[OBW]

If you think this is too long, don't read it. If you think I an too opinionated (like you are not) then don't read it. If you don't like the things I say in it and just want to complain about the fact that I said them, then stop reading at that point.

This is my blog, not a discussion board, so I ask that other than some short comment (if you care to leave one) if there is anything you really want to discuss, either put it in the forum in the appropriate place, or send me a PM.

Now, if you care to, proceed at your own risk.

. . . .

I was recently reading a post on a favorite blog and the writer was commiserating about how hard it is to be vulnerable. That is such a popular thought these days — being vulnerable. His conclusion was that true vulnerability is only achieved within a rather close group and not with much larger groups or the world at large.




He started his discussion talking about the many groups of people that he knows, and how each of those groups do not really know the people in the other group. He listed:

• My Extended family
• Past colleagues
• High school friends and acquaintances
• University friends and acquaintances
• Seminary friends and acquaintances
• Neighbors
• Friends and acquaintances from prior churches
• Friends and acquaintances from current church
• The local cycling community
• My kids school community, friends, and parents
• Other people who I met at some point in time in life, with whom I have made some kind of connection
• Cool people (at least from my perspective) who don’t really know me, but I like to read their posts. People like Scott McKnight, Rachel Held Evans, and Steve Bell
• (The people with whom he shared a popular blog)

But among those, many are on facebook, and so there is an overlap of unknowns commenting on common things.

But he noted at one point “I made what I thought was a fairly innocent and humorous political comment which resulted (after much discussion) in a very old acquaintance unfriending me.” Not the result he expected or wanted.

Not here to discuss vulnerability, but the interactions among mostly unknowns with a common link (even though the link is different for those on the inside v those on the outside of that link).

We claim to be here to discuss the system that calls itself the Lord’s recovery (Recovery) and the local churches (Local Churches). Because we disagree on whether there is such a thing as the Lord’s recovery, and the term “local church” has meaning for many that is much different from what those in the “Lord’s recover” mean by it, many have taken to using the term “Lord’s recover church” or “LRC” to specify that group. It is not meant to be derogatory, although since the group claims that it has no name, it generally takes offense at some level at any attempt to put a name on it. But the prospect of continually saying something like “the group that says it stands as the church in the city” just is not acceptable, and the acronym “TGTSISATCITC” is almost like saying supercalifragilisticespiallidocious. So LRC it is.

There is an aspect of our interactions that certain ones, especially UntoHim, like to keep as fully civil and not at odds. And I agree with the premise. However, since we are discussing the errors of certain teachers that we are becoming clearer and clearer were not correct in their theology (being nice about it), some will always take exception to the very fact of saying that as being derogatory. And in a sense it is. But if it is true, then maybe that is just life.

But even among us who have left the organization and are finding ourselves further and further from that system, we continue to discover things that we hold to that are not necessarily healthy. But we just can’t see them. I have found that over the several years I have been involved that I have realized that the LRC is not just a sound, evangelical group with a couple of funny doctrines of questionable applicability that I could consider returning to if other issues improve, but is a system that is so inundated with error that many very good Christians there are being fooled into believing things that may actually be spiritually harmful

Now if you wanted to hear something derogatory, there it is. But that is the way it is in such discussion.

But to have a real discussion, you need to be willing to provide evidence, support, etc., for what you say. That does not mean that everyone will like your evidence, or the conclusions you draw from it. And sometimes, in the midst of discussing one thing, evidence, support, etc., is provided that assumes something that is not necessarily assumable. So there often is a question about the validity of the assumption. The result is a side discussion.

Lately there has been a tendency to dislike side discussion. Now I understand that in a context in which there is simply a testimony being given. That should be true in the Introductions and Testimonies section. But too often the group includes topics rather than just testimonies and introductions. At that point, the banner over the thread becomes irrelevant. So asking a question or challenging something that is placed in such a thread should not be treated as off limits because it is a testimony thread. It isn’t. It is a discussion of a topic. And the discussion has brought up additional topics that affect the analysis of the original topic.

Surely there are times when a more complete discussion of an otherwise side issue is required and a new thread for it is warranted. But not always. If someone includes in their post that “X is Y because of God’s economy,” I would think that a challenge to the overall statement, and maybe a question as to what they think God’s economy is that it could have such impact is warranted. And maybe even a bit of a discussion on that. If the notion of taking it to another thread occurs about the time that you realize the discussion is dying out, then starting the new thread is probably a waste of time. And it separates the information that could be relevant to understanding the rest of the current thread from it, so always starting a new thread is not necessarily the best thing to do.

And disagreement needs to be met with civility. If I disagree with something I read, I should be able to challenge the premise. It is not personal. It is about the statement, thought, or reasoning. And many, like me, are open to considering good evidence that something we had not considered before could be right. If we didn’t we would probably all be still in the LRC, or desperately trying to get back in. Or we would at least just think that its teachings are benign and not worth discussing.

I don’t think the same as I did in late 2005 when I found the Berean forum, which was different from 2007 when I realized that 1 Cor 3 (talking about wood hay and stubble) was talking about the teachers, not the church members), which was different from what I thought in 2009 or so when I realized that Nee used the same illogic as Lee did (such as in The Economy of God) to set up many of his works, and that his verses too often did not actually support, or even have anything to do with, his assertions (The Spiritual Man, Authority and Submission, Further Talks on the Church, etc.). In the midst of all of that, I learned something about Daystar and Phillip Lee, and realized that W Lee was everything that Paul warned against. And my position with respect to Lee and his teachings is now based upon that discovery. (And you do not have to agree with my assessment on that. But I will try to persuade you.)

Have I found everything that I think is still hanging on buried in the garlic of the LRC? Probably not. Will I find it by lashing out every time someone sees old LRC stuff that they think has no support still hanging on me?

No.

So I propose that rather than stifling discussion, we embrace it. Yes, there should be some rules. I agree that most threads should not be required to defend the Bible as the Word of God. Or Jesus as God. Without hiding it, we can have those discussions somewhere else, not in the midst of the regular postings. But sidebars should not be simply banned. And if we want to protect the sanctity of introductions and testimonies, then be sure that is all they are. Once they are something else, then you can’t use the overall topic to put lipstick on a pig. (Bad metaphor, but the intent is to say that if it is not simply a testimony or introduction, it is a discussion no matter where you put it.)

And we all need to be a little toughened to have discussions. Everyone is not going to always agree. It is not about you/me personally (unless they make it so). It is about the thing being discussed. Look at what you said and what the response was. If it is that you said something you didn’t intend to, fix it. If you truly disagree, then provide the reasons that you disagree. Someone may learn something from the interchange, even if the two (or more) that engage in it remain where they were. That is how my mind changed on so many things over the past nearly 10 years.

Lots more I could say. But ss I am famous for going long (the little bells broke hours ago), this post is now very long.