I love the local church

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is the LRC really worse than any other Christian group on this point?

Short answer. Yes. They are a lot worse than most groups.

WL was a very minor part of my LRC experience.

You are the exception. And this really isn't about what some common members did. This is about what the designated leaders of the movement say and do. Read their websites. It's all Lee. (Except for some Nee, and Nee takes a backseat to and is interpreted in light of Lee. He's really kept just to give Lee more credibility. Nee's differences from Lee are always either denied or ignored.)

Early on, elders and even traveling teachers like Ingalls had more freedom to put their spin on things. But as time went on, mostly beginning around 1980, more and more it became all about Lee. It was flatly stated that everything you needed was baked into Lee's messages. Of course, this was nonsense, but it was amazing how many people believed it and expected everyone else to believe it, too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer. Yes. They are a lot worse than most groups. You are the exception. And this really isn't about what some common members did. This is about what the designated leaders of the movement say and do.

This was a response to your post on 1Cor 3 with the conclusion "therefore, no more boasting about leaders" in reference to "some saying they are of Paul and others of Apollos". So clearly the context is about what the "common members did".

I am not denying that your view is a valid view of the LRC, what I am saying is that your view is limited to a minority of saints. I would define "minority" as less than 50%. I would call the ones I am referring to as the "silent majority". No matter where I met (NY, Houston, Irving, West Texas, NH, or Taipei) I was always able to fellowship with them. Get them out of the meeting hall and WL is nothing more than a footnote.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was a response to your post on 1Cor 3 with the conclusion "therefore, no more boasting about leaders" in reference to "some saying they are of Paul and others of Apollos". So clearly the context is about what the "common members did".

I am not denying that your view is a valid view of the LRC, what I am saying is that your view is limited to a minority of saints. I would define "minority" as less than 50%. I would call the ones I am referring to as the "silent majority". No matter where I met (NY, Houston, Irving, West Texas, NH, or Taipei) I was always able to fellowship with them. Get them out of the meeting hall and WL is nothing more than a footnote.

Well, this correlates to one of my basic beliefs about this whole situation which I stated earlier.

The whole problem with the LRC movement is the common saints need to speak out and tell the leadership what they believe.

If it is true what you say, that WL is just a footnote to most, then why are they letting a subgroup which believes he was the MOTA lead them around by the nose? Why are they allowing this subgroup to create this reputation for them of abuse, intolerance and exclusivity?

SavedbyGrace came here to tell us the LRC ain't that bad, and that he doesn't buy into the MOTA stuff. In other words, he saying he's a sane and reasonable member. He resents the implications about his group presented here.

But we are not the ones creating this implication! We are just pointing it out. It's the extreme leadership of LSM and the BBs which is creating this image. Just read www.afaithfulword.org.

As long as LSM and the BBs hold the reins and they do not publicly repent of their abuses this image will persist. As long as the common saints are silent about it, they will have to live with that reputation, and in fact they deserve it.

Tough words, but they are facts.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said "silent majorities rarely get anything done". What do you want them to "get done"?

Isn't it obvious from what I wrote?

Two points have been established. One by SbG, one by you.

SbG established that to his observation, he didn't appreciate the negative reputation that LSM and the BBs, and by association the LRCs, had here. He also noted that, even so, he did not agree with some of the more extreme views of these leaders.

My answer was that reputation was LSM's and the BB's fault. So if SbG wants to be freed from that reputation, he ought to either free himself from the BBs, or get them to reform.

You on the other hand established that to most LRCers, WL was not that big a deal.

My answer was that to LSM and the BBs he IS a big deal. So, again, the solution is to either free themselves from the BBs, or reform them.

But in general it doesn't make sense to expect a movement of churches to submit to spiritual leadership that doesn't reflect their core beliefs. Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches.

I disagree with your passive spirituality. It sounds noble, but I think it's wrongheaded. It's just the kind of passivity that the BBs count on. And nowhere does the NT suggest we should remain silent about bad leaders and let the Lord sort it out when he returns. In fact, the strongest VERBAL rebukes in the NT are reserved for corrupt and abusive spiritual leaders.

The LSM rank and file need to speak out and demand LSM and the BBs reform. Telling LRCers to wait till the Lord returns for things to get better is horrible advice, IMHO.

[UntoHim]

Some recent posts have been moved.

Our new friend, SavedbyGrace, has come to us with a very legitimate concern regarding the postings on this forum. He has shown us that he is more than willing to dialog with any and all regarding this.

What he does not deserve is for any of us to highjack the thread for our own purposes. Upon further review, I'm probably going to move/delete some other posts in this thread...probably starting with mine.

Let's give the new guy a chance, shall we?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, again, the solution is to either free themselves from the BBs, or reform them. But in general it doesn't make sense to expect a movement of churches to submit to spiritual leadership that doesn't reflect their core beliefs. Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches.

How true. Looking back, many things just don't make sense.

Before the New Way was unleashed upon us, I was part of a LC that was flourishing and fruitful. The Lord's blessing was upon us. Our elders were instructed by TC to follow closely to WL and LSM. Changes upon changes swept thru town. How sad it is to be wrapped up in religious movements, counterfeiting the real thing, and not being aware of what was happening until it was too late. Both WL and TC were, behind the scenes, fighting to control where our lead elder would live.

Religious zeal does not listen to the voice of reason nor the plain words of scripture.

But there is no way "Believers ought to be able to walk away from that, but stay intact as churches." History has proven that. The LRC won't let that happen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, this correlates to one of my basic beliefs about this whole situation which I stated earlier.

The whole problem with the LRC movement is the common saints need to speak out and tell the leadership what they believe.

For the most part, the only "commoners" whom I ever saw "speak their heart" out loud to LC leaders were the wives of the elders. Some of them just let their husbands have it. I was not an elder, but I "got it good" many, many times at home. One of the most common themes of such "dress downs" was the resistance to church programs which upset the sisters' households.

One of our young married sisters got to watch a Cleveland elder's wife explode in public when informed that elder-husband had just agreed to hospitality without consulting her. What a nasty scene to observe, and one which taught all the wrong lessons, but one that was descriptive of the movement, especially in those early years. She is a precious sister for sure, but unfortunately, that was the only way her voice was being heard. I don't condone the outburst, but I sure understand it.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, this correlates to one of my basic beliefs about this whole situation which I stated earlier.

The whole problem with the LRC movement is the common saints need to speak out and tell the leadership what they believe.

If it is true what you say, that WL is just a footnote to most, then why are they letting a subgroup which believes he was the MOTA lead them around by the nose? Why are they allowing this subgroup to create this reputation for them of abuse, intolerance and exclusivity?

Because ... they are the leaders! ... and all the "abuse, intolerance and exclusivity" is spun in a different light.

This is why I have repeatedly differentiated the leaders from the common members.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because ... they are the leaders! ... and all the "abuse, intolerance and exclusivity" is spun in a different light.

This is why I have repeatedly differentiated the leaders from the common members.

Right, and the followers have been trained to not think for themselves.

I can hear some now, pulling out that Laodicea means "rule of the people."

Ooooh. Better shut up for the rest of your life because of that one word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right, and the followers have been trained to not think for themselves.

I can hear some now, pulling out that Laodicea means "rule of the people."

Ooooh. Better shut up for the rest of your life because of that one word.

Those followers who "began to think for themselves" concluded that there was nothing they could do to change things.

So I left.

My last fellowship with the leaders was to cry out for the situation of my LC, imploring the elders to be elders, and not merely employees of Cleveland. I also exposed a lie of our new leader related to the pending conference in Cleveland. I was told that this was a "strong accusation," and instructed to apologize to the brothers who were also there. On my way out the door, I did this. I apologized to the four (deacon) brothers who were there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My last fellowship with the leaders was to cry out for the situation of my LC, imploring the elders to be elders, and not merely employees of and instructed to apologize to the brothers who were also there.

Responsible brothers who listened to what I have said, yes there is not only something to apologize for; but a repentance too.
I repent for fearing man when I should have been fearing God. I apologize for my years of silence when a rebuke was in order.

[rayliotta]

I understand that we try to separate the "leadership" from the "common members". What I think is interesting is just how hard it is for us to agree on what that means.

I think you have to spend some time, go through the "Letters of Affirmation" on afaithfulword.com. Letter after letter, region after region, locality after locality, elder after elder. This isn't just about the big dogs in Anaheim. And it's not just about a few regional big dogs, sitting atop a congregation of 400. Most Recovery churches are a lot smaller than that.

What about so many localities of 100 or so people, with 3 or 4 elders signing onto the solemn edict out of Anaheim? 3 or 4 out of 100 might sound small, but many times you're talking about 3 or 4 of the "core" families in the group, everyone's a big part of the "day-to-day church life", in each other's homes, sharing meals together, they're part of each other's lives.

None of this is a "bad thing". It's just the reality. How do you, really, separate the "leadership" from the "members"? I don't think it's so simple.

Maybe in 1980, back before there were the footnotes, maybe it was possible to treat the Anaheim leadership simply as a footnote. I don't know. But however it was back then, I don't believe that is the prevailing culture of the Recovery today. At least not in North America.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

... pay no attention to the MOTA behind the curtain ...

Too funny!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How could you possibly know this? Maybe you’re more travelled than I thought. As one taking hospitality in the Anaheim area for many years, including many brothers and sisters from all over America, including those from older, established churches, I never noticed a major difference in them. If anything, they were usually more zealous for “the ministry” than those of us there at the feet of Witness Lee on a weekly basis.

The saints that went to Anaheim trainings from NYC were in no way representative of the Body of saints in NYC. BC would be the elder (the one BB in NYC) two or three full timers who were supported by the church would go, a couple of cheerleaders, and the rest would be new saints. They would send about 10 a year, from a church that had over 400 members.

In order to go to the Training, and this included every church I met with, you had to have the elders approval. The elders only wanted saints that "would not embarrass" the church. They especially wanted to show off new saints to demonstrate that the church was "thriving and growing". As a result new saints would be recruited and their transportation costs would be subsidized. After that only saints whose loyalty to the brand was unquestioned would be allowed. While in NY I was amazed that they would announce sign ups for the training and no one, I mean no one, would care. These announcements were totally ignored. You already knew the five regulars who would go, and you knew that the elders would discuss among themselves who else to recruit and then recruit them. Since NY did not have a very effective gospel work these new ones were almost always children of the saints who were in high school. As a result the church had two full time brothers who I came to realize were merely glorified nannies.