Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahGiant
Very true, but it doesn’t have to occur on Sunday. Lots of small groups have this style of speaking.
|
But that would not be relevant to the way the meetings are handled. At this point in time, the use of small/home groups, especially for larger assemblies of all kinds, is the norm, not the exception. So when I hear anyone talking about seeking a place where all can speak, it would appear to be more about the nature of the main meetings than subgroups meeting in homes. And that somewhat means that they are seeking a somewhat smaller main group so that such a meeting would not be impractical.
To me, even outside of the LC, to regularly give everyone the possibility to speak in the meetings in the manner that the LC did is somewhat an abdication of spiritual responsibility by the leadership. By those whose calling is to teach, evangelize, shepherd, etc. I am not saying that the notion of a time of testimonies within a topic or range of topics is not acceptable, but that they should not be understood as the crux of the meeting, but as underscoring what has been taught. I realize that this can arguably be tied to the way the LC does it. And that is true. The problem is not simply that everyone can speak. It is the boundaries of what they are allowed to speak on. At present, it is the limited view of scripture as presented by Nee and Lee (primarily Lee) as repackaged in the HWMR. And that is a problem. It needs to have people engage in it and create a "buy-in" so that they are sold on it. And what better way than to get them to be part of the "sales" process.
As for the desire/need to have open meetings of this kind, it seems to me to be the outgrowth of a desire to be more than we are. All the way back to the beginning (in Jerusalem) the believers went to the Temple to hear the preaching of the Word. Fellowship was from house to house, along with the other activities listed. I know we like to think that we are qualified to join in the process of teaching since we all can read our printed Bible (or online Bible) and have been taught so much to sharpen our minds. But we are not our own source of teaching. And, as we can all remember, there were commonly instances where someone stood in the LC to speak their part (whether in the meetings of the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Or in those of the 00s and 10s) whose speaking was questionable at best. They probably still got a few (or many) "Amens." But was this the work of the Spirit moving a prophet to speak, or a system of encouraging everyone to think they have the gift of prophecy and that is how it should be? (Well, until someone stands up who is completely off the wall and the leading ones start into their groaning.)
My point is that too often ex-LCers look for meetings where they can participate in a similar way that they did in the LC because they liked it. But liking the way the meetings are organized is not the basis for Christian fellowship, teaching, etc. And since, in hindsight, it appears that the happy, open meetings were part of a ploy to hook us into something we would not accept if we were allowed to be a little more "Berean" about things. For me, that means not allowing emotions, excitement, or even preferences to drive my theological and even sociological leanings. I rely on a sound connection to the Word of God as expounded by someone who has more than excitement in his delivery.