Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

John Myer has a new E-Book titled "Warning: Contains No Sugar -- Honest Words for Aspiring Leaders in the Church"

http://www.grandviewchristianassembl...No%20Sugar.pdf

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Good book. I like his no nonsense attitude.

I wish he had tackled some of the harder questions, though. Like how to juggle all those church responsibilities while taking care of your job, wife, children, extended family, friends, community services and all the other legitimate responsibilities that compete with more traditional spiritual endeavors.

It's easy to say don't serve mammon. It's harder to pull off that pat exhortation when the mammon one is pursuing is simply to provide for one's family's needs. Pastors always seem to think money just rains out of heaven. Whenever they talk about money it's either about giving more of it or working less for it, which when you think about it is kind of contradictory.

Also, John Myer, I've got great respect for you, but please finish A Future and a Hope. It's bad form to leave it unfinished. You may have lost interest in the LC, but there are many who need that book in its entirety. Thanks.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I was told a while ago that those final chapters of FaH were actually being spoken to the church at the time. The contents may be included in their regular e-mail "Creekbed" series, which summarizes the messages from the meetings.

Regarding JM's current activities, yesterday I received this .....

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Maybe he's forgotten the website is even there. As a reminder it's:

http://www.assemblylife.com/

It has a note stating that the next chapter will be available March 2010. Which was almost a year and a half ago. It seems to me he should at least keep readers informed with accurate information. Either say the book is on hold or update the delivery date. But to just leave it open-ended like that doesn't make any sense.

I can imagine all the hardliners going "See! He couldn't even finish the book. This shows the Lord's disapproval, blah, blah..."

And I can imagine readers who believed him wondering, too.

Why encourage that?

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Things changed when John Myer got expelled by TC from "the work" serving the remaining GLA churches. He lost some of his financial support, and had to focus his time and resources on what the Lord had placed in front of him.

At the time A Future and A Hope was being written, JM was writing to a much wider audience, which included many LC's which had rejected LSM. Today his "audience" has been reduced to those he sees on a regular basis, many of which have little background with LSM.

Some of these books by ex-members are written in an on-going basis, which creates new difficulties for the authors. Had the book been released all at once, the dynamics of change and the reactions from the readers would have been of little consequence, since the book was already "out there." Don Rutledge and his "history" have suffered similar ends. Once LSM visited him, his writings have stopped.

Word is out that, that LSM/DCP has begun to aggressively research litigation against opposing internet websites. They now have an idle staff since the US Supreme Court shut them down. Who knows what will happen to these websites and forums already in existence.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Why shouldn't John Myer be allowed to wonder or wander? John's a free man. And there's no need for him to live up to our expectations, nor the expectations of the Living Stream Ministry church leaders. The opinions and expectations of the leaders of LSM matter no more than that of the almost 7 billion others on the earth. At most they are just background noise, like a chainsaw in the background, that's annoying but has to be tolerated.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

So you are saying either he has lost interest in the book, or he got intimidated by LSM. I doubt the latter since the partial book is still online.

I think at the very least he should update his website with a note saying the anticipated date of release of the next chapter is "indefinite." Anything less just looks sloppy to me and raises doubts. Surely he isn't so busy he can't at least do that.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Harold, if everyone lived up to your standard we'd all still be living in mud huts.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

So is Don Rutledge's:

http://www.laymansfellowship.com/public/Donbookch1.pdf

[[knock on wood]]

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I have to think that if there were serious legal precedent for that kind of lawsuit, the world of Internet forums would have been swamped with suits years ago. And wouldn't look anything like they do today.

But then, they're the lawyers, what would I know...

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I think you are attributing to me the product of religion ; that has held back every advancement of society into modernity and science at every stage and step.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

So write to John Myer directly, and tell him how disappointed you are in him for not keeping his promise to finish his book....

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I thought some public urging was appropriate as well. Please excuse me if I threatened you by implying people should be held to some standard other than being free from "religion."

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

And the issue is not my disappointment. The issue is the book, in my opinion, needs to be completed, or at the very least the release date of the next chapter needs to be updated, or there needs to be an announcement made that the book is on hold.

Note that none of that has anything to do with allowing Myers to "wonder and wander." Not that he seems like the wondering, wandering kind anyway. He seems to know pretty much what he believes. He just left some people hanging on finishing his thoughts on what he believes and so placed his previous thoughts in question.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I will be happy to defend my position, but this thread is off topic.

UntoHim will you create a thread somewhere call "Did the Church Create Europe?" please with relevant posts transferred? Thanks

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I recently heard that John Myer does intend to finish this book.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

So does this mean, that neither JM nor DR were actually "intimidated" by anybody from finishing their books? :eek:

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

No.

In the case of JM, it mostly means that he is no longer cow-towing to those who would intimidate, and therefore expects to continue eventually.

For DR, I cannot say whether he was intimidated by anyone, or by everyone. I believe that some of his last comments on the subject were that all sides were complaining and he wasn't sure how to proceed. And one of his conclusions was that maybe he should not be entirely open during the process because he intends to write from his perspective as it played out, not from everyone's perspective in hind-sight. That and some pretty significant events in their family. If he gets back to writing, I expect that we will see the results pretty much when he is done.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

That's good news.


But he should still update the expected delivery date of the next chapter.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Fine, but it does seem like we're a little too quick to make assumptions...

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I personally feel that the "intimidation factor" is the primary cause of GLA splintering. Once the grip of fear and intimidation is removed, then the split comes quite quickly, like a bird released from a cage, flying afar, never to return.

It seems to me that TC's recent treatment of John Myer awakened many GLA leaders to the fact that TC was not an "innocent victim" during the whole quarantine ordeal, neither did TC have an inside track on the truth.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Titus Chu was a victim, albeit not so innocent. He certainly has flaws. After all, he likes soft hotel sheets (ha ha).

But you know the Blended blah blahs, in defending themselves, try to make the same case. They point out his flaws and behavior throughout the whole ordeal as "proof" that they were justified in what they did.

But when examining what the Blended blah blahs did to the Great Lakes area, one has to leave the issue of TC's behavior out of it, and ask the question: Was it scriptural what they did? Did they have the biblical basis to divide the church over the degree of devotion to their interpretation of Witness Lee's ministry? The answer is no. It was unscriptural and flies in the face of all of Witness Lee's empty words about endeavoring to keep the oneness.

Whatever Titus Chu's motives were it is clear that his mortal sin was that he was not willing to walk in lock-step with the Blended blah blahs on LaPalma avenue. They had no scriptural grounds to publicly defame him, and associate his works with that of the Devil because of it.

P.C.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Exactly. Good post.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

I don't disagree, however, why the focus on Titus Chu? Weren't the real victims the thousands of individual members (it is in the thousands, right, Ohio?) who've had their lives affected by the "feuding religious lords"?

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Yes, you are exactly right. When talking about victim-hood, they are the real ones who are overlooked. Titus stands out because in every fabricated "rebellion" that LSM has they have to come up with a top villain: Austin-Sparks, Max R, John Ingalls, and now Titus Chu. These are the ones who get the public lynching, as an example to the trembling masses. So, quite naturally, their witch trial of record is the one that gets all the attention. But the real suffering that takes place doesn't even make it to section B of the papers.

Many of those cases have made their way to the various forums over the years. Almost always some cold-hearted, callous LSM defender will go on the attack and just dismiss them as not willing to "forget the things of the past."

BTW, if forgetting the things of the past is so easy I wonder why the Blended blah blahs haven't set an example for us and reached out to those dear brothers who they felt they had to associate with the Devil?

P.C.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

And when other leaders are abused by TC, we should give TC a free pass, because after all he was the "real victim" here.

And when other leaders are abused by TC, then where should that be posted? What am I doing wrong here guys?

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

You are not doing anything wrong. The point is not that TC was righteous, only that the basis for excommunication was bogus.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

So .... if TC had been funded by the Anaheim "workers fund," as JM was funded by the Cleveland "workers fund," then possibly TC may not have been officially quarantined, but rather merely had his funds "cut off" as happened to JM.

The point being this: all LC "discipline" is bogus in nature. It misdirects the real focus of the saints onto supposedly spiritual topics, when the pressing issues at hand, however, are control and "insubordination," or as Paul so eloquently communicated to the Galatian believers, the real issues are bondage to the laws mandated by headquarters and the liberty of the Spirit.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Yes, the foolish Galatians have willingly chosen to be put in bondage again.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Not really.

They simply looked to headquarters in Jerusalem for their teachings and practices, because they were taught that the original apostles were there.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Ah, so maybe this is where Paul quarantined James, when he warned the Galatians against the bewitching Jewdaizers! :eek:

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Absolutely not, and you're not doing anything wrong, I probably wasn't clear where I was coming from in my post...

--------

Isn't there one really big difference between the 2006 and 2009 quarantines (Great Lakes Area and South America), and the quarantines of the 1980's? That is, instead of just "quarantining" three or four leaders, LSM specifically ejected many churches with thousands of members.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

One might draw that conclusion. In fact, I'm surprised LSM hasn't already. But, Paul never told the saints to have nothing to do with James. When the LSM crowd gets into alienating someone they not only mention their name but also go into what kind of sheets and towels they like. They defame and degrade them in the worst way. They then delete their names from all previous works as if they never existed.

With Paul, whenever he had a disagreement or dispute with another worker there always seemed to be an obvious door left open for fellowship. He wasn't into banishing people forever. Even with the young man at Corinth, his purpose was for temporary discipline, with the hope that the young man would repent, which he did.

When LSM issues "discipline," it is first and foremost always on bogus grounds, as someone has mentioned. Secondly, it becomes clear that they no longer want anything to do with the "rebellious" one. Which is the point. When someone's eyes have been opened to the "Wizard of Oz" standing behind the curtain, they then become a danger to the very man-made, man-organized, man-maintained Living Stream Church.

It's not about the sweetness of fellowship. It's about keeping the house of cards standing.

P.C.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Officially LSM would disagree. They only quarantine leaders. Divisive leaders.

This is why they can justify lawsuits and "local replastering workshops." LSM views all the local saints in the local churches as unwilling "victims." They just can't believe that anyone would willingly depart from "the ministry."

Btw, my FIL was a plasterer, it is a noble trade. For LSM to use the word is insulting to all true craftsmen.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Yes ....... very true.

Such was not the case with Saul. Neither with LSM.

Re: Warning: Contains No Sugar
 

Hard for me to keep that straight in my head. Where I was you probably wouldn't even admit to taking a trip to Cleveland or Indianapolis. And that was even before 2006.


I must have misunderstood the whole "replastering" thing. I was under the impression that they meant they were "replastering" the local assemblies in your area. Has there already been a thread on this topic?


Tell that to stone-workers.