumption of Watchman's Nee's Ministry". WN was active in ministry at least as late as 1951 and was not arrested until April, 1952. Also, D.M. Panton was active in ministry (publishing his The Dawn Magazine) right up to the time of his death in 1955.

What about the other co-workers of WN that were also sent out of Mainland China at various times before the Communists took over? Stephen Kaung is, of course, still very much alive and still actively ministering the riches of Christ to the Body of Christ. I do not know if Simon Meek and Faithful Leek are still alive, but Simon Meek was very active in ministry at least as late as the mid-1960's.

On top of that, T. Austin-Sparks ministered until shortly before his death in 1971. Bakht Singh ministered actively until at least 1990 (he was bedridden the last ten years of his life and passed away in 2000). Paul Billheimer (author of Destined for the Throne, a book much appreciated by WL and the BB's) ministered on TBN until shortly before his death in 1984. Ian Thomas (author of The Indwelling Life of Christ, The Saving Life of Christ, The Mystery of Godliness, etc.) passed away only a little over a year ago, August 1, 2007.

These brothers, and many others, are/were all gifted and annointed New Testament ministers and each one is/was a unique gift to the ENTIRE Body of Christ. They all carried out their portion of the New Covenant Ministry. To say that WL was "God's Only Oracle" since 1948 is to ignore the rich supply of ministry with which the Holy Spirit has been supplying the Body of Christ right up to today.

"So then let no one boast in men, for all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come, all are yours." (1 Cor. 3:21-22)

Ohio

08-24-2008, 05:25 AM

Regardless of who passed it around here in America, the idea of “deputy authority” was firmly ensconced in Witness Lee’s heart all the way back in China.

It seems so, Roger, based upon what I have heard. While WN was alive in China, apparently WL "wrote nothing, spoke nothing, did nothing" ... except what WN did or said. WL told that story a thousand times, as if that were a healthy pattern for us all. Ones like BP sure picked up on that message in the USA. Based on what I have heard of our history, it seems that ones will only espouse that view, when they believe that there is much more in store for them personally.

WL took the increase of the church in Taiwan in the early 50's as the divine proof of his position as the deputy authority of God. He never mentioned that having Mao's army breathing down their necks was the sovereignty of God for their salvation.

SC has mentioned the "culture thing" being very important in LC ecclesiastical development. The more I consider it, I have to agree. Growing up in China, studying only the Chinese history of the succession of dynasties, the concept of "deputy authority" sounds almost "scriptural." To a naturally ambitious man, the teaching must have sounded like a contrasting, Biblical alternative to the only form of government their country ever knew.

I have also heard that WN shared some proper "checks and balances" to this teaching that LSM has conveniently left out. Without audiovisual records and the actual context of his messages, we are left with the biases of note takers, translators, and editors.

Nell

08-24-2008, 07:00 AM

...It was a slow slope downward, but as we more and more surrendered not only our right but our responsibility to be directly under the leading of the Holy Spirit, the enemy had a way to infiltrate. He didn’t have to control each of us directly. All he had to do was convince us to come under the control of others, who came under the control of others, who came under control of the one at the top .... Then with relative ease he could secure our obedience and lead us where he wished. Over time, he could cause leaders to abuse God’s people and feel justified in so doing because they believed they were following God. The abused submitted to abuse because they believed it was God correcting them.

I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate this picture.

The truth is that there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. That is part of our inheritance, that is, unless we give it up by falling into the mystery of iniquity and begin to allow someone else’s voice to come between us and Him.

Thankful Jane

Remember please that although some of my statements may sound like I’m making pronouncements, I expect this to be treated like a hypothesis.

#466 (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2755&postcount=466) To see whether or not we have “come out of her,” we can ask ourselves two questions:

1) as a believer do I act in the place of God over another human being; do I believe I am supposed to direct them and tell them what to do?

2) as a believer do I look to God for direction or do I look to others who direct me and tell me what to do, submitting to what they tell me, even if it violates scripture and conscience?

If I can answer both of these questions, “no” then the call to “come out of her” my people does not apply to me.

Igzy: Which "topic" are you talking about precisely? I'm not being coy, but this thread has been all over the place and I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Nell: Idolatry as practiced by the leaders, resulting in the spiritual abuse of the flock.

...I have no problem with such a discussion. I would just suggest the case be made with evidence supporting accusations. Make the case. Like I said, the challenge is to turn ideas into words that convince, of course with the Holy Spirit's help.

Igzy,

I think this is an excellent case/hypothesis made by TJ. What do you think?

Nell

Thankful Jane

08-24-2008, 07:19 AM

As a young victim of spiritual abuse by the misuse of authority in the LC, it seems somewhat irrelevant to read intellectual anecdotes and debate over its root causes. It might help understanding, but it does not help the pain. It might be akin to reading a psychology study of the mind of a serial killer, if your loved one was murdered by one. Clearly, we don’t want it to ever happen again. How can this be accomplished?Hi dear BlessD,

You are truly BlessD. God is the only one who can really remove our pain. What actually happened can never be undone, but He can wipe away the tears and give comfort and strength to go on. We can also learn from what has happened and help others.

Sadly, there is no snap-your-finger prevention or some kind of anti-abuse vaccine available to prevent spiritual abuse. Those who have created or suffered in spiritually abusive environments have to come to an understanding of what happened and why. Then they can then be used by God to help others. The environment that hurt you and many others is still going on in the Local Churches today, so we really do need to see things in God's light and learn from them.

As in human families, abuse in the family of God is perpetuated by the way all the family members think and handle things. Abuse in God’s family is worse because God’s name is in the mix. Abusers believe God sanctions their abuse (yikes). The abused believe God is upset with them. The rest of the folks (which I think are the majority) just sit like hear-no, see-no, speak-no monkeys and hope it will all somehow get better.

God’s family is where we expected to find the love of God, instead so many of us at some point came face to face with cold, heartless, evil. Instead of true love, we had evil men playing “God cards” against us. This clearly isn’t what God intended.

The only explanation for how men could spiritually abuse other men and at the same time believe they are serving God is that they were comfortably functioning in the darkness of an idolatrous system of hierarchy. They believed that only the guy at the top would be accountable, so on they marched, trampling over the souls of men.

Those who perpetrate such abuse are men who have been caught in the devil’s snare of wanting something for themselves, whether it was prestige, recognition, a feeling of being unique and special to God in some way, or just a desire for power, even if it was just a little power. I'm not saying they were conscious of this motivation, but it was a clearly present. The fruit today testifies that there has been no light on such hidden sins of the fallen deceitful human heart and no repentance.

I fell into the trap on the abuser side of this equation because I wanted to please the brothers. I did things that hurt others as a result (such as, among other things, carrying reports to the brothers about them ... it wasn't a pure activity, but one that gave me some recognition for bringing the report ... shudder).

Of course there are always some who are not in either extreme. They tend to remain silent, keep their blinders on for self-protection, and try to conform. They may not experience direct abuse, but they have witnessed it at some time or the other.

The situation in the LC is an extreme development of this kind of evil. It can exist in lesser degrees if the same structural building blocks exist. We have to learn from all of this. We have to come out of her, all the way out, meaning each one of us needs to give up any way of thinking and practice that puts us in danger of abusing others (crossing others boundaries) or being abused (being run over.) One thing I haven't mentioned which probably has the strongest holding power over those in such a system is the role money plays. It’s importance should not be overlooked. When the hierarchical system is tied to income, you have a whole ‘nuther animal.

With everyone it boils down to a heart matter married with opportunity, which the devil is most happy to provide.

On the other hand, if we were on the abused end of things (I got in on that end too), then we need to realize that God DID NOT do this to us. I think in another post (when I get time) I will share an amazing experience I had in 2006 that showed me in a very tangible way how God feels about what happens to people who are abused.

The fact is that what happened to us was done by men under the control of the devil through their covetousness (idolatry, Col 3:5). If we are silent in the face of their abuse, we sin. We must speak up when abuse happens, for both our sake and for theirs.

As for those who escaped direct abuse but had knowledge it was transpiring. They need to end their silence and disobedience and expose the unfruitful works of darkness.

So, as believers in Christ, every one's protection from this happening again is to understand the nature of the beast and the danger we fall into if we don't submit ourselves to Christ alone, always being guarded about being ambitious or covetous of anything.

BlessD, we are in a unique situation today. We are actually seeing God come in to expose the devil and rescue people as more and more people begin to communicate. God will surely finish what he has begun. All kinds of people are reading these forums. Both abusers and abused are here, along with those who have watched abuse and sat silently by. God is using all of our honest communication to bring in His light.

I personally think the Lord wants to bring us all back to being just brothers and sisters in Christ, in relationships with one another without hierarchy. Whenever we talk like this, some start crying “we have to have leaders … we have to have structure… etc.” I ask anyone who wants to respond like this to be sure and long and hard at their motives in God’s light. I ask them to consider if money considerations play a role in their response. To say God cannot lead us without hierarchy is unbelief. I am not saying there is not a place for proper elders, etc. but our understanding of what that means needs a complete overhaul. (Another topic.) There should be NO hierarchy among the children of God.

I guarantee you there will be people functioning in every capacity in the body of Christ when He is given His rightful place of pre-eminence.

Thankful Jane

kisstheson

08-24-2008, 07:39 AM

I have also heard that WN shared some proper "checks and balances" to this teaching that LSM has conveniently left out. Without audiovisual records and the actual context of his messages, we are left with the biases of note takers, translators, and editors.

Dear brother Ohio,

Yes, indeed. WN most definitely shared some very scriptural, very sobering, and very proper "checks and balances" to this whole "deputy authority" teaching that LSM conveniently left out. WN really captured the New Testament burden for crucified, broken, humble "servant-leaders". WN's requirements for a "deputy authority" are extremely high!

LSM's released their version of the messages WN spoke to his co-workers at Kuling in 1949 in a book entitled Authority and Submission. This book was originally released in 1988, and we all know what was going on in 1988! WL was making very bold statements about his supreme importance to the LC and the elders and co-workers were pledging allegiance to WL and his ministry. This is so contrary to the whole spirit of WN's messages, it is appalling! It just grieves my spirit tremendously. I was shocked when I read in The Thread of Gold that LSM had left out 9 chapters (when compared to the version put out by Stephen Kaung in 1972 entitled Spiritual Authority.) As you might expect, these nine chapters that LSM left out are the ones where WN makes very high demands on anyone who would desire to be a "deputy authority". These 9 chapters are a scathing indictment of everything WL and the BB's were saying and doing in 1988. Interestingly enough, LSM actually had a change of heart and they included these 9 chapters when they published The Collected Works of Watchman Nee.

What was missing in the LSM 1988 version are all the healthy "checks and balances" to the whole "deputy authority" teaching. Just look at some of the chapters LSM conveniently left out in 1988:

The Character of God's Deputy Authority - Gracious to Others
The Misuse of Deputy Authority and God's Governmental Judgment
The Need for a Deputy Authority to Submit to Authority
The Need of a Deputy Authority to Sanctify Himself

BTW - For all of you who prefer audio books over printed books, Hovell Audio has made available an unabridged audio book verison of Spiritual Authority (all the chapters are there!).

Cal

08-24-2008, 08:34 AM

The teaching of deputy authority is nothing more than an invitation to abuse.

To see where the idea can lead, read this post (http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=256).

Paul Cox

08-24-2008, 08:56 AM

SC has mentioned the "culture thing" being very important in LC ecclesiastical development. The more I consider it, I have to agree. Growing up in China, studying only the Chinese history of the succession of dynasties, the concept of "deputy authority" sounds almost "scriptural." To a naturally ambitious man, the teaching must have sounded like a contrasting, Biblical alternative to the only form of government their country ever knew.

I recently saw something on one of the history channels about the Chin Dynasty. He was China's first emperor, and the one from whom China gets its name. It really confirmed my belief, and evidentually that of many on this forum, that Chinese culture has played a huge part in the history of the Local Church. Unfortunately, culture always plays a part in the degradation of the Church, LSM Church, or any other.

To a lesser degree, it is easy to see that Witness Lee operated very much like an Chinese emperor. What they spoke was, "the it." Questioning them meant loosing your life (think "quarantine").

I think about how the Emperor would find the least excuse to convict someone of a crime, and then sentence them to finish out their lives in hard labor, working on the "Great Wall."

Something that is little talked about is how many saints were left in spiritual despair after being "encouraged" to go and slave on the meeting halls (mainly, Anaheim and Irving). BTW, the Irving Hall is beginning to look more and more like the Great Wall in that it is a useless relic of the past. If only the money gurbbing Blendeds could figure out a way to make it a tourist attraction. Perhaps a visit to the homeland could give them some lessons on how to make money while leaving God out of the picture.

Roger

blessD

08-24-2008, 02:28 PM

Hi dear BlessD,
You are truly BlessD. God is the only one who can really remove our pain. What actually happened can never be undone, but He can wipe away the tears and give comfort and strength to go on. We can also learn from what has happened and help others........

Wow, thanks for your thorough reply on my concern and question. One of my thoughts for writing what I did is I have shared this site with my older daughter - a younger witness to the Christian deviations of the LC.

I have a hope this forum can be a productive, positive place for all generations and audiences to come and receive healing, answers, revitalization, and reconnection. I hope everyone who comes here will feel free to speak up without any leftover patterns of subordination, fear, power, and hierarchy getting in the way.

Yes, I too have repented (and continue to repent) for anything I did to hurt anyone while I was attempting to fit in or in my own sloppy way of refusing to fit in.

On an entirely different note, I have mentioned in several posts that I thought the environment was better in LC-OKC. I based this on my younger daughters life, attitude, spiritual walk, etc. However, I was told a couple of girls from her generation are currently lost in stripping and lesbianism. I was very sad to hear this. Going back to the #1 post on this thread - I believe it is the same pattern we see over and over again from generation to generation. I thought I should speak up to say maybe things are not "all better".

Thanks again, Thankful Jane, for your answer.

blessD

08-24-2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Nell Igzy: I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I'll make a comparison to this forum and the BARM. The BARM is an apologetics forum and I don't think they ever understood our desire to help people, and that this is the most sincere form of apologetics (my opinion). They seemed to want intellectual doctrinal debate without the people factor to "muddy" the water. I don't know this to be true, but it seems to me to be true, and that's the reason I post here instead. To "win" a debate in that arena is simply a "hello win column." To really win would be for someone who's hurting to be able to find the Lord again.Originally Posted by IgzyOne thing you might need to understand is that some people cannot be ulitmately "helped" until their minds are convinced. Men tend to be that way. I know I am. Much of the problem with ex-LC men is that they hold conflicting concepts in one mind, causing inner conflict, the simplest being the "I'm supposed to be the the LC/I can't be in the LC" dichotomy. These people need emotional support, but they are not going to be set right until their minds are set right. Emotions are persuaded by sentiment; the mind is persuaded by facts. A solid logical argument, inspired of course by the Holy Spirit, goes a long way in these cases.My turn…

Maybe there is a fine balance when getting involved in intellectual doctrinal debate. Discussing viable answers/facts, while avoiding the old familiar sense of sitting in yet another long, boring meeting listening to people that like to hear themselves talk – out-of-touch and not noticing they lost everyone an hour ago. ;) Simply watching/listening for clues from the audience to see when it is time to quit “talking”.

To draw an analogy – a best practice in leading JAD (Joint Application Development) meetings is to keep everyone engaged. I must watch for subtle clues from attendees that they are losing focus and get the meeting quickly refocused and engaged. I couldn’t help but think about this example since I had to do a lot of it last week at work.

Thankful Jane

08-24-2008, 07:30 PM

The following is some scriptural support for the idea that when God’s prophets are involved with money and where there are men lording it over other men in the church this sets the stage for spiritual abuse. The following verses may be a case spiritual abuse in the church that is recorded in the Bible:

Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat [throne]is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight
against them with the sword of my mouth.

Here are some things that stand out:

-- These verses are written to a church, and more specifically to those in that church who had the possibility of hearing (who were still faithful). Note that there are others in this church that the Spirit calls “them” (vs. 14, 15, 16).

-- The Spirit said that Satan was dwelling among them and that they had among them those who held the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which God hates. (vs. 12, 13, 14,15)

-- Nicolaitanes means to subdue or conquer the people. This could mean there were some people lording it over others there and teaching this practice as doctrine. Satan’s seat or throne was there.*(v. 13, 15) This could possibly mean that Satan was exercising his authority through those practicing the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. (*Some commentators say that the reference to Satan’s seat could have been made because there was in Pergamos a temple dedicated to the worship of Caesar and/or also because there was a Babylonian cult religious center there.)

-- In this church a brother, Antipas, was murdered, among them, where Satan dwells. The phrase “slain among you where Satan dwells” seems to be saying that Satan was at home among them and that Antipas was murdered among them. (If so this, would be major abuse among them.) (v. 13) Mystery Babylon the Great was filled with the blood of martyrs for Jesus. The RCC has martyred many for their witness to the truth. It is possible that those lording it over others were responsible for the death of Antipas. “… those who kill you think they do God service.” (Jn 16:2) (Some commentators say he could have been killed by the Romans for his witness.)

-- There was a prophet of God who became a false prophet and taught evil things for money. (v. 14)

-- God was correcting the audience of this letter for “having” such people in the church (the “them” who taught these things). He was telling the church to repent for “having” such ones. (In this letter he was not speaking to the “them.”)

-- God was about to come and fight against the “them” and was giving the church advance notice that they needed to repent. They needed to repent for listening to such teachings and allowing these things to be taught. They needed to reject their belief in such teachings, ones that resulted in people being conquered and becoming defiled.
Please note that the evils found in Mystery Babylon the Great are found here, including terrible abuse of the faithful (blood of the martyrs.)

Think about it. All of this was in a church. Too similar. These verses are like a sharp two-edged sword.

Thankful Jane