Local Church Double-Speak

[zeek]

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

Witness Lee used terminology that became the doublespeak of the daily "church life." It might be beneficial to identify and thus hopefully to demystify as many of the doublespeak terms as we can. For example, the term "follow your spirit" was a common phrase in the church at one time. The whole idea of being and doing in spirit seem to me to be a cover for the fact that the behavior of the rank and file members was tightly controlled. if you didn't call on the Lord when you supposed to you were looked at with suspicion. Can anybody relate to what I'm talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

Witness Lee used terminology that became the doublespeak of the daily "church life." It might be beneficial to identify and thus hopefully to demystify as many of the doublespeak terms as we can. For example, the term "follow your spirit" was a common phrase in the church at one time. The whole idea of being and doing in spirit seem to me to be a cover for the fact that the behavior of the rank and file members was tightly controlled. if you didn't call on the Lord when you supposed to you were looked at with suspicion. Can anybody relate to what I'm talking about?

I like this thread. I hope you will create a lexicon after you get a lot of contributions.

I think the term "One with the ministry" can be considered doublespeak. It is loosely based on verses in Paul's ministry about how some were faithful coworkers and some abandoned him. But it is used in a way similar to calling someone a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is the kiss of death to be labeled as "not one with the ministry".

This creates an ironic twist. Even though the LSM publications teach that the ministry is for the churches and not the other way around, every church is in fear of being labeled "not one with the ministry".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

"Local" church is doublespeak, since they are anything but "local."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I like this thread. I hope you will create a lexicon after you get a lot of contributions.
I think the term "One with the ministry" can be considered doublespeak. It is loosely based on verses in Paul's ministry about how some were faithful coworkers and some abandoned him. But it is used in a way similar to calling someone a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is the kiss of death to be labeled as "not one with the ministry".
This creates an ironic twist. Even though the LSM publications teach that the ministry is for the churches and not the other way around, every church is in fear of being labeled "not one with the ministry".

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

So then when they say "keep the oneness" it sounds good and spiritual, but it is surely referring to the "twoness"

[OBW]

While I do understand it, this "twoness" thing is a little silly. The real problem is their definition of oneness.

I am one with people that I do not entirely agree with. Oneness is to be standing solid with someone else. And our oneness is in Christ. It is in the fact that his sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sins and we have accepted that sacrifice as ours. It is in the common indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Our oneness is not in:

Music style
Hymns
Choruses
Piano and organ (or even a capella)
Band with drums and guitars
A choir
With robes
Manner in which communion/the Lord's table is observed
expository preaching
Reading of prayers together
Use of a "lectionary calendar" or just a lectionary
Seasons of quiet reflection
Seasons of boisterous open prayer
Women in or not in main ministry
Consumption or abstaining from alcohol
How to understand the doctrine of the trinity
Republican or Democrat
Any ministry of man
Candles or no candles
A cross or no cross on the building

But Lee and the LRC define oneness in terms of position on every one of those items. They may be a little lax on a few of them. But they really do care what you think. They especially care whose ministry you read/follow.

Even where scripture makes reference to being of the same mind, it is not a broad statement, but referring to a specific thing. I'm not looking at it at the moment, but I believe it could be simplified down to being obedient and a servant. Reading the wrong Bible translation or disagreeing with Lee on some point is clearly not what it is talking about.

The whole "oneness" thing is doublespeak in that their position is one of the most not-one positions in the marketplace of Christian thinking. They not only think they are the only way, they condemn everyone else for associating with demons and Satan.

LRC Oneness = isolation, sectarianism, absolute agreement on everything.
Real Oneness = being one despite differences.

[zeek]

Love Feast=>pot luck recruitment dinner.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I do understand it, this "twoness" thing is a little silly. The real problem is their definition of oneness.

I am one with people that I do not entirely agree with. Oneness is to be standing solid with someone else. And our oneness is in Christ. It is in the fact that his sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sins and we have accepted that sacrifice as ours. It is in the common indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Our oneness is not in:...

Amen OBW. Amen.

I think this applies to my situation very well too.

Unfortunately, there are many in the LRC who will never understand or refuse to understand this fact.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. If it isn't enough to meet on the ground of oneness because you also must be one with a ministry, it seems two onenesses are required. Two onenesses seems absurd. I think only one oneness is possible. What they were advocating was twoness.

Let's not mince words. Let's tell it the way it is/was.

The whole local church movement thrived on double-speak. I know this by my own personal experience in the local church.

There were two sides to their double-speak. On one side of the double-speak was the spiritual abstract. As long as I stayed on this side, as long as I believed the local church was God's movement on the earth, as long as I believed Witness Lee was God's spokesperson, and the elders were the local spokespersons, everything was fine.

The other side of the double-speak was the human element. That's where the troubles entered in. Once I saw that the local church movement was man led, not God led, then the spiritual bubble of the double-speak popped, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

That was the end of my enjoyment of the meetings. No longer could I believe the meetings were spirit led. I realized that I was deluded about spirit led meetings. It was all man led and manipulated at that point.

And once the human side of the double-speak was discovered, that was the end of the local church for me.

I left in the early 1980s. Eight or nine years later John I., Bill Malon, Max Rapaport, and others caught onto what I discovered long before them. They were slow learners as far as I'm concerned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

That was the end of my enjoyment of the meetings. No longer could I believe the meetings were spirit led. I realized that I was deluded about spirit led meetings. It was all man led and manipulated at that point.

And once the human side of the double-speak was discovered, that was the end of the local church for me.

This was a standard practice in Houston, less so while in Irving because of the chaos caused by the construction and virtually non existent in Odessa. It also took place to some extent during trainings. This didn't sour me on the spirit being part of the meetings, instead I saw it similar to Galatians how Abraham had two children, one of the flesh and one of the Spirit.

I considered these brothers (I am not aware of any sisters that did this) to be flunkies (I think those in the world might also use the term brown nose). Anyway I think this is where EM discovered the use of the footnotes because imagine how hard it is to speak in the meeting when you have no leading of the Spirit. To help these brothers I feel strongly, though I have no firsthand knowledge, that they were told prior to the meeting what was going to be shared.

KR and EM were two of the key ones, but there were about 5 or 6 in Houston. 14 seems excessive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

... when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was a standard practice in Houston, less so while in Irving because of the chaos caused by the construction and virtually non existent in Odessa.

Can you say more about what was so offensive. We brothers always prepared for the meetings, what is so wrong with that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you say more about what was so offensive. We brothers always prepared for the meetings, what is so wrong with that?

I was told that we were not to "load our testimonies."

And brothers preparing their testimonies beforehand is one thing.

But the elder steering the "flow" with 14 brothers is quite another thing altogether.

No thanks to the latter. Why waste my time on amateur acting ...

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not mince words. Let's tell it the way it is/was.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

I witnessed this also, in the Church in Calgary. I attended a Brother's meeting shortly after moving here, and that meeting was headed by the leading brother in Calgary, whom I will not name.

This brother instructed us brothers that we were to come earlier on Lord's Day mornings, in order to guide the singing. In his opinion, the singing was 'pathetic', and the songs chosen were often 'wrong'. If a saint called a song that we did not feel was appropriate, we were to either ignore it, or call another to ensure that 'the spirit continued to flow'.

Over the next few weeks, I saw this occur a number of times - where saints who called songs were completely ignored if the elder brothers felt what was called was 'inappropriate'.

Man lead indeed; and that man trampled and embarassed others.

[zeek]

Once I saw that the local church movement was man led, not God led, then the spiritual bubble of the double-speak popped, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Same here.

This came to full light in the C. in Ft. Lauderdale when I discovered that the lead elder, Mel Porter, was seeding the meetings with a group of 14 loyal brothers, to control the flow of the "Spirit," and direct it as Mel Porter wanted.

Mel Porter was pivotal in bursting my bubble as well. Thank you Mel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Same here.



Mel Porter was pivotal in bursting my bubble as well. Thank you Mel.

Yes, thank you Mel Porter. If only I could meet him again. I'd vigorously shake his hand and thank him for making it plain and obvious that I was in a cult and had to get out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia defines Doublespeak as "language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass."

The most obnoxious of all WL doublespeak was this little phrase "The Office."

We were all continually told about all the faithful serving brothers and sisters functioning as Levitical priests behind the scenes, carrying out the Lord's burden to spread the riches of Christ throughout the whole earth ... phooey! ...

but what WL really meant was his son, Philip, an unregenerate, obnoxious, can't even rise up to the level of a backslider, abusive bully who was in charge at LSM.

[OBW]

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos.

But in terms of the "spirit" of a meeting, a constant shift from what one thinks to what another thinks in terms of the things profitable for a meeting will always be subject to the whims of the individual if we all think that we are called to "prophesy" in the meeting and consider that even the calling of songs is a function of that, then we have also bought into the idea that everyone has the gift of prophesy. But we don't. And the discord and disruption to what the meeting could be is quite remarkable. But the LRC never really knew that because they presumed that the enjoyment of singing a song was proof of the Spirit's leading. And the membership's willingness to sing virtually anything that anyone called evidences that we are not automatically attuned to where the Spirit is leading. But if one of the leading ones suddenly jumps up calls something else, we then could be swayed to believe that the Spirit really was leading somewhere else.

Reminds me of something that happened this weekend. Took a trip to the Hill Country with my wife (32nd anniversary) to stay in a BnB out in the country. The first evening we went into the nearby town a little late for something to eat. Only one place still open, Ino'z, and there was outdoor seating and a little band — really a singer with three players behind him. Sang his own Willie Nelson kind of country (enjoyable even for someone who doesn't particularly like country). But three times this little girl would sort of slip up to the band and say something. First time, the guy start playing "You are my Sunshine" afterward. Then she did it again a little later, and he played "If You're Happy and You Know It." It happened a third time. Don't recall what it was she asked for, but the man politely did something a little different, but acceptable to her. I could complain about the parents that needed to stop their 4 to 5 year old from completely altering the song set of a 60 to 70 year old man. But the real thing is that unless he asks for input (which he did not) one child directed what was ultimately 30 percent of the last set for the evening.

In many churches, songs are picked in advance as a cohesive plan of worship and often with at least a little bit of the direction of the coming sermon buried in it. Whether you do or don't like the format, in the end somewhere between 2 and 4 people effectively "prophesy" through their words, singing/leading in song, etc. But the LRC thinks there is this command that it be a free-for-all and that is the way most think is right. Yet there is no order in that. The topic for the day is taking up your cross but the songs are about resting and freedom because that was what the congregation wanted. The topic then seems to fight with the singing.

So, while not based on some detailed analysis of scripture, it would seem that the LRC almost had a conflict of definitions by claiming that all can prophesy while needing to keep things "in order." Mel P may not have done a good job of it. And the tension between keeping things on track while maintaining a false sense of openness probably was a real problem in all places. But it is more a testimony to the error of thinking that everyone is a prophet than a charge to lay at the feet of those whose responsibility was maintaining order. They tried to do it without directly saying that you really can't all prophesy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

So, while not based on some detailed analysis of scripture, it would seem that the LRC almost had a conflict of definitions by claiming that all can prophesy while needing to keep things "in order." Mel P may not have done a good job of it. And the tension between keeping things on track while maintaining a false sense of openness probably was a real problem in all places. But it is more a testimony to the error of thinking that everyone is a prophet than a charge to lay at the feet of those whose responsibility was maintaining order. They tried to do it without directly saying that you really can't all prophesy.

Leaving aside what Paul actually meant by "all can prophesy," the LC way of liberty in speaking was still just another way of service. Many churches have modified that pattern over time. They had too.

The bigger issue for me is leaving the scripture itself for LSM's weekly handouts. The elders cannot minister according the saints need, nor do they even consider what they need nor what the Lord wants to speak.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos..

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

And Mel Porter did his control of the meetings in the C. of Ft. Lauderdale in a sneaky way. Mel picked the 14 brothers that he used to control the meetings by how loyal they were to him. So most in the meetings he controlled didn't know that the meeting was seeded with controlling brothers.

And Mel Porter couldn't give a cohesive sermon if his life depended upon it. Mel Porter had to spiritual depth. Mel's "gift" was blind loyalty, to Witness Lee. And Lee chose him as an elder not because Mel had spiritual depth, but because he was blindly loyal to him.

Mel was about loyalty and commitment to Lee, and directed the meetings to that end.

It was a farce....a phony farce.

It would have been more honest had he issued a Program like so many churches do, with everything spelled out.

[zeek]

Mel Porter's sermons were incoherent rambling things that killed many a meeting for me. By the way, what did we call sermons in the LC? Whatever it was it was doublespeak because there most certainly were a lot of long-winded sermons.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mel Porter's sermons were incoherent rambling things that killed many a meeting for me. By the way, what did we call sermons in the LC? Whatever it was it was doublespeak because there most certainly were a lot of long-winded sermons.

The local church is a great place to be from.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

It seems this had more to do with the outpouring of the Spirit by God during the Jesus movement of the 60's. That kind of spontaneity is proof of the moving of the Spirit, not exclusive to the LC's, but indicative of many gatherings of the day.

Your comment about Elden was first spoken by Hosepipe. It was shocking to me at the time, shattering old myths long spoken in the recovery.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Mike I remember the days when there was no "plan" for the meeting, preaching on the cross or otherwise. The meeting would be started by the first ones that showed up, and the flow would go from there.

Then came the Life Studies, and LEE'S structure was brought in. The Life Studies, for example, killed Elden Hall. They were actually death studies, and a way for Lee to take control.

And Mel Porter did his control of the meetings in the C. of Ft. Lauderdale in a sneaky way. Mel picked the 14 brothers that he used to control the meetings by how loyal they were to him. So most in the meetings he controlled didn't know that the meeting was seeded with controlling brothers.

And Mel Porter couldn't give a cohesive sermon if his life depended upon it. Mel Porter had to spiritual depth. Mel's "gift" was blind loyalty, to Witness Lee. And Lee chose him as an elder not because Mel had spiritual depth, but because he was blindly loyal to him.

Mel was about loyalty and commitment to Lee, and directed the meetings to that end.

It was a farce....a phony farce.

It would have been more honest had he issued a Program like so many churches do, with everything spelled out.

Harold,

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good. But just getting together and seeing where we go is not a proper understanding of Paul's directions to the most chaotic church in the NT. Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian. It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was.

Someone had to stand up in a meeting in Dallas and tell people to quit bringing the green and white pom poms to the meetings. It may have been a little annoying to people like me (who went to the high school where the green and white pom poms came from), but it was absolutely consistent with the "flow" that had been going on in Dallas (and it seems in some of the other Texas cities) for some time. So there should have been no control? There absolutely should have been some control over the chaos that came. (BTW, it was either JI or JB that cast out the pom poms.)

You have a problem with Mel. And it is probably rather legitimate. But, like Lee, it doesn't make his entire existence wrong. He may not have been a good elder. He may not have been one apt to teach. That doesn't make all aspects of his attempts to reign-in some of the chaos wrong. Maybe he wasn't the best choice for elder. But he was what you had.

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint. In fact, the liturgy of a "high church" looks more like what Paul described in 1 Cor 14 than the LRC. No, it is not my preference either. But it is not simply bankrupt or reprobate for not being LRC-like. I prefer the mixture of modern and ancient, liturgy and fundamentalism (without the head bashing) that I see each week. But that does not make it best. But it is, like so many others, quite acceptable.

And you know I don't defend the LRC. But I don't just bash it either. Neither should you. It is not good for your blood pressure. Or your spiritual condition. Help us in the process of providing useful feedback on the LRC. Don't just rant. (OK. Rant occasionally. Just not all the time.)

[TLFisher]

Since this thread is on double-speak brings me to the word fellowship. The way it has been used can confuse a believer.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good. But just getting together and seeing where we go is not a proper understanding of Paul's directions to the most chaotic church in the NT. Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

True. I see one valid way that an elder should direct the meetings of the church is to create an environment where the saints can grow and mature in the exercise of their gifts. Say what you like about them, but when I was in Houston RG, KR, and EM were also there as young brothers. Some may know Clem R, an elder, preceded my by only a year or two. There were many saints that came out of a relatively small church of 200 saints to become gifted members of the Body. So that environment where it was a given that in any meeting "all could prophesy" (though it was also a given that "all could be rebuked", "all could be chastened", etc.) is the same environment that many gifted brothers and sisters came out of.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

Mel Porter may have eventually done too much to direct the meetings. But the fact that he tried to direct the meetings at all is a credit to his understanding of his position as an elder.

And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian. It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was...........

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint............

Like awareness said, if you're gonna have a program, have a program.

But is that the same thing as an elder playing this game of, "Hey look at me, look at how cleverly I can treat the meeting like a fast-paced game of chess, maneuvering the pieces to shape the board just how I want it! -- aren't we clever?"

All the while boasting in how much they let "the Spirit" flow in their meetings, in a way "Chris-chee-aa-nity" does not.

Is that the same thing?

P.S. I'm exaggerating. But am I exaggerating that much?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having open meetings some of the time is all well and good....
....And while just loyalty to Mel is not necessarily a good way to chose your lieutenants, finding a way to shepherd a meeting along that is not overly obtrusive or seen (unless you already know it is going on) is not necessarily bad. I'm not saying that Mel didn't go too far with it. But you are treating it as if the fact that he did anything was unChristian.

I grew up with structured meetings and services. And most church services today are structured and spelled out. Most provide a Program at the door that spells it all out. The Church of Christ I attended here for a couple of years spelled out even who would say what prayer and when.

And what I learn most from these types of structured meetings is, the meaning of eternity. Cuz it seems like they last for an eternity. Such structure is literally painful for me to sit thru.

One thing that attracted me to the local church was that their meetings were not spelled out. Those meetings were the high peaks to me.

It may have been unexpected in the face of the way the LRC had gone before. But that presumes that the free-for-all of the former days was actually good. I'm not sure it really was.

Say what you want, but Spirit led meetings were sweet meetings. Much preferred by me than structured meetings, which is like eating sticks and straw to me.

Someone had to stand up in a meeting in Dallas and tell people to quit bringing the green and white pom poms to the meetings. It may have been a little annoying to people like me (who went to the high school where the green and white pom poms came from), but it was absolutely consistent with the "flow" that had been going on in Dallas (and it seems in some of the other Texas cities) for some time. So there should have been no control? There absolutely should have been some control over the chaos that came. (BTW, it was either JI or JB that cast out the pom poms.)

Pom poms? Funny. Glad I missed out on that flow.

You have a problem with Mel. And it is probably rather legitimate. But, like Lee, it doesn't make his entire existence wrong. He may not have been a good elder. He may not have been one apt to teach. That doesn't make all aspects of his attempts to reign-in some of the chaos wrong. Maybe he wasn't the best choice for elder. But he was what you had.

Praise the Lord for Mel Porter. He made it very plain and impossible to not to admit that I was in a cult and had to leave the local church. Mel, if by chance you are reading this, thank you, thank, you, thank you!!!

And by the way. Where does it say that a meeting of the church cannot be somewhat spelled-out? That negative is a declaration of Lee and the LRC. But I do not find it stated in such terms in scripture. Instead, I find something about "in order." About restraint. In fact, the liturgy of a "high church" looks more like what Paul described in 1 Cor 14 than the LRC.

Yes Paul says " Let all things be done decently and in order," But says nothing about scripted meetings.

And you know I don't defend the LRC. But I don't just bash it either. Neither should you. It is not good for your blood pressure. Or your spiritual condition. Help us in the process of providing useful feedback on the LRC. Don't just rant. (OK. Rant occasionally. Just not all the time.)

The body needs the function of all members. Yours maybe a Pollyanna function. And perchance mine is the function of the immunity system of the body.

Pollyanna's father gave her crutches for a Christmas present, so that she would learn to "be glad" that "we don't need them."

And that's where I identify with Pollyanna. God gave me the local church so that I'd be glad that I don't need it.

[ZNPaaneah]

ICor 14:7-8 “Even things without life that give sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction of sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.

Now this word is spoken in 1 Corinthians 14 within the context of talking about saints speaking in tongues in a meeting. It is an interesting analogy. The trumpet is used by the military because the sound can be heard above the din of warfare. Also, a song can have a meaning: “gather together”, “go to sleep”, “go to war”. So when the trumpet plays the song you don’t have to hear the entire song, just a few notes and you know exactly what to do. This analogy is used by Paul to explain his burden that the believers would speak a few clear words that everyone could understand rather than to speak in tongues that no one can understand.

But that is merely what the average simpleton might glean from their superficial reading of this passage. You have to really be impressed with the LSM brain trust and the depth of their revelation to see the high peaks vision that “an uncertain sound” really means that there should be one publisher. You see speaking in tongues is like using different publishers, not because the publishers publish in different languages that no one can understand, but because…they publish words that are speaking into the air. But speaking words of edification is like using the LSM publisher because that is what the LSM does, their focus is words of edification.

I was reading this passage and it occurred to me that I would never, (and I do not like to say the word never), but I would never have seen that an “uncertain trumpet sound” in 1 Cor was actually a charge by Paul (on penalty of being excommunicated) to have one publisher. It is examples like this that demonstrate once again that we should leave Bible exposition to the experts that can explain this stuff to us, it almost make you want to get a RcV for the footnotes.

Anyway I just thought I’d throw this out there. I know there must be a lot of others on this site who also want to marvel at these high peaks truths, the way they see things in the Bible that the common man just cannot see.

[awareness]

Good exegesis bro ZNP...

.

[OBW]

ZNP,

Great job.

I bet KR, DS, and a number of others are wishing they had come up with that way to describe it so clearly.

Too bad they really think it is clear and correct. Oh, it's clear. Just not correct.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly think that the LRC had a real dichotomy going on because they honestly believed that "all could prophesy" whether through speaking or the calling of songs, or whatever. The reality is that there needs to be order in the church. And that does not mean simply no chaos.

It depends a lot on who the elders are. In Houston the elders were strict, they would tell saints to sit down that had gotten off track, they would limit testimonies, the standing rule was no testimony over 5 minutes, but often they would say due to the time no testimony over 1 minute or no testimony over 30 seconds. Another tactic was to have an elder who hadn't shared the message stand up about 15 minutes into the testimonies, share for about 5+ minutes to sort of sum up the key points and then close the meeting.

When Paul says "all can prophesy" I don't see that as "all should prophesy" or "all will prophesy" or "all want to prophesy". Rather, I see that to mean that in a meeting you should have a format that does allow anyone in the congregation to speak. If you don't then what you have is a lecture. In the US all can play baseball. That doesn't mean that all will play baseball, or all even want to play baseball, it just means that if you have a 6 year old girl and she wants to play baseball, she can. This also doesn't mean that just because she can play baseball on a team, that there isn't a coach. If she says she wants to pitch the coach can still say no. Also, it doesn't mean that just because she wants to play that she is going to play that much. She might not be a starter. But even so, she will get to play some. That is a lot more than can be said for some churches. I have definitely been in "christian" meetings where it is certainly not true that "all can prophesy".

Now practicing this is difficult because it is messy. In NY the elders are quick to change songs that have been called, often after singing the first verse, they are not shy about it at all. I think that is a good thing. In other words, yes all can call a song, but you need to learn how to do it. What is the burden of the meeting? What is the context? Etc. If there is no correction, no rebuke, no discipline, then there is also no training. If you are so thin skinned that having your song "rejected" by the elders causes you to crawl up into your shell, then you need to examine your motives.

However, I have also seen this abused. In Irving they were brutal towards a lot of "new" brothers that were there to build the meeting hall. It may be that they wanted to discourage the brothers from coming to the meetings (yes, I was told directly that there was no need to go to the meetings) but I think it was certainly abusive. Ben M was probably the worst culprit (RG was always on the construction site and BP was often not there, so he was left to run the mtgs, and this right before his being expelled).

I have also seen the elders use inuendo to damage and smear saints in an attempt to establish their authority. So, like a pendulum this can swing both ways, some saints are childish and untrained in their participation, and some elders are abusive and speak with a forked tongue. In the end, everyone gets exposed in the light.

I read a ton of WL's writings and found so many non-biblical and contrary concepts. Quotes will be from memory and paraphrased.

For instance, WL said "Don't say Witness Lee said ... That means nothing" then proceeded to speak as if he was the second coming of Christ in half his Life studies, intepreting every word of the Bible with no at times no regard for the context of the verse.

WL said "you can't be too intellectual and still be in the spirit". He at other times slanders believers for not being intellectually rigorous enough with their bible study habits, reading, and interpretations.

WL said things like "if you don't think there will be chastisement after death then you think there are no unresolved issues between you and God". Showing he did not believe the gospel that Christ became accursed for us that we might be counted as the righteousness of God.

WL straight up encouraged people being excommunicated, banned, ostracized, and marked and avoided for being different than the rest of the body but prided himself and his movement on "not creating division in the body of Christ". Are you kidding? It doesn't get anymore double minded than this one.

There are probably many more examples given how much WL and WN wrote, but I hope these examples show how litered and grevious the double talking is. I only engaged for six months so there is probably so much I haven't encountered as well. But the way some of the members spoke about other believers who weren't in the clan indicated to me that when the Word says "My word will not come back to me void, it will accomplish what I want it to accomplish" they do not believe it for a second... They think they need to work their butts off and become an "overcomer" for any of the Bible's word to become remotely profitable. Its funny too how they are obsessed with the BEMA seat but everything they build down here is not of faith. Its of their own vision and experience. So long as they have something to show of their "faith" down here, they deem it spiritual. Well, hope that is seen is not hope. A LC member told me he doesn't care about the rapture cuz this life is a perfect place to live out the Christian life, as well. I'll let you be the judge, but when you read some of Paul's words about being present with the Lord, does it seem like he's excited to you? Or ambivalent? I know I am excited to be with Christ, appearantly they are doing just fine without Him?