[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you’ve taken notice to what the majority of my posts here concern, they consist mainly of three things; the preaching of a false gospel, the preaching of a false Jesus, and refuting any doctrine that help support the those two. Knowing this you can conclude my overall view of the Local Churches; that being, just like the Mormons or JW’s, they are not a Christian group at all but one that veils their own ideology within a Christian worldview.

I agree we don’t have any verses telling us what steps to take before speaking up about “destructive controlling groups”, we only have the apostles addressing the Body of Christ, groups of believers that already adhered to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

This then leads me to the question; why do you hold the Local Churches up to scripture if they don’t even preach the true gospel in the first place? Aren’t you just working to validate them as a legitimate Christian group by doing so?

It's an interesting question you've asked. You are right that I'm treating them as part of the church and thus subject to Biblical principles. I'll just think out loud here, so give me a little grace as I work through it.

I suppose since they themselves are claiming to be a legitimate Christian group, and not only part of the church but THE church itself, then I would "play the game" by holding them up to their own supposed principles. This is kind of the approach Ravi Zacharias and other apologists take sometimes in disproving the materialistic worldview, for example. They would assume the opposing position as true and show how it crumbles by undoing it from the inside. Self-defeating. This way, they LC is undone by their own hand. Hoist on their own petard, as it were. That's just one approach. You take their own stance and dismantle them using their own stand. This appeals to the thinkers in the group, of which there still are some.

Another approach is to begin by taking the position that they are not a legitimate Christian group. If you start out by negating the very thing they think they are, though, you also may lose a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to listen, even if you are right to negate them.

However, go back to 2 Corinthians 11 and take a look again. Paul says in verse 4:

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Paul is talking about the Corinthians who have received a false gospel, false Jesus, different spirit, and are putting up with it. I think this is an accurate comparison to the local church. He doesn't shun the Corinthians as you seem to be suggesting would need to happen.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Either they are led by “liars and false apostles” or they are a legitimate move of God. You have to choose. Or are you doing like they do and invoking scripture to justify your opposition by thinking you gain the moral high ground in doing so?

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only two options are a legit move of God or led by liars and false apostles, so no, I don't have to choose.

I think God moves in individual people, not in the "this group of people is a move of God" type way.

The field of wheat has tares sown among the wheat. There is no field of only wheat and field of only tares, one or the other. This is why leaving the group is such a deep internal struggle for many. It's a mixture of light and darkness.

No, there's definitely no thought in me that I'm gaining some kind of moral high ground in anything. The thought in me is much more along the lines of "what is my responsibility here?" and "how, as a Christian, am I called to behave in this situation?"

I think it's a pretty good practice for one of the steps to be to ask "does Scripture have anything to say about this?" before doing something like speaking publicly and exposing certain things, whether a genuine church or not. I personally am not a rash person and would hope to have some solid Biblical footing before doing something like that. Even though I would be speaking the truth, the exposing of numerous things in the local churches would have incredibly detrimental and reverberating effects. Some people depend on the local church for their lives and social support, and genuinely have no clue what's going on on the inside, and simply don't have the complex thought processes to see past the controlling teachings. They just love the Lord and love the saints and have simply never had an experience to show them anything otherwise. They are naive, not malicious. None of that excuses the other stuff that's going on in the LC, and none of it means that what is in the darkness shouldn't come to light, but these are all things I would be highly aware of, and simply think it's good to start with the Bible. Considering the repercussions up front can shape your approach.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Hypocrisy in the general sense of the term means claiming standards which do not meet up to your own behavior, but as far as the Christian faith is concerned avoiding hypocrisy entails much more than just that.

Jesus claimed that it wasn’t enough to not murder, he went deeper to the root or heart of the issue. In fact for a believer in Christ it means to even resist anger against your brother. If you thought that was hard enough, Jesus told us to go even further and to love those that persecute you.

By this the expectations for a Christian is higher than that of an unbeliever so when Christ speaks about hypocrisy it’s not enough that you don’t do what you are calling out. The question is; is your heart right and are you doing the right thing in its place by faith?

I think you are crossing two things here. Yes, Jesus has a higher standard than anyone was used to. Murder and lust, etc, are now heart matters as far as sin is concerned.

But hypocrisy and judging are not spoken of in those terms. Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." In other words, if you judge someone for murder, you will also be judged if you have murdered. It doesn't say "if you judge a physical matter, then your corresponding deep heart matter will be judged in the same way". The example is also of a splinter in the other person's eye and a beam in your own. This means, for example, don't judge someone for their anger (splinter) when you have murdered (beam) yourself. This is a "don't strain someone else's gnat and swallow your own camel" kind of thing. If we were to analyze in the depth you are describing (which is take care of your own gnat before dealing with someone else’s camel), the splinter would be in our own eye and the beam would be in the other persons. But it's not. It's the other way around.

Originally Posted by Jo S

In a recent post you’ve claimed the Local Churches practice a damaging form of shunning. I don’t doubt that, but let me ask you this question; have you properly shunned them before speaking out against their practices (2 John 1:10)? Or do you still continue to meet with the group?

2 John 1:7-11 speaks specifically of not welcoming people who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. To my knowledge, the LC does acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, therefore, there would not be the need to shun them in the manner you describe.

This is a different thing than the Corinthians receiving a "different Jesus". To me, 2 John 1 is a denial of Jesus Himself, His divinity, His sacrifice. The Corinthians (I am assuming here) received a different Jesus in the sense of He had still come in the flesh, but was then enslaving and oppressing them, rather than freeing them.

It's strange. It’s like they do preach Jesus, but then once saved, they feed the new convert the guiled milk of the word rather than the guileless milk of the word.

Originally Posted by Jo S

It's not enough that you choose not to shun anybody, it's whether you love God more than the group to the point you'd shun them biblically. If by staying you believe the Local Churches will change, then like you said, I’m afraid you’ll be waiting a long time…

Paul did in fact call out evil but this was only second to proclaiming the gospel. The local churches pointed out the faults of Christianity in self-righteousness while preaching a false gospel. The majority of posts here seem to be completely lacking the gospel. Which is better then, preaching a false gospel or no gospel at all?

In a greater sense does exposing evil matter if you do nothing to fill the void? Facts of abuse may lead someone out but it's God's truth that truly heals.

If you do leave by your own conviction then seek God and His forgiveness. Repent and believe in the Jesus you weren't taught in the LC's and then lead others out by example or you may find yourself years from now regurgitating the same things in vain all the while deceiving yourself into believing you are doing a service to others. The truth is, without a heart transformed by the gospel your efforts will only work to poison others with your bitterness or at best validate each other’s own bitterness. Who benefits from that? It may help you but only for a little while until the pain resurfaces again...

Agreed. Christ set us free so we would be free. That is one of the facets of the gospel that is sorely missing in the local church. It is hard because the local church does preach the gospel, but then immediately negates it by putting handcuffs and shackles on those who were just set free. I think that’s why it’s hard for some people to speak up. Because on some level you know there are some salvations occurring within the group. Many saints, particularly the farther away they get from any proximity to the leadership, whether extra-local or local, simply don’t deal with or even have to swallow the deviated doctrines in their daily life. No MOTA, no deputy authority, no “head in the sand we don’t care about right and wrong”. They are saved Christians who sing hymns and “take the table” on Sundays and who are more free in Christ in their daily lives than many die-hard ministry bots. They are some of the ones who would be collateral damage if the thing is exposed. We are dealing with a lot of human lives.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you do choose to go the social justice route, that’s perfectly fine, but then do like Steven Hassan does and examine the group purely from a psychological and sociological perspective. No need to appeal to scripture lest you risk misusing them. If you do, however, use scripture then make sure that you are living by its standards in preaching the gospel and loving your enemies in the process.

There's a few possible approaches. I would need to consider what's best.

Originally Posted by Jo S

David prayed to have a new spirit and a new heart put in him so he could forgive his enemies but he never saw that day come to pass. The good news is that day is now here and it’s available to us yet so many reject that gift in favor of social reform because doing things the right way requires you to first take a good look in the mirror. More often than not the reflection staring back at you will be the very thing you're fighting against and that's too hard of a pill to swallow.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. You seem to say the good news is that the day is now here where we can choose to forgive our enemies (the LC?) but we reject it because....and then I just can't track you. Are you trying to say that we need to come to a place of forgiveness first before we speak up? What of my reflection is a hard pill to swallow?