Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...
- They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
- They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
- They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
- They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.
I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.
Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one. |
My thoughts was primarily based on:
the teaching of deputy authority
the fear of being marked as divisive for responding
to take abuse is to take the cross
Going off topic for a moment based on the premise all elders are deputy authority. How did they get to be elders? As I've stated on other threads my oberservation of a local church elder is not much different than an elder from a non-local church. That being they embrace responsibility and it takes endurance and commitment to that particular assembly before being chosen as an elder. Differences I see for example in a non-lc church you don't know who the elders are until their oversight is required. Whereas in the local church, for the most part they are easily identified.
Where I see the local church elder being different than any non-local church elder is in the ability to move their eldership from city to city. For example from Los Angeles to Detroit or from Anaheim to Denver.