Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.
Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.
And Mel Porter did his control of the meetings in the C. of Ft. Lauderdale in a sneaky way. Mel picked the 14 brothers that he used to control the meetings by how loyal they were to him. So most in the meetings he controlled didn't know that the meeting was seeded with controlling brothers.
And Mel Porter couldn't give a cohesive sermon if his life depended upon it. Mel Porter had to spiritual depth. Mel's "gift" was blind loyalty, to Witness Lee. And Lee chose him as an elder not because Mel had spiritual depth, but because he was blindly loyal to him.
Mel was about loyalty and commitment to Lee, and directed the meetings to that end.
It was a farce....a phony farce.
It would have been more honest had he issued a Program like so many churches do, with everything spelled out.
|
Harold,
Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good. But just getting together and seeing where we go is not a proper understanding of Paul's directions to the most chaotic church in the NT. Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.
And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian. It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was.
Someone had to stand up in a meeting in Dallas and tell people to quit bringing the green and white pom poms to the meetings. It may have been a little annoying to people like me (who went to the high school where the green and white pom poms came from), but it was absolutely consistent with the "flow" that had been going on in Dallas (and it seems in some of the other Texas cities) for some time. So there should have been no control? There absolutely should have been some control over the chaos that came. (BTW, it was either JI or JB that cast out the pom poms.)
You have a problem with Mel. And it is probably rather legitimate. But, like Lee, it doesn't make his entire existence wrong. He may not have been a good elder. He may not have been one apt to teach. That doesn't make all aspects of his attempts to reign-in some of the chaos wrong. Maybe he wasn't the best choice for elder. But he was what you had.
And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint. In fact, the liturgy of a "high church" looks more like what Paul described in 1 Cor 14 than the LRC. No, it is not my preference either. But it is not simply bankrupt or reprobate for not being LRC-like. I prefer the mixture of modern and ancient, liturgy and fundamentalism (without the head bashing) that I see each week. But that does not make it best. But it is, like so many others, quite acceptable.
And you know I don't defend the LRC. But I don't just bash it either. Neither should you. It is not good for your blood pressure. Or your spiritual condition. Help us in the process of providing useful feedback on the LRC. Don't just rant. (OK. Rant occasionally. Just not all the time.)