Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana
www.twoturmoils.com/IntheWakeoftheNewWay.pdf
My first writing in 2001 addressed LSM's rebellion against a scriptural ground of unity in the church. Many of my writings that followed did the same, including my posts on this thread.
|
(In the Wake of the New Way)
Here is a paradox: Oneness with the ministry was gained at the price of division in the church. For some to “sail on” in one accord was to provide the fertile bed of discord among the rest -- the believers, the members of the Body of Christ meeting as the church in their locality.
.................................................. The Tiananmen Square Principle......................................
Maybe an illustration is needed to aptly describe what the experience of many was who suffered in the new way.
It is interesting that the upheaval in Anaheim and the trouble in other churches that the new way helped spawn, took place concurrently with the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. In principle, the disconcerted saints in the recovery were handled much in the same way as those dissenters to the communist government in China. The primary concern of the leaders and the army was not for the persons in their way. The concern was for their “ism”:
"If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The So******t party stresses so****ism. Any political party has its own “ism”. They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge” (One Accord For The Lord’s Move, W. L., pp. 97, 99-100).
We have to be honest brothers and sisters. The new way took a toll. It was intrusive to our fellow members in the Body. Regardless of the condition of the recovery that brought about the need for change, we should not have lost people. If the call was indeed just to gain an army to fight for the ministry, why wasn't this more clearly defined and separated from the church? Brother Lee said that Paul never controlled the churches or insisted that the saints follow his ministry; nevertheless, he added that, "there still is a need for leadership". Hence, he took the lead as he did. To say our brother wasn't controlling the churches, however, is hard to comprehend. Gaining a fighting unit for the ministry took place in the church! It was inseparable from the church. To be sure, there was no respect or regard for those not in one accord for this, but in word only.
(I recently talked to a sister who left the church in 1989 after a leading one proclaimed in a meeting that the saints who were not in the church for brother Lee and his ministry didn’t need to be there. This word of absoluteness with the ministry and the resulting effect of losing a sister and the spiritual harmony at home for that family is an example of the spirit of power, not love that prevailed during the new way. Her husband has continued in the church, and one of their sons might leave for Russia soon, having recently completed the full-time-training.)
We lost many who at one time were happy to meet with us and their stories are often tragic. Married couples have suffered much, for example, with easily over a hundred divorces taking place in the churches since the new way began! I know of six separations or divorces happening currently in four different localities, and this kind of shameful occurrence among us has been taking place frequently for sixteen years. The new way for these members means a new way of life without their mate or their children and, very possibly, without the church. Many other couples that have left the church are still together, but with very unpleasant and painful memories of the church life since 1984.
Most of these brothers and sisters were dispirited and disheartened by the changes in the church life and felt forced out of participation. Some experienced getting "knocked down", such as leading ones standing up before “officers” of the army to fellowship their concerns. These brothers may not have been ambitious or conspiring as some brothers were alleged to be; rather, they were ones trying to stop the carnage that they were experiencing in their locality and hearing of in different places. Some brothers were afraid to stand or sensed the futility of doing so. One prominent brother, close to brother Lee, approached him sixteen times, usually with others, to express his and others' concern for what was happening in so many churches to so many saints. Their efforts were to no avail as brother Lee's prophecy was coming to pass that he was "willing to sacrifice people and places". Their concerns were founded and legitimate, and attempts to address those concerns ended in their frustration and sad departure from the church.
Where was the principle of the Body in the new way, the keeping of the real one accord that is in the inclusive nature of Christ? Where was the same care for every member that there be no division in the Body that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians? It was not there in the new way. The oneness in the Lord’s new move was not a oneness of the Body. Rather, it dishonored the oneness that includes every member.