POLL: What is the Greatest Error of WL & LC?

[Trapped]

Interesting responses and thoughts so far. I am not writing this borne from serious and deep thought, but possibly simply the whole concept of "recovery" is (one of the) biggest issues. Or maybe, to be more specific, a recovery being with a specific group.

From "recovery" we get all the myriad teachings that "only we see" (ground of locality, MOTA, and all the unique yet errant teachings that come from it to keep tickling the ears of the congregants, as PriestlyScribe showed so well on that other thread with the quote from F.B. Hole), from which we get elitism, speciality, isolation, justification to cover wrongdoing in order to maintain "the unique recovery", etc....

As UntoHim said, the very fact that a list this long, that can easily be made much longer, can be created speaks volumes already.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Interesting responses and thoughts so far. I am not writing this borne from serious and deep thought, but possibly simply the whole concept of "recovery" is (one of the) biggest issues. Or maybe, to be more specific, a recovery being with a specific group.

From "recovery" we get all the myriad teachings that "only we see" (ground of locality, MOTA, and all the unique yet errant teachings that come from it to keep tickling the ears of the congregants, as PriestlyScribe showed so well on that other thread with the quote from F.B. Hole), from which we get elitism, speciality, isolation, justification to cover wrongdoing in order to maintain "the unique recovery", etc....

Not sure what came first - the idea of "Recovery" or "The Ground of Oneness." Maybe someone with better knowledge of LC origins could address that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Interesting responses and thoughts so far. I am not writing this borne from serious and deep thought, but possibly simply the whole concept of "recovery" is (one of the) biggest issues. Or maybe, to be more specific, a recovery being with a specific group.

From "recovery" we get all the myriad teachings that "only we see" (ground of locality, MOTA, and all the unique yet errant teachings that come from it to keep tickling the ears of the congregants, as PriestlyScribe showed so well on that other thread with the quote from F.B. Hole), from which we get elitism, speciality, isolation, justification to cover wrongdoing in order to maintain "the unique recovery", etc....

As UntoHim said, the very fact that a list this long, that can easily be made much longer, can be created speaks volumes already.

This one is right up there. The whole idea of a "restored" or "recovered" church. Look up "One True Church" or "Restored Church" or similar words on a Google search and you get dozens of hits. A lot of people have successfully used this dodge. Divide and conquer.

Even the "Reformation" is suspect in my eyes, and I'm a card-carrying Born Again Baptist. All these people getting visions of recovery or reformation or restoration bring further splinter cells and alienation. Even the EOC is a splinter cell - read on the Chalcedon Conference some time. They were splitting hairs and splitting assemblies long before Martin Luther came along.

Either God raised Jesus from the dead, or not. The gospel preached by Peter on Pentecost morning was a simple one. Either his narrative, his witness is true, or it isn't. That's where faith comes in. Either you believe it (because you want to) or you don't (because you don't want to). It's a personal journey. Don't impose your 'vision' on others. That is not the gospel message. The gospel (to me) is that Jesus lowered himself to nothing, and through his humbling we're reconciled, restored, both to God and to one another. Everything that needed recovery was done on the cross, and in the grave. The empty tomb was a witness, and the angels reminded the astonished entrants of this simple fact. "He is not here - he is risen"