NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

Terry,

The brother was more concerned about the person not the teaching. The Lord then had an opportunity to supply grace. The concern just disappated.

Yet there were other tines when more fellowship was required for some situation . Again, always a supply of grace and never a force fit.

Drake

[Cal]

The problem with Lee's authority doctrine is that it demonstrably forces people under it to shelve their consciences for the sake of "submission."

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've graciously explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

That's not submission, that's absolute obedience.

However, the two truths "obey your leaders" and "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" cannot co-exist without the concession that (1) we need to respect those who part ways with us for reasons of conscience and (2) the logical corollary that we must allow for and respect other gatherings in our locality.

If we insist our gathering is THE gathering then we are not respecting the consciences of others. (As evidence, there are many groups which meet as the church in the city which have no affiliation with LSM, and the LCM respects or recognizes none of them. This proves they are not truly for oneness except oneness that is centered around them.)

Lee's authority doctrine is designed to enforce compliance with his movement. It is not biblical. It's a conglomeration of Chinese Confuscianism, bad Bible interpretation and a self-serving agenda.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with Lee's authority doctrine is that it demonstrably forces people under it to shelve their consciences for the sake of "submission."

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've gracious explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

That's not submission, that's absolute obedience.

However, the two truths "obey your leaders" and "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" cannot co-exist without the concession that (1) we need to respect those who part ways with us for reasons of conscience and (2) the logical corollary that we must allow for and respect other gatherings in our locality.

If we insist our gathering is THE gathering then we are not respecting the consciences of others. (As evidence, there are many groups which meet as the church in the city which have no affiliation with LSM and the LCM respects or recognizes none of them. This proves they are not truly for oneness except oneness that is centered around them.)

Lee's authority doctrine is designed to enforce compliance with his movement. It is not biblical. It's a conglomeration of Chinese Confuscianism, bad Bible interpretation and a self-serving agenda.

I think the analogy of a guitar is very helpful for me to understand these truths. On the one hand each string is attached to the bridge which is immovable. Honor the king, obey those that rule over you, etc. On the other hand each individual string is attached to a tuner which must be tightened or loosened to be properly tuned. That is equivalent to "let each be fully persuaded in their own mind". If this is done according to God's design you will have a symphony with many different voices tuned together. Singing and playing in tune is an expression of the "oneness". However, when one voice stifles and eliminates all other voices, they can claim it is for the oneness but instead you are eliminating the symphony.

Jesus is the conductor, the church is the orchestra. You may have some well know soloists, but when a single name dominates you no longer have a symphony (I am of Peter, Apollos, etc). Yet it is the Lord's symphony you are damaging. Hence, "if anyone offends one of these little ones in the orchestra it were better for him that millstone be hung around his neck and he be cast into the sea".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, when one voice stifles and eliminates all other voices, they can claim it is for the oneness but instead you are eliminating the symphony.

Lee is the GOTA. The Guitar string Of The Age.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've graciously explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

A quote from the HWFMR the locality I was visiting last Sunday morning:

"The most important task for each of us is to put ourselves into God's hand in a quiet, patient, prayerful, consecrated, and obedient way and wholeheartedly seek after His leading."

So what if God's leading isn't corresponding to what the leading brother's desire? You would be marked as a rebel.
Is anyone so bold to say the elders/co-workers who left in the late 80's or in more recent years were no longer under the headship of Christ? I can't say that because I believe they were. It just so happened their obedience to His leading was no longer compatible to the direction LSM was taking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man.

I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

Drake, did you sign that letter of allegiance to Witness Lee in early 1986?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

Yes, you may have been told to drop the issue or don't make a mountain out of a molehill. It comes down to previous points I've made before. LSM/DCP apparently go into bunker mode whenever there's a counter. Brothers don't want to be put on defensive. That's the bottom line.
Take Steve Isitt for example. Nearly 6 years ago he wanted to make an appointment with DCP. There was no openness by DCP to receive an appointment. This is a recurring theme with rare exceptions. No matter how big or how minute the issue is. There's no counterpoint to be received.
In most instances a deacon/elder/co-worker may say something publicly or privately. Any rebuttal, counterpoint, etc is "stonewalled".
Many elders come across as passive aggressive. Few are downright aggressive. Deputy authority encourages aggressive behavior in an authoritarian way. Few come across as meek and humble and that's because deputy authority encourages authoritarian behavior. Whether passive or not. It's as if at any given moment deputy authority is a card to be utilized and not for elders/co-workers to conduct themselves humbly or meekly.