Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's hard for me to agree with this requirement for good health.
That would be like me requesting my Catholic family members in Cleveland to go to the Vatican and confront them about abuses which occurred in Philadelphia.
|
Actually a very good point. And it is not the position of the RCC leadership in Cleveland to make declarative statements about the events, facts, etc., of other places. They are responsible for what happens in Cleveland.
In this regard, I do not think that every LRC assembly that continues to follow the LSM is complicit in what went down in Anaheim many years ago or in Cleveland, Toronto, etc., in more recent years.
The thing that does bother me, though, is that to the extent that they know of the duplicity in other ways — insistence that certain amounts of LSM materials be purchased, and that the churches abandon some of their meetings in favor of "ministry station meetings" in which everything about it is not local, but externally directed, etc., — and yet remain silent.
I suspect that the average LRC member has no idea about these things. They accept that if it is what is done, then it must be OK. They don't hear about that much of the GLA fiasco. The truth about John Ingalls. They actually believe that they are incapable of resisting the poison of those internet sites.
(This is actually quite funny when you think about it. A people imbued with the ministry of the age that provides a guaranteed blessing from God greater than any others have ever received are so mentally weak that they must put on blinders, ear plugs, and make strange, loud noises so that they cannot hear or see anything that might contradict what they have been told.)
I know this is not what Ohio meant in his comment, but to take Igzy at full value, then we would have a world of people reading their Bibles, finding whatever they think they see in it, and arguing with everyone that their interpretation is correct. We would surely see the end of the mega-churches. Small home groups would have trouble staying together in that environment.
Don't misunderstand me, but it is interesting that until Gutenberg, scripture was not generally in the hands of everyone. It was found in scrolls, then handwritten books, in libraries and churches. It was opened and proclaimed in a way in which the one proclaiming it gave it meaning and interpretation. Yes, scholars, monks, etc., did pour over it and discuss. But that was generally done with a view of finding consensus. We had the Protestant reformation because someone working within that framework would not be taken seriously. And after that, more and more got into the act and wouldn't take each other seriously, with the result that we splintered into a number of major schisms. Now we are virtually all educated, and Bibles are printed in almost every language. And they are cheap. So we have all become experts (not!).
At some level, giving ultimate interpretation back to the group is important. But the group does need to address dissent or question in a manner other than excommunication and censure. And at this point, it would seem that the LRC has done more of this than anyone else — to their detriment. They gave up private thought and questioning and gave control to a despot of sorts. The balance is (or should be) that there is authority, but that it is not above question.