A Future and a Hope

[Cal]

John Myer, after a two year hiatus, has added chapter 14 to his post-LC commentary, A Future and a Hope.

Thanks, John, for picking up this important work again!

I just finished the new chapter and I think it's the best one yet. This is possibly because Myer in his now several years of pastoring outside the LC movement has had more time to test some of his conclusions and has grown even more confident that his initial thoughts on LC errors were more than correct. His writing is stronger, even more confident, and registers less skittishness over offending those still overly steeped with LC sensibilities.

Note: Myer mentions Albert Barnes (1798-1870) as a favorite commentator for helping to get a contexual take on NT verses. Barnes' most famous work, Notes on the New Testament, is available free online here.

[Cal]

It was also interesting that if I didn't know better I'd swear OBW had written part of chapter 14.

E.g.

A favorite LC Movement mantra was the punch line, “We just need to enjoy Christ.” Although that statement is agreeable enough, the biblical writers never repetitively boiled their point down to triteness. Neither should we.

[UntoHim]

Plenty of new high profile ministries capture this fire. The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29 network, and Sovereign Grace, are a few that have had a tremendous influence among Christians, as well as new networks that spring into existence practically every month. These brim with youth who love to exegete the Word in the midst of missional life.

I have been attending a church in association with the "Acts 29 Network" http://www.acts29network.org/ for a number of years now, and I can testify that there is a fresh and powerful move of the Spirit among them. I would highly recommend checking out the website and see if there is an Acts 29 associated church in your area.

Though these discoveries and dividends are exciting, the prospect of listening to or giving messages is not likely to thrill ex-LC Movement members. Expatriates have already endured years of doctrinal repetition that created an unprofitable pseudo-reality. Those who have lived through it know that the Movement has an "eye" and "ear" disorder, that is, an unbalanced emphasis on seeing and hearing so-called spiritual things with little interest in actually being or doing them. As a result, biblical truth was leached of life, converted into outline points, and often used for combative purposes. Having departed this systematized habit, it is difficult to imagine messages once again having a place of importance in a post-LC Movement church.

"unprofitable pseudo-reality"?
Ouch! That one smarts! Just three little words yet really hits home. I guess the truth does hurt sometimes, doesn't it.

"an unbalanced emphasis on seeing and hearing so-called spiritual things with little interest in actually being or doing them"
Now Mike, fess up, you hacked into Myer's computer and inserted this into the chapter, didn't you?(just kidding)

[OBW]

Despite my general desire to leave, reading through Myer's new chapter did sound a lot like what's been going through my mind lately.

For a long time now, key Movement terms have become threadbare through overuse (i.e., the subject of the book of Judges is the divine dispensing, as well as Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ephesians, etc.). When this approach to preaching begins to prevail, a predictable desensitization occurs in listeners and words begin to mean nothing. Jargon always seems to take on elastic properties, meaning everything and yet nothing. As the old joke goes—“What runs up and down trees and eats acorns? Well, it sounds like a squirrel, but I know it has to be God’s economy!”

Yes. "God's economy" is trumpeted all over scripture in a meaningless way and used to marginalize the truths contained there.

A while back I conducted a study on the book of Job that required reading a number of commentaries. The absolute worst was written by a famous inner life writer who had trouble putting two coherent thoughts together. The basis for her interpretation was not language or context, but experience. As a result, she was occupied with a desire for inward applications, which caused her writing, in my opinion, to hopelessly bog down in subjectivity. According to her handling of it, Job ceased to have a theme or a flow or even a point. Every phrase was a sermon calling us into various experiences.

I know. This one wasn't Nee or Lee. But it was another of those "inner life" people that ignore the obedience of the practical. And one of the people who put Nee and Lee on this path.

I recall a small local church that considered adding children’s service to its Sunday meeting. One of the leaders sternly counseled “Just give the children Christ.” For those in the room wanting answers, this advice was completely cryptic. What did it mean? Pray-reading? No Veggie-Tales? The one who gave the great sounding advice had some package of concepts in mind, but probably no idea how to spell any of it out. And if he had, it might have become evident that what he had in mind was not really Christ after all.

Sounds a lot like the "only care for Christ" declaration that is so hard to speak against but so totally meaningless in most cases.

Frustration is sure to occur when listeners are treated to a steady regimen of exhortations to “life” and “experience” and “enjoyment” without being told what any of it means. And yet this is not the worst possible effect. Inner life oversimplifications can lead to an erroneous approach to the entire Christian life. Consider this unfortunate passage from The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, where Witness Lee explains the superiority of “life” over scripture:

"'How do you feel when you beat your wife?' [spoken to a hypothetical wife-beater]. He may say, 'After I beat my wife, I feel terrible inside for a week.' I will then tell him, 'If you feel that you will feel comfortable inside by beating your wife, you can go ahead and beat her some more.' I will not tell him not to beat his wife. Instead, I will ask him how he feels inside. If this brother is touched by God, he will feel deep within that he has offended God.

You can teach others from the Bible, and you can exhort others with your theology. But if you do this, you are not the disciple of Christ; you are the disciple of Confucius instead. By so doing, you will never convey God's life to people. This is a pitiful work." (Nee & Lee, Vol. 1, p. 130).

This passage demonstrates a thoroughgoing commitment to subjective feelings that could lead anywhere, and it has...court actions, divisions, lies, and cover-ups. No doubt Lee's followers will say that this quote was taken out of context, yet it is difficult to imagine it being defensible in any context.

The Apostle John was perhaps the most spiritually mature of all the apostles but he never said if “life” is okay with beating your brother, then do it. He said if you hate your brother you walk in darkness. No amount of haggling over what life has to say about it would have changed his assertion.

When inner life groups pit experience against healthy doctrine, it is a false dichotomy. True spiritual life always takes us into the living application of scripture. It never encourages us to set aside God’s Word, much less to contradict it.

This is the kind of nonsense that has been simplified in more recent decades into something like "don't care for right or wrong; only care for the spirit." And I'm pretty sure that it is the "little s" spirit that is being talked about. That is the only spirit that would tolerate such nonsense.

And it makes it evident that "turning to your spirit" is about the most useless thing a person could every do.

And now, out of order, here is another one for the LRC lexicon discussion.

Sometimes an etymology of LC terms results in dead ends. For instance the “Seven-fold Intensified Spirit” is a term that is rooted in Witness Lee’s personal interpretation of a thought in the book of Revelation. When it first appeared (presumably in the 1969 Erie conference?), it sprang fully into being with little or no explanation. Up until the past few years, no one seriously took Witness Lee to task over it. Was the Holy Spirit really intensified? If so, does that imply He was not prepared for the challenges of church history and thus had to “rev” Himself up? Do the verses under consideration really show a “dim” Spirit that had to be brightened like a seven-way lamp? Yet because “intensification” has been repeated hundreds of times without serious challenge in the LC’s, it has today achieved “truth” status.

Like so many other mantras, what does this one really mean? Apparently not really much as far as scripture is really concerned.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"an unbalanced emphasis on seeing and hearing so-called spiritual things with little interest in actually being or doing them"
Now Mike, fess up, you hacked into Myer's computer and inserted this into the chapter, didn't you?(just kidding)

I wish I could either be that smart, or even discover that Myer was reading my mind. But I know better. I think that despite the relative unpopularity of some of my positions of late, it would seem that I'm not the only one thinking them. And I feel fairly comfortable declaring that John Myer probably gets more if it right than I do. By a long shot.

But it is the elimination of the true garlic room that has helped both of us.

The LRC is a garlic room like no other. Our systems cry out for the leeks of Lee. The scallions of Nee. The "fix" of the LSM. Our minds still are trained to default to a kind of "Lee was right," "the LRC was right," or "Nee was right" position without a critical thought.

It is like that quote to "Just give the children Christ" that seems impossible to think it could be wrong. Could be hollow. Could be even used of Satan. We fail to realize that such a phrase is just a phrase. The inclusion of "Christ" in it (or "God," "church," "Spirit," or even "spirit") does not make it right. It just scares you away from actually considering the whole phrase and instead do the knee-jerk "it has to be right" dance.

As I said before, Lee played the pipe and we danced. And unfortunately, we still start dancing to some of his music.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I just finished the new chapter and I think it's the best one yet. This is possibly because Myer in his now several years of pastoring outside the LC movement has had more time to test some of his conclusions and has grown even more confident that his initial thoughts on LC errors were more than correct. His writing is stronger, even more confident, and registers less skittishness over offending those still overly steeped with LC sensibilities.

John's book has been in three stages. After being censored by longtime GLA leaders following his first few chapters, John made it clear that he is speaking only for himself. This was a huge step in a system which demanded that his messages only mimic senior workers. In the chaos of the times, he was given extra liberties to facilitate the disconnect with Anaheim. Now more time has passed, and John witnessed first hand how TC was not that different from WL and the Blendeds after all. His corroboration with Nigel Tomes has also affected his views, especially on pet doctrines in the LRC. I'm wondering if John will take another step and address worker abuses and mistreatments in his final chapters. He was surely no stranger to these.

[Ohio]

Here is a recent pic of GLA "cast offs" when the weather was warmer ...





L-R, Seth Evans and Jeff Friess of Columbus, Tim Miller of Cincy, Nigel Tomes of Toronto, and John Myer

[Cal]

Great picture!

[Ohio]

Frustration is sure to occur when listeners are treated to a steady regimen of exhortations to “life” and “experience” and “enjoyment” without being told what any of it means. And yet this is not the worst possible effect. Inner life oversimplifications can lead to an erroneous approach to the entire Christian life. Consider this unfortunate passage from The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, where Witness Lee explains the superiority of “life” over scripture:

"'How do you feel when you beat your wife?' [spoken to a hypothetical wife-beater]. He may say, 'After I beat my wife, I feel terrible inside for a week.' I will then tell him, 'If you feel that you will feel comfortable inside by beating your wife, you can go ahead and beat her some more.' I will not tell him not to beat his wife. Instead, I will ask him how he feels inside. If this brother is touched by God, he will feel deep within that he has offended God.

You can teach others from the Bible, and you can exhort others with your theology. But if you do this, you are not the disciple of Christ; you are the disciple of Confucius instead. By so doing, you will never convey God's life to people. This is a pitiful work." (Nee & Lee, Vol. 1, p. 130).

This is, quite frankly, just unbelievable! This takes the absolute worst of Chinese culture and inner-life extremes and reduces it to a "frameable quote" about LC marriages. Disgusting! And to think that LSM actually translated this and placed it in a book along side WN. Have all of LSM's editorial staff lost their senses?

How many times has this teaching been put into practice?

.

[Ohio]

There is something in all of this for teachers of the Bible to learn: be happy with what is clearly disclosed in the Word. A cardinal weakness of the ancient Gnostics was their apparent boredom with simple truths and their desire to find something more profound. As a result, those who had been attracted to the Christian faith and had Gnostic proclivities, consistently went beyond what was written. Predictably, they were always discovering some new revelation or hidden knowledge.

In saying this I am not suggesting that Witness Lee was a Gnostic. However, there is an unconscious hope within some serious Bible expositors to uncover a new radical thought—to contribute a revelation that will revolutionize the church. This ambition can be dangerous. As some have said, “Innovative theology is the first cousin of heresy.” If the teacher in question has arrived at erroneous conclusions, his light can be terribly damaging to the group he leads.

Here Myer is blessed with a word of wisdom. I do believe this "unconscious hope" had become an obsessive lust in some.

There are still further considerations that need to taken into account. Sometimes things of God that are supremely spiritual, deep, profound, and true are not to be uttered (2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4). Bible teachers must ask themselves about the advisability of saying things, inventing phrases, coining terms, and making hypotheses, even if the concepts touched upon are possibly true. What will be the effect upon those who hear? What will be the fallout from those who do not understand? In fact, will misunderstanding this “deeper truth” somehow lead to subtle perversions of the simpler, plainer fully revealed gospel? Will it lead to suggestions that the gospel already entrusted to us is actually shallow?

Great point!

For years I heard the praises of “the high peak of the divine revelation.” Not wishing to be overly pragmatic, I withheld judgment. Eventually, though, I did have to ask what was the revolutionary effect that the teaching bestowed upon those who believed it. Having watched the lives of people who were the most zealous for it, and comparing them to the lives of other Christians I knew, I couldn’t see anything necessarily superior.

Advanced truth should alter our living and bring us into closer conformity to Christ. Until this day I have not seen any sort of example from high peak proponents that is higher, better, or more advanced than Christians who model the simple Christian living shown in the New Testament. In fact, I have seen some of the worst behavior in those who claim to have Cadillac versions of truth— everything from cronyism to political machinations to power struggles. Multi-syllabic words are not magic. Neither are startling, formulaic utterances.

I could not agree more. I came to this conclusion years ago. Where's the fruit? Where are changed lives?

[A Sojourner]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Great picture!

Ain't it though!! Standing shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm, and look at them smiles. Wonderful!!

[Cal]

There are still further considerations that need to taken into account. Sometimes things of God that are supremely spiritual, deep, profound, and true are not to be uttered (2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4)

This is not an unimportant point. If there are any unrevealed truths that are "unlawful for man to utter," wouldn't the thought that "man is becoming God" be among them?

I mean, what could be more dangerous in the mouths of men than that?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is, quite frankly, just unbelievable! This takes the absolute worst of Chinese culture and inner-life extremes and reduces it to a "frameable quote" about LC marriages. Disgusting! And to think that LSM actually translated this and placed it in a book along side WN. Have all of LSM's editorial staff lost their senses?

How many times has this teaching been put into practice?

I am sure some may disagree with what I'm about to say. Keep in mind this is not the norm.

I see what Ohio quoted as a physical picture of how some saints have been treated. When abuse does happen it is tolerated because of a concept this is an opportunity to take the cross. Maybe I am off, is learning the lesson of the cross to embrace abuse? I do not believe so.
Why would abuse be tolerated? I think in part due to the teaching of Submission and Authority at the exclusion of The Character of the Lord’s Worker.

Referring to a quote to Witness Lee,

“I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things."
Practical Talks to the Elders No. 2 p. 23

Would have been comforting if the ministry quote was more than just words.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is not an unimportant point. If there are any unrevealed truths that are "unlawful for man to utter," wouldn't the thought that "man is becoming God" be among them?

I mean, what could be more dangerous in the mouths of men than that?

I agree whole-heartedly.

John Myer's simple word here has answered so many questions and confirmed so many suspicions. It took me hours and months of difficult study to get into those "high peak" teachings, and this brief word from scripture has instantly severed all the lingering fetters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I see what Ohio quoted as a physical picture of how some saints have been treated. When abuse does happen it is tolerated because of a concept this is an opportunity to take the cross. Maybe I am off, is learning the lesson of the cross to embrace abuse? I do not believe so. Why would abuse be tolerated? I think in part due to the teaching of Submission and Authority at the exclusion of The Character of the Lord’s Worker.

Referring to a quote to Witness Lee, “I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things." Practical Talks to the Elders No. 2 p. 23

Would have been comforting if the ministry quote was more than just words.

I view this quote by WL as total hypocrisy. Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ... WL talking out both sides of his mouth, having it both ways, breaking all the rules and then blaming others.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I view this quote by WL as total hypocrisy. Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ... WL talking out both sides of his mouth, having it both ways, breaking all the rules and then blaming others.

I agree. When I read statements like that from WL it truly makes me wonder about his touch with reality, because it is so contradictory to his actual bottom line. Simply put, those that spoke up got shot. How could he encourage messengers on the one hand and shoot them on the other? It just makes no sense. I guess it will always be a mystery to me.

[Cal]

I guess the highest compliment I can pay John on chapter 14 is that its relevance and value are not limited to those associated with the LCs.

In fact, I sent the excerpt below to all my pastors and some other church leaders. I've already received positive feedback. (We count ourselves as a seeker-sensitive church. Although I must say we've avoided most, though not all, of the errors John sheds light on.)

Halfway through the twentieth century, seekers began complaining that in the hands of the religious faithful, the truth had become like beef jerky. It was beef, certainly enough, but religious traditionalists had cooked it to the point of being hard, inaccessible, and all but indigestible to the common man. The response from contemporary church growth gurus was a pendulum swing to the opposite pole, with too much attention paid to felt needs and relevance. These heralds of the new approach served up “how-to” seminars, sold experiences, promised riches and blessings of various kinds, and utilized the scriptures to teach what has been called deistic therapy (the use of theology for the primary goal of bolstering self-image). Still others saw the pulpit as a means of advancing social agendas and politics. The theology employed fell below being seeker-sensitive and became noticeably sinner-sensitive, avoiding themes that would convict listeners of righteousness and judgment.

These alternate recipes captured attendants and gathered them into mushrooming mega-churches by the thousands. However, their eventual long-term effects have been called onto the carpet. Statistical analyses have shown that disciples (serious, spiritual, and service-oriented Christians) were not being produced.

Fairly speaking, the ideals of the seeker sensitive approach were landmark discoveries. The people who perfected them to a high science had grown tired of the church being a country club for the righteous. Their course corrections made the Christian gathering a less threatening place for the lost. Yet, a consumer-oriented mindset slowly invaded this approach. Congregations found themselves pandering to the appetites of the very people they hoped to save. As a result, too many cues were taken from the ranks of the non-committed to answer questions like “What do you guys want the church to be?” or “What would you like us to preach?”

The inevitable reaction was on the way. A new generation of ministers in the nineties began to perceive this downward slide, and responded by throttling back on seeker sensitive attitudes. They realized that in some cases, the church had surrendered important scriptural ground.

But rather than dismiss seeker sensitivity altogether, church planters developed toward a logical next phase: contextualization. That meant presenting the Word of God in a context and setting recognizable to the prevailing culture without pulling any punches in the message itself. This trend to date has yielded an explosion of domestic church planting activity. Most of it has been effective in cultural settings as diverse as hipster, suburban, inner city, and rural contexts. Blessing always seems to rest upon the simple opening of the Bible, even when it includes all of the politically incorrect and cringe-worthy parts.

Plenty of new high profile ministries capture this fire. The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, and Sovereign Grace, are a few that have had a tremendous influence among Christians, as well as new networks that spring into existence practically every month. These brim with youth who love to exegete the Word in the midst of missional life.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ...

This is the past and the present. Brothers and sisters being disciplined by the work for refusing to remain silent any longer. The co-workers in turn ensure local church elders receive "fellowship". We saw that in the late 1980's and we are still seeing it today.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree whole-heartedly.

John Myer's simple word here has answered so many questions and confirmed so many suspicions. It took me hours and months of difficult study to get into those "high peak" teachings, and this brief word from scripture has instantly severed all the lingering fetters.

1 Cor 10:23 is relevant here.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

[Cal]

The book is about a seeker church which renovated itself. One of my pastors said he read it recently.

Renovation of the Church: What Happens When a Seeker Church Discovers Spiritual Formation

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

This is the past and the present. Brothers and sisters being disciplined by the work for refusing to remain silent any longer. The co-workers in turn ensure local church elders receive "fellowship". We saw that in the late 1980's and we are still seeing it today.

“I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things."
Practical Talks to the Elders No. 2 p. 23

"My point is that we respect the local church, we don’t step on the administration of the local church. There are elders in the church. So, the work does not dictate to the church." Ron Kangas

Here we have hypocrisy as Ohio has pointed out earlier. In word and in speaking saying one thing, but in action doing something contrary to "the ministry".

Ron says the work does not dictate to a church or churches, but in practice a co-worker or co-workers will give "fellowship" concerning a brother or a sister. Is it understood the co-workers are revered as the "deputy authority" and elders/deacons as "delegated authority"?

My point is when a brother or sister refuses to be silent anymore, (especially when responding to abuse) it is received by an elder or by a co-worker as going against deputy authority. It LC terms "rebelling against God's government". As a result the brother or sister is quarantined or disfellowshipped.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree. When I read statements like that from WL it truly makes me wonder about his touch with reality, because it is so contradictory to his actual bottom line. Simply put, those that spoke up got shot. How could he encourage messengers on the one hand and shoot them on the other? It just makes no sense. I guess it will always be a mystery to me.

The only things that makes sense to me is James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

What was Witness Lee, if not a "double minded man"? There were so many clues along the way, and it seems we missed most of them. Now the generation of men who follow in his footsteps are just as unstable as he was.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

What was Witness Lee, if not a "double minded man"? There were so many clues along the way, and it seems we missed most of them. Now the generation of men who follow in his footsteps are just as unstable as he was.

Seems that this is too true. And when others say it, they sometimes get chastised for being just too "anti-Lee."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I just finished the new chapter and I think it's the best one yet.

I have only finished half of the latest, but one pattern is perplexing to me.

John Myer likes to point out examples of faults in the speech and thought of the rank-n-file members, but rarely assigns culpability with movement leaders, which is where it belongs. Sure we are all responsible for our own actions, but in a closed system, the proponents bear the most responsibility.

This way does not address the source of the problem, rather causes members to look at one another with critical eyes. I believe this method was inherited from TC. He would always address Blended behaviors, but never address the source. This would pit leaders against leaders in conflicts, and when the smoke cleared, only WL was found to be "without blame."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This way does not address the source of the problem, rather causes members to look at one another with critical eyes. I believe this method was inherited from TC.

You're forgetting the title of the book: "A Future and A Hope - Churchlife Beyond the Local Church Movement". I think Myer is trying to point people to the future, a future beyond the Local Church Movement. Any examples he gives regarding the teachings and practices are used as a springboard for his writing about how to go on as a local church. For example, at some point he gives the readers a short laundry list of what should NOT be taught or practiced (especially to first time visitors):
• Say that man is becoming God.
• Condemn or mock other Christians, even in jest.
• Say that the church or biblical truth or the experience of Christ was lost and now your group has “recovered it.”
• Tell them that Satan lives in them (the fallen archangel himself; not just the sin nature).
• Keep over-referencing Brother so-and-so."

John is very much aware that these are some of the mainstay teachings and practices, treasured by most of the members, so why would he make this point so strongly? It is because, after many years of struggle and careful reflection, he is very much aware that these are some of the things that have kept the LC Movement from receiving the blessing of having new Christians and new believers become lasting fruit, and not "one and doners".

His concern is not so much to chide the current and former members for believing and practicing these things, but more of relating a "lesson learned" for those wishing to go on with the Lord as local church apart from and beyond the Local Church of Witness Lee.

I would strongly encourage all the forum members to read and re-read this chapter of A Future and A Hope, for it contains some of the very same attitudes and "hopes" I would like to see expressed and fostered on our little forum. It is very easy for us to become mired in the quicksand of negativeness, petty arguments over non-essentials and wishful thinking about "what could have been". After all, as Christians we are the only people on earth with "a future and a hope", and one of my wishes for this forum could be a place where we could be encouraging each other...."but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near"Hebrews 10:25

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You're forgetting the title of the book: "A Future and A Hope - Churchlife Beyond the Local Church Movement".

I think you missed the point of my thread. While reading some of Myer's stories, I was reminded of that. Perhaps coming from the GLA, I was addressing another, possibly unique, frustration hindering many of us.

For years we heard TC's views in the aftermath of the "storms" which seemed to frequent those closest to the "epicenter" of the Recovery. I heard hundreds of stories from TC about brothers' failures since the early days in Taiwan. Every story assigned blame and shortcomings to those once working close to WL. Never once did TC ever credit WL with an iota of responsibility for the "storms."

After John Ingalls was mercilessly and publicly condemned as a conniving rebel, TC often told us how tragic it was that brother Ingalls "missed his opportunity to continue to labor with WL and learn so much from him. What a shame that Ingalls would spend time fault-finding the Lord's servant, when there was so much we needed to learn before the Lord." Via TC's explanations of Recovery storms, all GLA brothers were trained to forever hold WL in the highest honor, all the while relegating culpability to others.

As I said, I was reminded of this matter while reading the latest chapter. It's not a big deal, my friend. Perhaps John Myer was also concerned about retaliations by the parties involved. That's also a good reason. Personally I would not care for a visit from representatives from Anaheim or Cleveland either.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by JustStoppingBy

Seems that this is too true. And when others say it, they sometimes get chastised for being just too "anti-Lee."

Here's how you stay "in good" with the powers that be in LSM Publishing Company-Franchise Church:

10 Rules of a Toxic Faith System
1. The leader must be in control of every aspect at all times
2. When problems arise, find a guilty party to blame immediately
3. Don't make mistakes
4. Never point out the reality of a situation
5. Never express your feelings unless they are positive
6. Don't ask questions, especially if they are tough ones
7. Don't do anything outside your role
8. Don't trust anyone
9. Nothing is more important than giving money to the organization
10. At all costs, keep up the image of the organization or the family
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...toxicfaith.htm

All of these fit the "Leeite" clan to one degree or another.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you missed the point of my thread.

As I said, I was reminded of this matter while reading the latest chapter. It's not a big deal, my friend. Perhaps John Myer was also concerned about retaliations by the parties involved. That's also a good reason. Personally I would not care for a visit from representatives from Anaheim or Cleveland either.

Actually I think you missed one of the major themes of this chapter in AFaAH, and that was my point....but since it's not a big deal then it's not a big deal! I do think you should read the whole chapter and then I believe you will have a more "complete" understanding of where Myers is heading. I don't think you will find he is that concerned anymore about all the infighting, politking and sordid history of the Local Church (the Anaheim kingdom or the Cleavland kingdom), he is just interested in going forward and helping others go forward as well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I do think you should read the whole chapter ...

I will do that.