Where Has All the Orthopraxy Gone?

[rayliotta]

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

Many of us have acknowledged this here on this forum (and on the old Bereans forum). When CRI said, "We Were Wrong," we discussed here that the most harmful aspects of the Lord's Recovery movement have little to do w/the doctrinal points (modalism, etc.) that CRI was focused on.

John Myer, in his book, A Future and a Hope, refers to "odd myths [that] floated around the LC Movement," such as "that Witness Lee had a 'golden finger'" (chapter 15). There were a lot of things that were (are) repeated a lot by members, that wouldn't necessarily make it into print. I believe it may be these things "just below the surface," that have left many people in a confused and emotionally scarred state, either while still in the LRC, or (especially) after exiting the group.

So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

[rayliotta]

( P.S. As an aside, here's a link to John Myer's book, "A Future and a Hope: Church Life beyond the Local Church Movement" --

http://assemblylife.com )

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

( P.S. As an aside, here's a link to John Myer's book, "A Future and a Hope: Church Life beyond the Local Church Movement" --
http://assemblylife.com )

Thank you for the link, Ray. Looks like in the end Titus Chu and company showed Myer the door over his conception of the local ground. My first impression on scanning the book, is that there doesn't seem to be any way to continue Local Church practice apart from accepting LSM whole cloth. Since I can't do that, I think it is wise to avoid the Local Church altogether. I have conversed with a few LC individuals over the years without any problems. But, I have avoided setting foot on their turf. This book seems to confirm my position that that is the right path for me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

we discussed here that the most harmful aspects of the Lord's Recovery movement have little to do w/the doctrinal points

Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

I remember reading an essay called "Two turmoils". It had a quote from a Chinese brother to John Ingalls. He told him, "ln my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must be loyal to Witness Lee."

At the end of the day, it's not what you say but what you do. But the problem with Lord's Recovery is that they have hundreds of published books but they don't like to talk about what they actually do. So all you have is their carefully arranged official statements. It is very hard for you to get them to be frank and honest about practices, like that brother was to John Ingalls. So instead you argue endlessly about meanings of words.

Look at all the trouble that was stirred up by Witness Lee when he said, "We need to contact the people who don't meet here anymore and find out what went wrong." So Steve Isitt contacted them and they didn't want to hear what actually was wrong. Better to focus on words and meanings of words. It is safer. So to get the Lord's Recovery to discuss orthopraxy is going to be very hard.

[awareness]

What means Witness Lee had a 'golden finger'? 007, licence to kill?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

Look at all the trouble that was stirred up by Witness Lee when he said, "We need to contact the people who don't meet here anymore and find out what went wrong." So Steve Isitt contacted them and they didn't want to hear what actually was wrong. Better to focus on words and meanings of words. It is safer. So to get the Lord's Recovery to discuss orthopraxy is going to be very hard.

Aron, do you have a reference for this quote? I'm not familiar with it. Of course we are not the Lord's Recovery, we are people who were affected by it, most of us quite deeply affected.

Perhaps by being more candid about the specific words that were said to us, and the specific styles of bullying or manipulating that were employed, we can help some people who may be struggling.

Awareness' story about Mel Porter* telling him, "If you want to blow your nose, you have to ask me which side first," helped me a lot several years ago. And part of what I appreciated was the detail that awareness chose to share. A lot of the mystique in the Recovery centers around the particular utterances that are constantly repeated (even the term "proper utterance" is a proper utterance, as Ron Kangas likes to share about). Some of these are repeated over and over in meetings and printed messages. But not all of these utterances make it to print.

*scroll down to post #164 at the link, from 08-16-10, 23:40, near the end.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

I would agree. But it is so difficult to generalize the practices. Listen/read the accounts from the people who are from different cities and regions and the kind of experiences and practices are all over the map.

That could be because the underlying issues that bring certain practices to the surface are not uniformly occurring everywhere. So it would take a rather large body of people who actually see all of the practices to dig through the causes (if they are aware of them) and build cases for some common body of practice. Ohio has some amount of understanding of the things that TC did in the GLA. And that probably had a discernible effect on the other leaders in the region, although not necessarily in a uniform way (other than being submissive to improper punishment).

Someone just suggested that the whole idea of sending people out to different cities all the time was a way to take the "local" out of the core of almost any church. While the idea of "missionaries" or a preacher in a church plant is quite acceptable, it is somewhat out of sync with any claim of a special, local church. Unlike Paul who kept one from afar while otherwise identifying and keeping locals as the elders, the LRC seems to thrive on external influence.

Of course, some will then determine that every denomination is deficient because they often have their upper leadership elsewhere and send in the top local leadership. And they would be right if there was either some clearly defined "how to" in the area rather than just examples that are inconsistent. But it seems that to be the forte of the LRC. Find an example, declare it to be a principle, ignore the inconsistent examples, and beat on everyone who does not follow their determination. So the only problem with having leaders from outside the immediate assembly is that it violates a "principle" that is not clearly a principle.

I've been warned about saying things about the past, but we started into this kind of inquiry before and when every city didn't look like the proposed grand error, there were accusations going both ways — overextending an example to the whole or dismissing the example because it was not observed somewhere else. It was rather ugly. And it was almost like the thread was cursed. It would lie fallow for a while and then someone would come along and add a new thought, and the black and white thinking would reemerge.

Does that mean we can't do it? It does not. But we have to be prepared to either limit the kinds of things we talk about so that there is commonality between most to all cities, or we have to be careful about over-applying the things we see in any one place.

And it is so hard to generalize off of observations. Is Mel Porter the way he is because of the LRC, or are his natural inclinations well-suited for being in leadership in such a group? Do the two aggravate each other?

Or maybe we limit the discussions to some of the more mundane practices. I don't think that any city just dreamed-up the groaning thing as a means of passively shutting up those who don't speak according to "the ministry." Yet can anyone find its origin?

The problem with so many of the practices is that they are not the cause, but the result. Orthopraxy came to be because of the variant in Orthodoxy. The question is whether we/they practice what we preach. It starts with a skewed Orthodoxy and plays out in a skewed and dysfunctional Orthopraxy. But fixing any particular aspect of Orthopraxy does not cure all. It is only the symptoms of the underlying Orthodoxy. If you have "true religion" then you have good Orthodoxy. Otherwise, you don't.

There was a reason that Lee didn't want us looking at James in a positive way. It exposed the crappy Orthopraxy as crappy Orthodoxy rather than the yen and yang of life (or the two sides of every truth).

The practices caused real damage for some. And the instances of that are damnable. But even when understood as excessively numerous "isolated" cases, it is the underlying theology/Orthodoxy that permits it.

Yet it may be re realization that the Orthopraxy stinks that will cause some to open their eyes to the underlying Orthodoxy.

So what do we benefit from wasting time talking about other errant religions, like the United Theocracy of America? Not much other than to see the propensity of some to see the Bible as a book of hidden secrets that needs an expensive decoder ring to decipher. That was Lee. And that is Cahn (and many others). And some of us need to be special. To be part of something unique. And look what it gets us.

Well, we are all unique, just like everyone else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is so hard to generalize off of observations. Is Mel Porter the way he is because of the LRC, or are his natural inclinations well-suited for being in leadership in such a group? Do the two aggravate each other?

The problem with so many of the practices is that they are not the cause, but the result. Orthopraxy came to be because of the variant in Orthodoxy. The question is whether we/they practice what we preach. It starts with a skewed Orthodoxy and plays out in a skewed and dysfunctional Orthopraxy.

A few observations:

MP to awareness: "You will take my personality as your own"

Blended Brother to Bill Mallon: "We do as we are told"

Philip Lin to John Ingalls: "In my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must follow Witness Lee".

RK: "Can we ever honor our brother Witness Lee too much?"

TC: "We owe Witness Lee our lives".

Anonymous: "Witness Lee - even when he's wrong, he's right"

All of these are kind of off the record observations, and not codified in official statements; yet a set of observations does allow some tentative hypotheses. Mine was that Asian culture in the LRC, both in teaching and practice, was far more pervasive than we had been led to imagine.

The "orthodoxy" idea is even skewed by this. What principles do we focus on, as we scan the text(s)? Is every church being "absolutely identical" an orthodox idea, or rather a cultural gloss superimposed on the text? How much of the LSM oevre is really orthodox, and how much human (historical reactivism, cultural, and personal) interpretation? Somehow Lee's incessant, frantic search for conformity, and uniformity, doesn't seem like "freedom of the Spirit" to me. But maybe that is my rough-tough American cowboy individualism surfacing here.

On that note: I know that I called Cahn's speech "sanctimonious drivel" on another thread. But how much of my own writing is similar? Posing behind a shield of anonymity, blowing clouds of smoke? I really don't know. The tree of knowledge blinds us from "self". How much love, faith, obedience do I display? How much "bearing one another in love", versus "bitter sniping"?

I think if we want orthopraxy, ultimately we just have to live it. Then those who have been damaged in the LRC (and there are indeed many) might be encouraged to speak, to come forth, and to heal. And sometimes the getting healed involves rolling around in the dust and shouting. Look at the spectacle involved, in the gospel record, when Jesus cast out unclean spirits! We should not be afraid, here. Just be honest, patient, and forbearing with one another. That is true orthopraxy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The "orthodoxy" idea is even skewed by this. What principles do we focus on, as we scan the text(s)? Is every church being "absolutely identical" an orthodox idea, or rather a cultural gloss superimposed on the text? How much of the LSM oevre is really orthodox, and how much human (historical reactivism, cultural, and personal) interpretation? Somehow Lee's incessant, frantic search for conformity, and uniformity, doesn't seem like "freedom of the Spirit" to me. But maybe that is my rough-tough American cowboy individualism surfacing here.

Late 1984, as Lee was finishing the NT Life-Study, he repeatedly stated that, "we have recovered life, we have recovered the truth, and we now must recover the proper way." It all sounded so good! And Lee was then off to Taipei to work in his "laboratory" to recover the proper way.

Each of these stages deteriorated the LC's. Each of these stages brought new deceptions and controls from Anaheim. Each of those stages supposedly addressed inherent "problems" in the recovery. The 1st stage of "life," (~'65 to '77) took a genuine move of the Spirit during the 60's, where Lee was one of many ministers, and set him up in glory as the sole reason for all of God's blessing.

The 2nd stage, (~'77 to '84) in the aftermath of the so-called "Max rebellion," turned our attention from the experience of Christ as our life and center to an obsession with "truth," which was actually all of Lee's systematic theology. Lee became the sole arbitrator of all Christian doctrine. No one, neither within nor without, had any say in the recovery concerning the ministry of the NT. Lee's teachings, trainings, and books alone would be available to all the LC's for their daily consumption. His publications gradually replaced the scriptures themselves in the hearts of the faithful.

The 3rd stage (~'85 to '90) elevated Lee and LSM to dominance. Whether it was Lee or his profligate son Phillip, LSM was given complete liberty to lord it over the churches of God. He wielded more power than the Pope. Local elders were told to like it or leave ... quietly as a "gentleman." Every LC was now forced to follow every wind and wave of teaching from Lee, whether or not they needed it, wanted it, liked it, or believed it was even from the Lord or His word.

I have always said that Lee's orthopraxy was actually more damaging to the LC's, but it had to be preceded by a takeover by Leeite orthodoxy. The latter was the groundwork for the former. Bad teachings set the stage for destructive practices.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Late 1984, as Lee was finishing the NT Life-Study, he repeatedly stated that, "we have recovered life, we have recovered the truth, and we now must recover the proper way." It all sounded so good! And Lee was then off to Taipei to work in his "laboratory" to recover the proper way.

Each of these stages deteriorated the LC's. Each of these stages brought new deceptions and controls from Anaheim. Each of those stages supposedly addressed inherent "problems" in the recovery. The 1st stage of "life," (~'65 to '77) took a genuine move of the Spirit during the 60's, where Lee was one of many ministers, and set him up in glory as the sole reason for all of God's blessing.

The 2nd stage, (~'77 to '84) in the aftermath of the so-called "Max rebellion," turned our attention from the experience of Christ as our life and center to an obsession with "truth," which was actually all of Lee's systematic theology. Lee became the sole arbitrator of all Christian doctrine. No one, neither within nor without, had any say in the recovery concerning the ministry of the NT. Lee's teachings, trainings, and books alone would be available to all the LC's for their daily consumption. His publications gradually replaced the scriptures themselves in the hearts of the faithful.

The 3rd stage (~'85 to '90) elevated Lee and LSM to dominance. Whether it was Lee or his profligate son Phillip, LSM was given complete liberty to lord it over the churches of God. He wielded more power than the Pope. Local elders were told to like it or leave ... quietly as a "gentleman." Every LC was now forced to follow every wind and wave of teaching from Lee, whether or not they needed it, wanted it, liked it, or believed it was even from the Lord or His word.

I have always said that Lee's orthopraxy was actually more damaging to the LC's, but it had to be preceded by a takeover by Leeite orthodoxy. The latter was the groundwork for the former. Bad teachings set the stage for destructive practices.

One thing that was not 'recovered'.... was God's LOVE.

Does it not say.... of these things the greatest IS LOVE?

1 Corinthians 13- chapter on Love

Also.... in looking back, knowing what I know now, The Spirit of God departed right around 1977...Without the Holy Spirit's Anointing and God's Love, the LC became the church in Ephesus of Revelation 2...and then some...

That said, while all this is true, let us remember to pray for them.

Love Ya'll knuckleheads....and I include myself..

Carol

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Love Ya'll knuckleheads....and I include myself..

I resent er, ah, resemble that remark.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

A few observations:

MP to awareness: "You will take my personality as your own"

Blended Brother to Bill Mallon: "We do as we are told"

Philip Lin to John Ingalls: "In my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must follow Witness Lee".

RK: "Can we ever honor our brother Witness Lee too much?"

TC: "We owe Witness Lee our lives".

Anonymous: "Witness Lee - even when he's wrong, he's right"

All of these are kind of off the record observations, and not codified in official statements; yet a set of observations does allow some tentative hypotheses. Mine was that Asian culture in the LRC, both in teaching and practice, was far more pervasive than we had been led to imagine.

All good observations. And in most cases they expose the core of the upper echelons of the LRC hierarchy. But every aspect of that is not seen and practiced in the same way in all places.

I will say that one leading one in Dallas could have been much like MP. I saw some of it. I also saw and heard reports about his living. He was moral in the big sins, but he was a cheater. And a bully. He did work for people then had them pay him by contributing to him through the offering box. He would simply go-off on people on occasion. Berate them unmercifully and accuse them of all kinds of nonsense. I'm sure that some of it was to create effect and some of it was to cow someone into submission. I almost told him off one time. But bit my tongue.

But the real Orthopraxy is what the local members are doing. What is their practice and why? Even how is the local group "managed." That is too often as varied as the nature of the leaders and the people there. Do they even see the effects of the practices of the BBs and the full-timers? Often not. But the Christianity that they practice is the result of the teachings they receive. Their practical oneness and love for all believers (as well as unbelievers) is affected by the nature of the doctrines they hold. And if they hold doctrines that are critical of other Christians, then their practice with respect to interaction with those other Christians is likely damaged. And you can't expect their interactions with the unsaved to be better than that.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree. But it is so difficult to generalize the practices. Listen/read the accounts from the people who are from different cities and regions and the kind of experiences and practices are all over the map.

That could be because the underlying issues that bring certain practices to the surface are not uniformly occurring everywhere. So it would take a rather large body of people who actually see all of the practices to dig through the causes (if they are aware of them) and build cases for some common body of practice. Ohio has some amount of understanding of the things that TC did in the GLA. And that probably had a discernible effect on the other leaders in the region, although not necessarily in a uniform way (other than being submissive to improper punishment).

I agree, OBW. So we tend more toward general observations that are applicable on a more global scale.

But this thought occurs to me, for folks who are just coming out of the Recovery -- which can be a traumatic experience -- as well as for those still in the Recovery, but who are having doubts: And that is, that people may benefit by hearing that their specific experiences were being mirrored elsewhere. Hearing tales of the bullying and "public shaming" experienced by others, may help to put in perspective our own experiences of being bullied or manipulated. (It helped me, at least a little!)

But as you point out, some of the specific practices or sayings were localized, which makes the conversation more challenging.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But this thought occurs to me, for folks who are just coming out of the Recovery -- which can be a traumatic experience -- as well as for those still in the Recovery, but who are having doubts: And that is, that people may benefit by hearing that their specific experiences were being mirrored elsewhere. Hearing tales of the bullying and "public shaming" experienced by others, may help to put in perspective our own experiences of being bullied or manipulated. (It helped me, at least a little!)

But as you point out, some of the specific practices or sayings were localized, which makes the conversation more challenging.

As long as we can accept each experience as being true without insisting on it being universally true, then we have a place to go with this.

Yes, as someone (you?) pointed out, there are some specific things that we see in the leadership, such as always defending the ministry and saying overly-broad and spiritual-sounding things to ring-fence our actual freedom to be only within the bounds that they are willing to tolerate. These leave a little room for differences. And those differences will be influenced by the nature of the individuals in each place. Not all leaders are megalomaniacs. Some are simply true believers who have real jobs and think that it is really all true. And with the lowered temper of leadership, there will likely be a lowered tendency to buck it, therefore less observation of the kind of shaming that was seen in other places.

In Dallas there was really only one such person in the years I was there. And there were little eruptions around him because he wielded his "spiritual authority" like a sword, whacking off heads and arms on occasion. Asking questions that put you in an uneasy position. Even, on occasion, seeming to be at odds with the "flow from the throne," but since that was always in flux, who really knew what the latest flow was. One time, shortly after Lee made a comment about the supplement songs that were written to modern tunes being somehow worldly (Don't remember the specific way it was put after nearly 40 years), I lightly marked through the obvious targets with a pencil. At one point, this guy saw my supplement and asked what those were for. But the question wasn't really to elicit an answer. The demeanor was a sort of shaming. It was irrelevant that his implication was that my minor action (which was consistent with the spirit of Lee's latest word) was wrong. He was making demeaning it. And it was from leadership. It lowered my thoughts concerning my own assessment of things.

Over time I got over it. Partly because he moved off to another city, then word came back that he was evicted from leadership over money issues, left, and eventually returned to Dallas to live in the house ne never sold. He later led a small home church of other LRC castaways. By that time I would never had considered being part of anything he was involved in.

I am aware that he did much more overt verbal assaults on others. One of which I have some personal knowledge, though I was not present when it happened.

I have discussed the little I know of it with a former elder who was present at the time and his comment was that both he and another elder were quite taken aback, but that since this one had moved to Dallas from Anaheim, there was hesitancy to speak against it at the time.

I had at least one other run-in with this guy. Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? Had to be on before you entered the property (including the parking lot). One year I was part of the ushering team for the video training and on occasion I had to go early and turn on the air (don't remember which time of year at the present). I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally). Probably should have. It might have saved me from more of the LRC nonsense. But I just took it. (Very un-me.)

[OBW]

I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach. But the young couple that suddenly got married back in '73 was not ordered to either marry or quit even seeming to date. They did it on their own. And many years later it ended poorly. Not the elder's fault.

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

We were really trained well without a word being said. And possibly well beyond what they wanted responsibility for.

But no one ever said anything about it. And it continued. And probably even the elders were somewhat afraid to change things because anything reported negatively back to Anaheim was bad. Most of us had little idea about that then. But we know it now.

Some years back, someone from another place told of the percentage of failed marriages from a period just about 10 years after that. He was counting well over 50% if I recall correctly. Yet that was not seen uniformly everywhere.

So let's try to know the connection to the practices of the LRC rather than just the errors of individuals. Even in the latter, there is probably some "help" from the LRC practices, although not so direct.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

To the best of my knowledge, this thought still exists in the LC today. I don't know how common it is, but in the LC I am in, I have heard something to this effect. I have also hear brothers from different LC's imply the same thing, that couples need to get some kind of permission to date/marry.

The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule.

Originally Posted by OBW

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

Originally Posted by Freedom

To the best of my knowledge, this thought still exists in the LC today. I don't know how common it is, but in the LC I am in, I have heard something to this effect. I have also heard brothers from different LC's imply the same thing, that couples need to get some kind of permission to date/marry.

The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule.

Originally Posted by OBW

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

Originally Posted by Freedom

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

I find it very interesting that OBW is making these observations from all the way back to the 70's. This is all too familiar. The ambiguity, the sense that some of the elders may not even want to be involved in other people's "courtship decisions", etc. Yet the whole time, there remains a common belief among members that that's the only acceptable way to go about things.

I personally have encountered a similar dynamic outside of Texas, and 30 years later than the time period OBW is describing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? ... I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally).

This is what happens to church people who LOVE THE LAW.

This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers.

Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15)

Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is what happens to church people who LOVE THE LAW.

This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers.

Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15)

Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.

Yes.

And I note that someone somewhere else complained that it seemed I thought so little of the people in the LRC and their ability to see through the spiritual fog. But just like these little stories, I find less examples of gross abuse (though there were a few) and more examples of how we, the sheeple, followed whatever was put in front of us. We were not faced with a Mel Porter kind of authoritarian (though GD in Dallas had his moments), but we still were admirers of the idea that we should ask "how high" when asked to jump.

I'm sure it looked different in Cleveburg and the surrounding environs. Yet even all of that might have been somewhat dismissed, or missed altogether by many of the regular rank-and-file. Of course you have a better idea on that.

But it is now obvious that the leadership at the LSM did not have control of the church in Anaheim — at least not enough to stop the outbreak of negative information that caused them to publish FOTPR to try to stop the damage. (Wow. That is really kind of scary when you think about it. FOTPR was to stop damage when it should have had every reader asking more questions and trying to get to the bottom of it all and creating more damage — to the system, not the people.)

Funny thing is that I do not know how I would have responded if I had heard about John I leaving when it happened rather than a couple of years later. It happened just about the time I left and while I was leaving, I would never have expected the firestorm that was around it. By the time I heard about it, I had no idea, but could find no reason to fault him. Then many years later when I learned more, I find him to have been among the few righteous ones. Sort of like Lot and his family. And he got out before the fire came down. Good for him.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

It's discussion on recovery orthopraxy, that drives me to participate on the forum. General Christian doctrines or discussions on other ministries and ministers, I am usually not interested in participation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's discussion on recovery orthopraxy, that drives me to participate on the forum. General Christian doctrines or discussions on other ministries and ministers, I am usually not interested in participation.

In the last ten years I have visited lots of diverse churches, and let me say that none of them got all their orthodoxy "perfect."

But neither did any NT church in the first century. The question is whether all their practices are sourced in the love of God and man, or do they only serve to build up some man's short-lived empire on earth.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the last ten years I have visited lots of diverse churches, and let me say that none of them got all their orthodoxy "perfect."

But neither did any NT church in the first century. The question is whether all their practices are sourced in the love of God and man, or do they only serve to build up some man's short-lived empire on earth.

If I get what you are saying Ohio. I will take a fellowship that is poor in ministry, but rich in Christ over one that is rich in ministry and poor in Christ.

Meaning some assemblies may not claim to know so much, but they love, give grace, apologize, and humble.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:
Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?
It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.
So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

Yeah, why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

I think some people have brought up the point that many of the practices stem from the teachings....so I think they may be more tied together than we might think. Anyway, thank's ray for bringing this up!

LET'S DISCUSS!

[Freedom]

I do agree that it would be good to discuss this more. I think that in many respects, the bad experiences I have had in the LC are due mostly to their practices.

The hindrance to this type of discussion is what was mentioned already, everyone has had different experiences, and different LC's emphasize different practices.

My observation from being in the LC my whole life is that there are a lot of unwritten rules and practices. If there were to be a hard copy list of practices someone in the LC had to follow, it would be easy for people on the outside to immediately see the issues with the LC.

When someone is brought to an LC meeting for the first time, no one tells them that to be a respected member, they will be encouraged to stop celebrating holidays, attend meetings most nights of the week, spend 2 weeks a year attending semi-annual trainings, and adopt other practices they may not be comfortable with. Stuff like this would normally be a red flag for people.

Now and then I have seen saints attempt to take issue with a certain rule or practice. All the sudden the official stance is that no such rule or practice exists. The elders will say it's some "concept" that person has about the LC. They then tell us how we need to drop all our "concepts".

The problem is that with regards to LC leadership, it is next to impossible to pin anyone down regarding LC practices. Because so much goes unspoken, they can take any stance they want to fit the situation and then change positions as the next situation comes up.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The problem is that with regards to LC leadership, it is next to impossible to pin anyone down regarding LC practices. Because so much goes unspoken, they can take any stance they want to fit the situation and then change positions as the next situation comes up.

In other words double-standards exist as a LC practice for a reason. When the situation fits, apply the double-standard. One one scenario it may be considered a "local matter" (as Benson Phillips and Ray Graver pointed out to John Ingalls and the late Ken Unger in John Ingall's Speaking the Truth in Love ). In another scenario you have the book Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux did where it's considered an "extra-local matter". How convenient!

[HERn]

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

HERn, that's a great question. Not all of us here are old-timers.

Have you heard people say, in regards to this trend, something like, "It is Biblical"? This is what I was told by more than one brother. As I remember, it's based on the fact that at the end of some of the Epistles, Paul mentions more women than men (Dorcas, Phoebe, etc.). So this is the basis for saying that "it is Biblical!" that there would end up being this kind of imbalance in the local churches. (Is this taught specifically by Witness Lee, does anybody know? I believe it is, but I'm not certain.)

Another phrase I remember hearing a lot was that "marriages/relationships happen very quickly in the church life" (I'm paraphrasing). This was said as if it is a good thing, or somehow a normal thing for folks in their group to develop a romantic relationship and then tie the knot quickly. Not sure if there's anything "Biblical" about that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Have you heard people say, in regards to this trend, something like, "It is Biblical"? This is what I was told by more than one brother. As I remember, it's based on the fact that at the end of some of the Epistles, Paul mentions more women than men (Dorcas, Phoebe, etc.). So this is the basis for saying that "it is Biblical!" that there would end up being this kind of imbalance in the local churches. (Is this taught specifically by Witness Lee, does anybody know? I believe it is, but I'm not certain.)

Both Nee and Lee taught that there should be twice as many sisters as brothers in a local church.

This was "based" upon the house in Bethany in John chapter 12, which supposedly was a true model or "miniature" of the healthy church life. Read about these ten distinguishing "characteristics" in the first footnote on John 12.1. The footnote item (5) says "having more sisters than brothers," but I heard elsewhere on a number of occasions that Nee prescribed a 2:1 ratio.

Even the footnote seems to contradict this "model" ratio by including Simon the leper. That would make 2 brothers and 2 sisters, perhaps a more "ideal" ratio.

This footnote is so typical of the ministries of both Nee and Lee. Both needed to maintain their "Seer" status by "seeing" truths and patterns in the Bible which no one else could "see." By "seeing" the proper sister:brother ratio in a "normal" local church they established a standard which no church could measure up to.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Nee and Lee taught that there should be twice as many sisters as brothers in a local church.

This was "based" upon the house in Bethany in John chapter 12, which supposedly was a true model or "miniature" of the healthy church life. Read about these ten distinguishing "characteristics" in the first footnote on John 12.1. The footnote item (5) says "having more sisters than brothers," but I heard elsewhere on a number of occasions that Nee prescribed a 2:1 ratio.

Even the footnote seems to contradict this "model" ratio by including Simon the leper. That would make 2 brothers and 2 sisters, perhaps a more "ideal" ratio.

This footnote is so typical of the ministries of both Nee and Lee. Both needed to maintain their "Seer" status by "seeing" truths and patterns in the Bible which no one else could "see." By "seeing" the proper sister:brother ratio in a "normal" local church they established a standard which no church could measure up to.

So, I think this begs the question...and it may be a rather uncomfortable question...Why, really, would Watchman Nee and Witness Lee have wanted to believe that churches should have twice as many women as men?

It seems to me that this is a rather odd thing to think. Especially if you're going to preach that this actually should be characteristic of the churches under your ministry. So...is this a fair question to ask?

[aron]

Re: females in the LSM Local Churches. I remember from the FTTA where we were told specifically to go after white males. This was in a "college training" there. We were being "trained" in the "gospel"; i.e. to go get more members. The trainer (Chinese) got some Caucasian males to stand up and said, "This is what we want. This is what we are after." I don't remember the trainer's name.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Another phrase I remember hearing a lot was that "marriages/relationships happen very quickly in the church life" (I'm paraphrasing). This was said as if it is a good thing, or somehow a normal thing for folks in their group to develop a romantic relationship and then tie the knot quickly. Not sure if there's anything "Biblical" about that?

When I was there I was approached several times by elders and "workers" about getting connected to some faithful sister who was pining away as the years rolled past. It didn't sound too romantic to me. So I managed to evade them.

I am so glad I left that group. They used a "faithful sister" to pin a male member. Once they had a female that they could manipulate, then they could control the male. They would give directives from Anaheim, and if the male started to question, then the "faithful sister" would get all hysterical that they have to be one, and love the Lord Jesus and the Church Life, and what can you do?

One day I just walked out. I had no job, no money, no nothing. I was completely dependent upon them for housing, food, direction, etc. My family was gone and the "I'll never go back any more. No, no, no..." song had been sung so many times... but I just walked out. I got into a homeless shelter, got a menial job through a temp agency, and kept going. I was tired of seeing the same people every day, all of them afraid to do anything without "fellowship". I wanted to follow the Spirit.

I bet today the trainers and workers are more sophisticated and don't say, "Go get us some more White males". Now they say, "The spread of the gospel" and so forth, but it is the same controlling, manipulating spirit. And if I don't sound sexist (forgive me) but it seems females are more susceptible to this kind of manipulation and control.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One day I just walked out. I had no job, no money, no nothing. I was completely dependent upon them for housing, food, direction, etc. My family was gone and the "I'll never go back any more. No, no, no..." song had been sung so many times... but I just walked out. I got into a homeless shelter, got a menial job through a temp agency, and kept going. I was tired of seeing the same people every day, all of them afraid to do anything without "fellowship". I wanted to follow the Spirit.

I seem to remember a story about an old guy named Abram who did something similar.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

When I was there I was approached several times by elders and "workers" about getting connected to some faithful sister who was pining away as the years rolled past. It didn't sound too romantic to me. So I managed to evade them.

I remember two different "serving brothers" suggesting the same young lady to me. To the first brother, I responded that I wasn't interested in her. He seemed irritated and persisted in recommending this particular sister to me, almost like he was giving me a second chance to open my eyes and realize that I was actually interested in her.

When the second brother mentioned the same lady to me, a couple months later, it made me uncomfortable. It struck me as rather odd that they both just "happened" be suggesting the same sister to me, specifically. And neither of them bothered to explain why they had her in mind for me anyway. It raised my eyebrows a little. In fact, my surprise was probably written all over my face. As for the serving brother, there was a smile on his face.

The sad thing is, in retrospect, it's possible that if I'd had the opportunity to get to know this sister, I might have been interested. She wasn't unattractive, I'd just really never talked to her before. So it felt like these guys were putting the cart before the horse, trying to get me to be interested when there had never been any real opportunity for mutual interest to develop in the first place.

Welcome to the Lord's Recovery. So, what else is new?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The sad thing is, in retrospect, it's possible that if I'd had the opportunity to get to know this sister, I might have been interested. She wasn't unattractive, I'd just really never talked to her before. So it felt like these guys were putting the cart before the horse, trying to get me to be interested when there had never been any real opportunity for mutual interest to develop in the first place.

Welcome to the Lord's Recovery. So, what else is new?

Exactly! What else is new. Actually, it has been a blessing to marry a sister who is immune to the ministry and what "the brothers" think. All that matters is what the Bible says.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers?

Here is a quote from Gene Gruhler's speaking on Sixth Grade gospel preaching to the children.

Originally Posted by GeneGruhler

During this time two always serve together. It does not matter if there are only two kids, two workers are always there. One is giving the lesson and the other is watching the faces. You can tell what point touches what kid. They have a long period of time in the mornings so when the lesson is over and they turn to other things, the worker that was watching the faces, takes the ones that were touched into another room and leads them to be definitely and personally saved if they are ready. But usually when they are touched their eyes tear or something. You can tell when they are ready.

The psychological manipulation in the local churches is more effectively used on the females, I believe. The Local Church workers present propositions to create an emotional response. Men usually are more clinical, more questioning. Female listeners usually will get emotional. They're impacted by psychological pressure, and emotional appeal, then they uncritically accept the propositions at face value, and are emotionally committed.

Notice the male-centric population of this web site; people who question, who think of alternatives. Typically men are more analytical. (Of course I have known very analytical women, and very emotional men. I am making a generalization). Likewise the population of LSM associated Local Churches has more docile, unquestioning females. I believe that this is also why the Local Churches focus on young college students: they're open, vulnerable, unable to critically examine the propositions put forth by the full time Local Church workers on campus. So the workers get them to buy into a proposition, then emotionally commit. This "buy in" and "commitment" is more easily done with the typically more fragile and pliable female psyche.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

The psychological manipulation in the local churches is more effectively used on the females, I believe. The Local Church workers present propositions to create an emotional response. Men usually are more clinical, more questioning. Female listeners usually will get emotional. They're impacted by psychological pressure, and emotional appeal, then they uncritically accept the propositions at face value, and are emotionally committed.

I agree with aron that this seems like a kind of psychological manipulation. Aron, is there a link to this quote?

I think this has been a kind of trend in the LRC over the years, that it has come to attract people who enjoy influencing, even manipulating, other people -- especially younger people -- just a tiny little bit too much. Maybe the word "interloper" could be used to describe this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I agree with aron that this seems like a kind of psychological manipulation. Aron, is there a link to this quote?

I think this has been a kind of trend in the LRC over the years, that it has come to attract people who enjoy influencing, even manipulating, other people -- especially younger people -- just a tiny little bit too much. Maybe the word "interloper" could be used to describe this?

Just Google "Gene Gruhler" and it is one of the first links. It is from an anti-Christian web site.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...ainwashing.htm

If Christians engage in overtly coercive and manipulative actions against their targets, the so-called "new ones", it really is kind of an anti-testimony. Instead of letting the love of God shine forth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Just Google "Gene Gruhler" and it is one of the first links. It is from an anti-Christian web site.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...ainwashing.htm

Gene Gruhler had everybody excited about the "pipeline." In case you forgot, at the time it was LSM's latest program for our children. Started with singing to babies still in the womb, and ended with them becoming full-timers.

Shouldn't leave his quotes in the Xerox machine.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

For me it's been roughly the last 10 or 15 years since I've been out. I would have thought it would be the other way around. From my observation many of the young sisters (and brothers too) who attend FTTA have no problem getting married. It's the ones that don't attend that takes longer time. In my situation, I decided to marry a sister outside the local churches.

[TLFisher]

Maybe someone can comment further on this, but is there a correlation on the deputy authority practice and pride?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Maybe someone can comment further on this, but is there a correlation on the deputy authority practice and pride?

No one has commented, so I'll continue with my thoughts...John Ingalls said the following in 1988/1989

"There has been an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning deputy authority, which has caused the saints to be fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns."

The same has held true since the time John spoke it. It is this over-stressing and distortion why so-called deputy and delegated authority has resulted in prideful brothers. Can never be wrong. Can never apologize. If you or I have an issue with a deputy or delegated authority, it's considered a "perceived wrongdoing"
It's this perverted distortion of deputy authority teaching that has callused the heart from any potential humility.