Witness Lee's Definition of Consecration

Full-Time Training in Anaheim CONSECRATION AGREEMENT: https://www.docdroid.net/kBfl7zp/con...nagreement-pdf

I agree to consecrate myself first to the Lord and also to the training for this entire period, to be trained in Bible truth, life, gospel, service, and character, and to accept all rules, requirements, and arrangements established by the training.

I agree to be responsible to the training and be accountable to it for every area of my life during this period.

I agree to attend all the meetings punctually and to participate in all the activities designated by the training. I understand there is to be no choice or option in this matter.

I understand that all absences must be only with good reason and with prior permission.

I understand that I will be subject to the training's testing, and I agree to do all the assigned homework in the truth study or any other matter assigned.

I understand that my apparel will be regulated, and I agree to be corrected in my personal attire.

I consecrate myself to utterly refrain from initiating or developing any form of special or intimate relationship or association with anyone who is of the same or the opposite sex during my entire time in the training, including the interim period between terms. I understand that any prior relationship of this nature that was initiated before my coming to this training must be terminated or put on hold for the entire duration of my training time, with the sole exception of a pre-existing formal engagement to be married to a person of the opposite sex. If engaged, I agree to notify the training and to limit my contact with my fiancé in fellowship with the training.

I will strongly exercise to avoid speaking or listening to any form of criticism, gossip, murmuring, or idle, light talk during the training.

I am making the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom through the whole inhabited earth and the carrying out of the training's burden my primary goal, and agree to drop any activity, such as education, part-time work while in the training, etc., not in accord with this burden for the period of the training.

I agree to take every precaution in diet, dress, exercise, and rest as prescribed by the training so that I will not get sick.

I also understand that the training has the right to dismiss me at any time.

I understand that I do not have the option of dropping this training after the third week.

-------------

My personal observations:
-Notice how each rule is about being accountable "to the training," rather than to God. SMH.
-People are not allowed to begin relationships during the training, but many get engaged within 3-4 months of graduation? And to force people to break up with their significant others? That's cold.
-The last two rules contradict each other. So, you're not allowed to drop out after the 3rd week, yet you can also be dismissed at any time for any reason? Crazy.

I don't even know what level of brainwashing is required to think these rules are "normal" and acceptable!

[Sons to Glory!]

Rules, generally speaking, are fine, but in my book much of this is legalistic, geared toward making the flesh compliant. As it says in Colossians 2:23 "These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."

Can't fight the flesh effectively with the flesh - "no value" at least in spiritual matters, which is what's of worth eternally. Otherwise, join the Marine Corps!

And I'm not crazy about the word "consecration" as it seems more old covenant to me - so you are resolving the will in yourself to make sure you do all these things, right? It's a big setup for a Romans 7 experience! To me, a better (new covenant) word is "yield" or "trust."

[gr8ful]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Rules, generally speaking, are fine, but in my book much of this is legalistic, geared toward making the flesh compliant. As it says in Colossians 2:23 "These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."

Can't fight the flesh effectively with the flesh - "no value" at least in spiritual matters, which is what's of worth eternally. Otherwise, join the Marine Corps!

And I'm not crazy about the word "consecration" as it seems more old covenant to me - so you are resolving the will in yourself to make sure you do all these things, right? It's a big setup for a Romans 7 experience! To me, a better (new covenant) word is "yield" or "trust."

It's a specific agreement for those voluntarily participating in a service-oriented training, not a requirement or recommendation for fellowshipping in a local church or living a Christian life. That's the stated rationale, anyway.

Of course, every young person is encouraged from birth to "go to the Training!" after graduating, regardless of intention to serve full-time afterwards (that is, serve as a "job-dropping full-timer" vs a "money-making full-timer"). It's a nice and neat caveat to say it's a special agreement and not meant for everyone, but it does set a standard of conduct.

Even more, "Rule Number 7" or "Consecration Number 7" (as it was known back in my day) looms heavy above the heads of the single people. Definitely a "Romans 7 set up" as it stigmatizes human relationships -- but in a way that many fundamental religious and ideological groups do...so there is precedent and contemporary like-souled instruction. Of course, that includes not only the Southern Baptists who still practice such separation but also the Taliban and some Marxist terror cells. But I digress.

Rule number 7 is lifted towards the end of the 4th term. Used to be a dinner at the Grulher's where it was lifted (until the unfortunate ultimatum before the Elder's Training that time when it was later announced he took back his eldership in Colorado, but again...I digress). Yes, so after years of holding back from human relationships with the opposite sex (except under a cloud of suspicion and condemnation), and after 3 1/2 years of sitting side-by-side the off-limits opposite sex, the 4th termers are freed to find their trained, Recovery spouse in the last months of the training... even allowed to sneak off and date during the bi-annual training.

What could go wrong with putting one's hands on the hearts of the young people, eh? Surely it is God's ordination that church leaders save the young people from defilement, right?

Anyway, marriage and family counselors are good to have around, I did find.

Originally Posted by gr8ful

Rule number 7 is lifted towards the end of the 4th term. Used to be a dinner at the Grulher's where it was lifted (until the unfortunate ultimatum before the Elder's Training that time when it was later announced he took back his eldership in Colorado, but again...I digress). Yes, so after years of holding back from human relationships with the opposite sex (except under a cloud of suspicion and condemnation), and after 3 1/2 years of sitting side-by-side the off-limits opposite sex, the 4th termers are freed to find their trained, Recovery spouse in the last months of the training... even allowed to sneak off and date during the bi-annual training.

Hmm, how interesting. Maybe they should revise the rule then.

Of course they want these "fully consecrated" (and most valuable/precious ones - in their eyes) to pair up together as quickly as possible! I'm not sure I've witnessed any marriages between a FTTA grad and a non-FTTA grad. It's probably too "risky" in their eyes. LOL.

As gr8ful pointed out, this is a specific agreement (more like contract that sells your soul to LSM) for a specific training, but the legalism closely mirrors the group as a whole. Yes sure, the rules seem pretty extreme when written out so explicitly for FTTA trainees, but I'd argue that everyday practices & concepts were just as legalistic... it was just more subtle when there is an unspoken list of rules vs. an explicit one, if that makes sense. For instance, as a young person, no special relationships with the opposite/same sex were allowed either. Plus, people would often (sometimes passive-aggressively) express disapproval over clothing/hair/mannerisms/etc. Even though I didn't have to sign an agreement to behave a certain way, the group norms are so deeply ingrained that, functionally, it was still a binding contract.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

...Even more, "Rule Number 7" or "Consecration Number 7" (as it was known back in my day) looms heavy above the heads of the single people. Definitely a "Romans 7 set up" as it stigmatizes human relationships -- but in a way that many fundamental religious and ideological groups do...so there is precedent and contemporary like-souled instruction. Of course, that includes not only the Southern Baptists who still practice such separation but also the Taliban and some Marxist terror cells. But I digress.
...

What are you talking about??? I've been in and out of the SBC churches for many years and I never saw anything that could remotely be called a "practice" of "separation" among single people. I still have long-time friends who were/are still Southern Baptists, and this kind of thing did not happen. Unless you can explain...I'm going to throw a flag on this post.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

What are you talking about??? I've been in and out of the SBC churches for many years and I never saw anything that could remotely be called a "practice" of "separation" among single people. I still have long-time friends who were/are still Southern Baptists, and this kind of thing did not happen. Unless you can explain...I'm going to throw a flag on this post.

Nell

The former VP’s ordinance against being in a meeting or room alone with a woman wasn’t an isolated thing in fundamentalist circles & is accepted by more than just the local church leadership and the Billy Graham Association. Practicing a separation between the sexes varies according to degree, but it is accepted broadly. That’s my point. Now, a little before my time, perhaps, but during my mother’s childhood in the SBC, things were stricter. Some groups in my time were stricter as well — and gave young people messages against dating before it was time to get married. I was given an SBC-affiliated booklet that stated if I held hands with a girl before marriage I was holding hands with another man’s wife.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The former VP’s ordinance against being in a meeting or room alone with a woman wasn’t an isolated thing in fundamentalist circles & is accepted by more than just the local church leadership and the Billy Graham Association. Practicing a separation between the sexes varies according to degree, but it is accepted broadly. That’s my point. Now, a little before my time, perhaps, but during my mother’s childhood in the SBC, things were stricter. Some groups in my time were stricter as well — and gave young people messages against dating before it was time to get married. I was given an SBC-affiliated booklet that stated if I held hands with a girl before marriage I was holding hands with another man’s wife.

From gr8ful: "Of course, that includes not only the Southern Baptists who still practice such separation but also the Taliban and some Marxist terror cells. But I digress."

So I don't know who I'm replying to, gr8ful or "unregistered". gr8ful compares the practices of not being in the room alone with a woman to the Taliban and Marxist terror cells is around the bend. "Unregistered" says "that's my point".

You said the SBC "still pactice such separation" then give an example of a booklet from your mother's childhood. I don't see that as a fair accesment, since this is not an unusual practice...across the board. You implied that this was a common practice in all of the SBC, which it is not. Among leadership, maybe. Though they have had troubles of their own latel relating to sexual abuse by leadership.

Nell

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Rules, generally speaking, are fine, but in my book much of this is legalistic, geared toward making the flesh compliant. As it says in Colossians 2:23 "These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."

Can't fight the flesh effectively with the flesh - "no value" at least in spiritual matters, which is what's of worth eternally. Otherwise, join the Marine Corps!

And I'm not crazy about the word "consecration" as it seems more old covenant to me - so you are resolving the will in yourself to make sure you do all these things, right? It's a big setup for a Romans 7 experience! To me, a better (new covenant) word is "yield" or "trust."

Yeah, I remember as a young person, I was heavily pressured (forced) to go up to the front of the meeting hall and publicly declare my complete "consecration" to the Lord and to the church. I didn't even fully understand the meaning of consecration. Never sat right with me either. The local church continues to make a huuuge deal out of consecration though - as if it was the ultimate act of selflessness. Ugh. 🙄

[aron]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I remember as a young person, I was heavily pressured (forced) to go up to the front of the meeting hall and publicly declare my complete "consecration" to the Lord and to the church. I didn't even fully understand the meaning of consecration. Never sat right with me either. The local church continues to make a huuuge deal out of consecration though - as if it was the ultimate act of selflessness.

What follows to such is the typical reply:

https://graceandreality.wordpress.co...ocal-churches/

Up to that point in my life, no one (including my parents) had ever told me that I was supposed to go to the Full-time Training in Anaheim (FTTA), CA. No one had given me a “recipe” of needing to go to college, get through Bible school, get a husband, go serve, and have children. Never...

Now, I am a serving one. Never did I ever think my life would turn out the way that it has, but the Lord has me exactly where He wants me. No one – not LSM, not the FTTA, not the brothers from DCP, not one brother or sister – has ever told me that my sole purpose in life is to drop all of my hopes and dreams, take care of children, and just serve the brothers.

That accusation against the local churches has caused me much trouble in my being. According to my experience and observation, this accusation is simply not true.

They reference the summer 2019 meetings following the Casteel open letter on FB, so it's a reply of sorts. Yet the writer probably never read that letter, or anything like the one from poster Escapee above. Rather, they got a ministry summation, a caricature, to which they replied, in horror - "That never happened! I never saw that!"

This horrible accusation of being pressured, manipulated, intimidated, controlled in the LC - "Never my experience". Well, if you actually read the testimonies and say that you never saw any such thing, then I don't know what alternative universe you lived in, because pressure was the unending norm of Local Church kids... interesting, it sounds a lot like the Little Flock under Watchman Nee in 1948, only then it was called "Handing Over".

https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...OUR-MONEY.HTML

"First handing over ourselves and then our money"; that's the message title, in all caps, no less. Pretty much sums it up.