The Church with No Name?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I could be wrong...but I thought I detected a bit of wistfulness in bearbear's post.

In any event...I'm pretty sure there are folks in the Recovery who view any candid acknowledgment of anything negative from the Recovery's history...or deceitful speaking or cover-ups within the Recovery...as exposing Noah's nakedness...and therefore...a curse...

It's spelled --

-C-
-U-
-R-
-S-
-E-

"curse"

That's one reason I focus more on orthodoxy then orthopraxy, on the teaching more than on the doing. Jesus said "judge not lest ye be judged." I'm not interested in judging the local church or people here. I focus on the truth of their propositions not their behavior. Not one person in the church or on this website has done one thing that isn't common to humanity. Really if we are familiar with humanity, there are few surprises. What I find interesting is the gap between what people do and what they claim. When that happens and is observed people get upset and call it hypocrisy. I think sometimes the indignation we feel when we see that conceals a clear dispassionate view of what is happening. Unless the person were to describe the experience to us or we commit our own hypocrisy, how would we ever know what the experience is like? I know what it's like and few have ever admitted to being a hypocrite to me.

Now when I was in the local church there was very little in the way of moral or ethical teaching. The focus of the meetings was almost always on following the Spirit in your spirit. And yet the social structure seemed quite rigid. It seems that although we were not permitted to talk about it, everyone was supposed to follow a strict but unspoken code. I wonder if that was how it seemed to a person growing up in the local churches. I was 24 yo when I got involved in the "church life" so I don't have that perspective.

Why would it matter to one's conscience if the name of the church went on a marquee or not? I don't think it would. It isn't the conscience that is offended. It's the losssof a distinction, the claim of uniqueness that is lost. the church becomes one among many instead of being the one and only. that's a big step down.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

...What I find interesting is the gap between what people do and what they claim. When that happens and is observed people get upset and call it hypocrisy...

Why would it matter to one's conscience if the name of the church went on a marquee or not? I don't think it would. It isn't the conscience that is offended. It's the losssof a distinction, the claim of uniqueness that is lost. the church becomes one among many instead of being the one and only. that's a big step down.

You're right, the feeling that our group is so special and so distinct is diminished a little when some of these distinctions in practice fade away.

But I think it can be a matter of conscience, when we've spent soooo much time listening to folks criticize or even condemn other groups for "having a sign" (yep, we really did some criticizing and condemning of other groups for having a sign out front!).....and then.....guess what.....oh yeah.....now we have a sign too....just like everybody else. And to the extent that we ourselves participated in this kind of talk (hallelujah, praise the Lord, our church is called a meeting hall and it doesn't have a sign!), doesn't that create an issue of conscience?

[rayliotta]

So I think it's really a matter of attitude more than anything. If all we talk about here is the Recovery's teaching, that churches should not put signs out front, then it might sound as if the Recovery is just a group that has some quirky teachings.

But if we're willing to acknowledge the behavior, coupled w/the teaching, then we start seeing the attitude that's manifested. When we acknowledge that, after years of teaching that churches should not have a name or a sign -- and, yes, chiding other churches that do have signs (they don't "see the vision" like we do, see, they have signs!) -- and then.....after all that.....they quietly put up their own signs, just like everybody else, and quietly set aside the no-sign teaching......well, then, we're painting a picture of the attitude the Recovery takes toward other groups.

And it's not the prettiest picture. 'Cuz it's not the prettiest attitude.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

You're right, the feeling that our group is so special and so distinct is diminished a little when some of these distinctions in practice fade away.

But I think it can be a matter of conscience, when we've spent soooo much time listening to folks criticize or even condemn other groups for "having a sign" (yep, we really did some criticizing and condemning of other groups for having a sign out front!).....and then.....guess what.....oh yeah.....now we have a sign too....just like everybody else. And to the extent that we ourselves participated in this kind of talk (hallelujah, praise the Lord, our church is called a meeting hall and it doesn't have a sign!), doesn't that create an issue of conscience?

IIRC it was LSM which was first to get a sign.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

IIRC it was LSM which was first to get a sign.

Yes but the LSM always had the dodge that it was a business. So when WL hired his admittedly unspiritual son PL to run the LSM office, he passed it off as a business decision. The concerns of WL's underlings was waved away. "It is a business."

So when it was convenient, as it often was, LSM was held to be a publishing house, and subject to different rules. Or no rules at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes but the LSM always had the dodge that it was a business. So when WL hired his admittedly unspiritual son PL to run the LSM office, he passed it off as a business decision. The concerns of WL's underlings was waved away. "It is a business."

So when it was convenient, as it often was, LSM was held to be a publishing house, and subject to different rules. Or no rules at all.

I remember going to trainings on Ball Road and seeing signs for the first time, and since I was a "good little boy," I basically thought "no sign good, good sign better!"

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes but the LSM always had the dodge that it was a business. So when WL hired his admittedly unspiritual son PL to run the LSM office, he passed it off as a business decision. The concerns of WL's underlings was waved away. "It is a business."

So when it was convenient, as it often was, LSM was held to be a publishing house, and subject to different rules. Or no rules at all.

Not so much that "It's a business" but it's HIS BUSINESS and none of yours. He'll run it how he sees fit. "The church" had long since been swallowed up. Since it's a business, they can have signs out front...is that it?

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

"The church" had long since been swallowed up. Since it's a business, they can have signs out front...is that it?

Right. And the local churches now were ministry stations, where that designation became more convenient. And likewise new rules could now be applied... it was probably about convenience really: condemn Christianity where that was convenient, and then do the same thing where that was convenient. Just put a new label on the same package, and voila! "Behold, all things have become new".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes but the LSM always had the dodge that it was a business. So when WL hired his admittedly unspiritual son PL to run the LSM office, he passed it off as a business decision. The concerns of WL's underlings was waved away. "It is a business."

So when it was convenient, as it often was, LSM was held to be a publishing house, and subject to different rules. Or no rules at all.

Since it is a business first and foremost, whistleblowers need to be shown the door. Nothing personal, it's just business.
So when church leaders are quarantined or brothers and sisters not welcome to fellowship, keep in mind it's a business decision.
LSM doesn't want anyone driving the moneychangers out of the temple.