Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Guest, I think there is also some authority as to the general direction of the group or church, the stated mission of the group, which guest speakers will be invited, and things like that. In other words, things directly related to the mission and thrust of the group.
But when it comes to the personal lives of members, there is no special authority.
|
The LC system of "
the work," most of which was inherited from W. Nee, provides senior workers with much "
special authority" over the other workers. This perhaps is the root teaching that justifies their system of abuses. Senior workers, such as Witness Lee when it pertained to global administrations, or Titus Chu when it came to regional operations, have the presumed authority to decide where all other junior workers will serve and how they will serve. In this regard all LC workers forfeit two of the most important areas of their Christian walk. Senior workers thus yield tremendous power over the lives of those under them.
It is human nature to treat others as you have been treated, especially when it is believed that the abuser is your "spiritual father." Senior workers have less control over working elders, but, of course, the lines tend to become blurred over time. With such a system in place, reinforced by distorted notions of spiritual authority, it is easy to understand how beloved brothers become bully brothers, and why we are having this thread discussion in the first place.
Personally, I left the LC after Titus Chu transferred a new worker to our struggling church. He had to leave greater Chicago since their leaders JR and BB were no longer supportive of TC. My church and its elders were publicly instructed to "labor" with this new leader by a TC surrogate from Cleveland who showed up one Sunday morning. In LC-speak, to "labor with the brother" is to submit to his authoritative controls, some of which are received directly from Cleveland.
One particularly memorable exchange with our new maximum leader is telling. I addressed some of his radical changes which were tearing at the fabric of our churchlife. He responded, "
sometimes we need to shock the saints."
Shock the saints?!? Is that like "
shock the monkey?!?" Since the church is now a small fraction of her former self, I wonder if he has successfully
electrocuted the church. This is the kind of "shepherding" which too many LC leaders are familiar with.
This particular leader has also taken over the leadership of the church work in Uganda which was initiated in part by Keith Miller of Cincinnati. At one point this brother even made the comment that he is now the "leading brother in Africa." Imagine that! The "leading brother in Africa" is now ruling my former LC. Should I have stayed in my LC to submit and to obey him, since he has become so distinguished?