I can't be the only one...

[ABrotherinFaith]

I am a current "member" of the of the church with no name, a.k.a. The Local Church a.k.a. The Recovery. Anyone else out there lurking? If so, how has this site affected you? Do you find a lot of the criticisms of the church as it was a decade or so ago (or further back) to be relevant today? Has anything/anyone changed?

I'm a second generation church kid whose parents came into the church in the early 70s in southern California. I grew up steeped in the ministry. As is the case with about 97% of my generation that I know in the church, I didn't take it too seriously. I went to camps and conferences here and there. I even went to a training in the early 90s (I quickly tired of the meetings and headed for the beach). In university I drifted away just in time to not really care/understand that my dad had been kicked out and accused of not being one with the ministry (around '96). Didn't meet anywhere or read the Word much for about 12 years. Traveled for almost 6 years. Came back to the States in 2005 left again and didn't come back until mid 2006, just after some kind of storm. I never really cared much for what was going on until I began reading the Word and certain things I heard started to ring hollow. The more I read and the more I spoke to Christians the more some things in the meetings didn't add up. By 2008 I was firmly back in the States and married. Married life kept my mind off the things that bothered me. I was more focused on work and my wife. As time went on, things started to bother me again. I think it was in about 2010, maybe 2011. I began to hear the Psalms traduced. There was no critical thinking, just a wave of acceptance. That really didn't seem right. The James was spoken ill of. Then I happened to voice a different opinion in a meeting and received a call the next day. Was that the right place to voice my concern? Did I do it correctly, with meekness? Wasn't I a little bit harsh? I apologized and changed my small group meeting. Since then, I have continued to read the Bible at the expense of the HWMR. There's really no need to read it as people pretty much get up and read from it verbatim when they prophecy...There are two things which still really bother me: denigrating certain books of the Bible and denigrating brothers and sisters, dare I say saints, outside the Recovery. All the other (smaller to me right now) problems stem from these two. If the Bible is seen as a book that doesn't know as much as us, and other believers are seen in the same way, all sorts of doors open up and reading the Bible becomes a free for all.

I am sure there is some level of congruity from locality to locality as far as adherence to the ministry, but there must be some places/people who don't wholly buy into the economy...There is a distinct difference between people of my dad's generation in the church and those younger, say in college of just out. For the latter, the Ministry is almost equal to the Bible. At least that's the sense I get. There are still some older brothers and sisters who are die hard supporters, but there are also more than a few who have quietly gone back to the Bible as their primary source. As dar as people I grew up with, there are only about 3 or 4 who still meet out of more than 20.

What's it like elsewhere?

A brother in faith

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I'm a second generation church kid whose parents came into the church in the early 70s in southern California.
There is a distinct difference between people of my dad's generation in the church and those younger, say in college of just out. For the latter, the Ministry is almost equal to the Bible.

What's it like elsewhere?

Same here. Began in LA. Then the migrations. By 1976 we migrated to Anaheim and from there another SoCal locality I won't name. Most of the young people I knew from these two localties are meeting outside the local churches. Primarily it is the younger generations 40< that remain and raise their children in the local churches.
When I was going on with the local churches, my concept was the ministry publications should supplement the Bible, not be equal with the Bible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Then I happened to voice a different opinion in a meeting and received a call the next day. Was that the right place to voice my concern? Did I do it correctly, with meekness? Wasn't I a little bit harsh?

This is their slithering way. There is actually no proper way to voice a different opinion in the LC. No matter how you do it, they'll find something wrong with it. Rather than come out and say 'don't ever voice your opinion,' they'll say you were too this or too that, that your spirit was wrong or the setting was wrong or you were't patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, and if you were you weren't in perfect unison. In other words, YOU are the problem.

Blah, blah, blah.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I I began to hear the Psalms traduced. There was no critical thinking, just a wave of acceptance. That really didn't seem right. The James was spoken ill of. Then I happened to voice a different opinion in a meeting and received a call the next day. Was that the right place to voice my concern? Did I do it correctly, with meekness? Wasn't I a little bit harsh? I apologized and changed my small group meeting. Since then, I have continued to read the Bible at the expense of the HWMR. There's really no need to read it as people pretty much get up and read from it verbatim when they prophecy...There are two things which still really bother me: denigrating certain books of the Bible and denigrating brothers and sisters, dare I say saints, outside the Recovery.

More I read the book of James, more the book of James liberates me from the doctrine of Authority and Submission.
I have placed in bold what my experience was with the last locality I was meeting with. It's one thing if one wants to parrot the ministry in order to prophesy. It's quite another to use the prophesying time as a forum to belittle and "denigrate" saints outside the recovery. Even this is contrary to the ministry, but the responsible brothers have no problem with it.

"There is one basic principle of speaking: One must not speak according to his feeling or hope. A person is lying when he is not speaking according to truth and reality but according to expectation and hope. We should learn to speak according to facts and not express any opinion of our own. If we are giving our opinion, we need to make it clear that this is our opinion. When we are speaking a fact, we need to state that this is a fact. We must separate our opinions from facts. We should not mix facts with our opinions. What we think a person is and what a person actually is are two different things. At the most we can say that the fact indicates one thing but we have a different thought concerning the matter."

[OBW]

A person is lying when he is not speaking according to truth and reality but according to expectation and hope. We should learn to speak according to facts and not express any opinion of our own. If we are giving our opinion, we need to make it clear that this is our opinion. When we are speaking a fact, we need to state that this is a fact. We must separate our opinions from facts. We should not mix facts with our opinions.

The real problem with this kind of statement is that someone else is simply supplying the "facts," even when they are in serious conflict with any verifiable support. We are relegated to either parroting the supplied "facts" or to speaking opinions. That is because we are only able to come up with opinions if we are not parroting their "facts."

And if you are gullible enough to believe that, then you will simply swallow your opinions and stick to their facts. Because the only things you are capable of speaking besides regurgitation of what Lee and the LSM says are opinions.

Funny that the LRC/LSM fact police are never ready (in season or out) to give a reason for anything. Just to declare bare "facts" without any reason. Just state that they are facts. Oh, they give reasons. But the reasons are simply more bare "facts" without reason. There is surely not a verse in sight that actually supports their contentions.

[ABrotherinFaith]

At the meeting I mentioned, we were going through one of Lee's books or messages related to Psalms and the "fact" was raised that some of the Psalms are simply (hear read not as good as others, not as inspired or inspired in a different way) man's fallen concept. A verse or two was pulled out of context and used to support that "fact." EVERYONE immediately agreed. There was no thought. No consideration. No hesitation. No "fact" checking. No wondering. What surprised me then and still surprises me now is that believers are able to suppress the Spirit within telling them otherwise. I remember one of the verses used to illustrate the "fact" that some Scripture is God's word and some isn't in an important way was Matthew 16:22 where Peter rebukes the Lord. "Obviously that's not the Lord. Obviously this is man's fallen concept. Obviously, then, there are other places in the Bible where man's fallen concept can be found." This was the response (premade for them in whatever text we were reading) and it was accepted as ex cathedra. There is no understanding of how to read, what narrative is, what context is, what descriptive language is. I suggested it might be otherwise. Perhaps we were missing something. Maybe we should read some more verses and consider them. A sister actually laughed at me and said, "It's right there!" Maybe it isn't was my response. Silence. No support. Nothing. Just the sister's laugh comforting everyone that yes, they'd just read and understood the Word of God. I tried again to get back to the Word, to at elast read the entire Psalm in question ( I can't remember which), but the "facts" loomed large in the room and I was already as good as forgotten. Like OBW said, "facts" that seem to be in conflict with the Word need to be challenged.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I remember one of the verses used to illustrate the "fact" that some Scripture is God's word and some isn't in an important way was Matthew 16:22 where Peter rebukes the Lord. "Obviously that's not the Lord. Obviously this is man's fallen concept. Obviously, then, there are other places in the Bible where man's fallen concept can be found." This was the response (premade for them in whatever text we were reading) and it was accepted as ex cathedra. There is no understanding of how to read, what narrative is, what context is, what descriptive language is.

Once you can get someone to accept your premise, then you slowly have leverage to get into their mind and reprogram it. They have "campus workers", who go after college students. First they get them to acknowledge God, then to acknowledge Jesus Christ, then to accept the premise that "there is only one church" and that God doesn't like division. Lo and behold here is practical oneness, displayed before them! They get them to make an emotional commitment to the group.

Then, the reprogramming starts. Don't be "negative". Be "positive". So everytime the Maximum Brother writes something or says something, they have the reflex action already conditioned. When that sister said, "It's right there!" she probably didn't know or care if she was referring to the Bible or to Witness Lee's teachings. In her mind they constitute a seamless, integrated whole. And the meetings reinforce that, with either "amen" or silence from the group.

I went to an FTTA training meeting, once, where the trainer said something completely in contrast to Jesus' teachings. It was received with silence. I attempted to politely correct him, using Jesus' clear teachings. My conscience was protesting. More silence followed my remarks. Then the trainer continued without even acknowledging my speaking.

And I kept meeting there for several more years, in spite of a bunch of stuff like that. Why? Because I was "positive". I didn't want to be "negative". That's how strongly we were programmed, and conditioned.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Once you can get someone to accept your premise, then you slowly have leverage to get into their mind and reprogram it.

And if you are careful in your reading of the opening chapter or two of most of Lee's important books, and at least a couple of Nee's that I have seen, this principle is a work. Do a jig around some verse and turn it into mush that you can manipulate, then declare that you have made your point and we are ready to move on.

And if you don't stop and say "wait a minute" you will be railroaded into the oblivion of their choice. That is how we were told that authority was so important that there had to be this serious study on it that was codified into Authority and Submission. That is how a verse about stopping people from teaching stupid stuff became an edict to preach only "God's economy" and "God's economy" was simplified down to "God dispensing himself into mankind." That is how we came to understand that house churches as described in the Bible cannot mean that the one-church-per-city rule is incorrect because the one-church-per-city rule declares that it must be true.

(Huh? Say that again? You mean that evidence that stands in opposition to the rule that we are trying to establish is brushed aside by assuming that the rule is simply true? If that is the case, then who needs evidence!?!)

No one bothered to stop and ask "why does God need a starship?" The question was dying to be asked. But someone will quietly explain that you don't go around questioning the almighty. Well, if he is the almighty, then he does not need a starship!!

Thank you, Captain Kirk!

And we need to take Lee up on his word when he had that videotaped message in which they told everyone about the terrible things that had come down under the auspices of some greedy, self-serving, ambitious ones lead by Max R. . . . Lee carefully ordered that we no longer accept what we knew to be wrong. Even if it came from Lee himself.

Then hardly 10 short years later, he became the one that no one could question. He became the one who had to answer to no one. The one that your absolutely could not challenge.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

The real problem with this kind of statement is that someone else is simply supplying the "facts," even when they are in serious conflict with any verifiable support. We are relegated to either parroting the supplied "facts" or to speaking opinions. That is because we are only able to come up with opinions if we are not parroting their "facts."

And if you are gullible enough to believe that, then you will simply swallow your opinions and stick to their facts. Because the only things you are capable of speaking besides regurgitation of what Lee and the LSM says are opinions.

Funny that the LRC/LSM fact police are never ready (in season or out) to give a reason for anything. Just to declare bare "facts" without any reason. Just state that they are facts. Oh, they give reasons. But the reasons are simply more bare "facts" without reason. There is surely not a verse in sight that actually supports their contentions.

One of the opinions received as fact is denigrating of non-LSM Christians. Who in the LC had taken the opportunity and time to meet with non-LC assemblies? Even then, there is invariably preferences to how the service is structured. The phrase I had heard prophesied multiple times "we in the local churches see so much and Christianity sees so little". That my brothers and sisters is not a factual statement, but an opinion. An opinion had there been a visitor in attendance that day would never return. An opinion I protested to the lead elder. An opinion that does not issue in the building up of the Body.