Responsibility Of Christians In Responding To Aberrant/Abusive Groups

[Trapped]

Jo S,

I think you have very valuable contribution so don’t leave, and interesting perspectives that force me to read and re-read Scripture and question my own assumptions about it, but your delivery can sometimes be unnecessarily accusatory.

It’s possible you are making statements and questions that you intend to apply generally to people, but it comes across as you yanking one of my eyeballs open while trying to accusatorily shine a surgical light directly into it, forgetting that the topic is not my eyeball but what color to paint the room, and it would be more helpful to just have a pleasant lamp shining from overhead. And no, it’s not because I’m trying to run from any light or avoid confronting hard truths. It’s just discussion decorum is all.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Trapped, what I see is that you’re not just “treating” the Local Churches as part of the church, but like others here, it’s what you personally believe.

Well, my viewpoint is that we can’t look at any group as a whole as part of the church or not. Of course there will be some exceptions, but by and large within every group that claims to be Christian there are some who are genuine believers and some who are not. I don’t think we can make statements like “xyz church is part of the church” because within any xyz church there will be some true believers and some false. It’s the individual believers that are part of the church (or ARE the church), not xyz church that is or isn’t.

Am I assured that within the local churches there are at least some believers who are genuine, regenerated according to the gospel you espouse, children of God? Most definitely. Which means, for their sake, I need to at least start from the assumption that I’m dealing with a group that contains part of the church. I’d rather start from a position of respect and be shown I can go down from there, than start from a position of negation and have to repent. Like it or not, comments about the impersonal group are always translated as comments about the people in that group, so I’ve got to consider the individuals first.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I understand you can assume their claims for the sake of argument but that’s not the same as assuming it’s true for yourself. Ravi and other apologists go into debates with the presupposition that their opposition’s premise is false and their worldview is true. Only then do they use their opponents own claims to argue against their position.

Well of course. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would argue against a position within the LC while not believing my own argument. I believe you are talking specifically about the legitimacy of the LC as a genuine church, while I am talking about specific doctrines they espouse.

Originally Posted by Jo S

In the majority of arguments on the forum I notice a lack of challenge toward the very foundation of the Local Church’s claim but rather there’s more focus on secondary matters. Why is that?

I don’t know of anyone who goes about knocking down a building by starting with the foundation. They start with other “secondary” areas (roofs, walls, supports, etc), which causes the whole thing to crumble upon its foundation. Would you try to knock down the Sydney Opera House by hacking away at its foundation? It makes no sense. I realize I’m speaking of a physical building, but I think the comparison is strong enough that I don’t need to elaborate.

The other side is, you may be able to convince people that its foundation was bad, but they will just throw the “recovery” word at you and say initial beginnings or bad foundations don’t mean that God can’t come in to recover a bad start. It just won’t go anywhere. You have to show that the structure itself is bad too.

It’s also been around in the US for 60+ years or whatever. Many people within it now had nothing to do with its initial beginnings and that part is therefore mostly meaningless to them as a factor to leave. America had some sordid beginnings in its treatment and takeover of the Native Americans and their land, but does anyone de-legitimize America for that now?

I think knowing that the foundation was bad is one more ax-blow to knocking the tree down, but it seems to me that in itself is it not sufficient to affect people without the other stuff.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I believe that to admit to oneself that the Lord’s Recovery was never a move of God and that they have always taught a different Jesus and a false gospel has personal implications many are not willing to confront. That’s especially true for those born into the movement and to those that lost decades to it.

You are speaking vaguely here. Are the “personal implications many are not willing to confront” that they may not actually be saved? That they had a false conversion? Or that they have wasted their life? Concrete examples would help here. If that’s what you mean, I don’t disagree with you on the implications side of things. I personally did pray to receive the Lord again as an adult after I realized more of how the LC brought up their young people, so I would be assured that I was really saved and not deceived by a false conversion.

I cannot comment on “TLR was never a move of God”. I’m not God and I don’t know the ways He moves. I’m not sure whether categorizing them as a move or God or not helps anyone. At least it doesn’t do anything for me. Because either way, there are some genuine believers within it.

Originally Posted by Jo S

It’s best to speak the truth no matter whether it’s accepted or not as it’s the truth that sets people free and not the outward approach. Yet it’s only in love that truth remains truth and so you won’t be able to set others free unless you first are free. Until you see the Lord’s Recovery movement for what it really is, only then can you move forward with an effective approach. To see that, however, you first need to address your own walk and that’s a place where many refuse to go. Being lukewarm toward the Recovery and its doctrines only gets you stuck in the past and so at this point you’re resorted to picking at specks all while the log remains in your own eye.

Well…..angry truth is still truth. That’s why there is the phrase “truth in love”. It implies there can be “truth not in love”, which I think human life witnesses to each of us that there can be both.

Your first two sentences contradict each other. You say that it’s the truth that sets people free and not the outward approach. But then say it’s only in love that truth remains truth. “in love” is a heart matter but is expressed outwardly, no doubt. So outward approach (sourced inwardly) absolutely is critical. You say only then does truth remain truth, but I would rephrase that to say that only then does truth “land”. Does truth “hit its target”. I don’t like to point to negative examples, but the Texas Street Preacher comes to mind here. He can speak truths about the LC, he may claim it’s in love, but it can’t land very many places because of the caustic outward approach he takes.

I can assure you I am not lukewarm towards the Recovery’s doctrines. The Recovery is replete with false doctrines, false interpretations of scripture, and falsely controlling teachings. There’s probably over 30 of them that permeate the ministry.

Preceded by the gospel.

Originally Posted by Jo S

It’s important to note that Paul starts off this chapter in hyperbole meaning rather than taking what he is saying as literal there’s an overarching principle that he’s teaching to the church.

“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”

Paul uses the term “may” meaning he’s not speaking to a group that has already been led astray but to one that is being lax and passive toward false doctrine.

The message here is intolerance toward falsities by being bold in the truth.

Where your comparison of the LC’s to the church in Corinth fails is that Corinth was founded on the gospel whereas the Local Churches were founded on an ideology.

The Corinthians were already accepting false apostles, their teachings, and showing them deference. That’s why Paul is talking about not asking for money for what he’s doing, because the false teachers already were doing that. The chapter is not a hypothetical or theoretical.

I’m not going to get into whether we can call a group part the church or not. The church is not the group itself but the real believers in any group.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Either the LC’s are as they claim or they are not. A movement cannot be a partial move of God, can it? If you claim that the LCs were a move of God at one point but were overtaken by so called liars, false prophets, and legalists then you’re questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began. Because of that, not only is it not a false dichotomy, it’s the only dichotomy.

Can you be more specific about what you are saying the LC’s claim?

What comes to my mind is that they claim to be THE CHURCH, to the exclusion of everyone else. This is not true.

As I said in a previous post, I think God moves in individual people, not in a “move” in a “group”. Humans have been given free will to do any and all things they can dream up on this earth. God can move in anything. Is the Holocaust a “move of God”? Nope. But was God moving during and in the midst of the Holocaust? Yep. He’s always moving in individuals because He desires that no man perish.

It makes no sense to say that if the LC started out under God’s hand but then was taken over by false prophets that I’m questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began. To be honest that conclusion sounds exactly like the kind the co-workers make in their posts on shepherdingwords.com. The “If you question us you are questioning God’s deputy authority!!!!!” type.

So of course, no, I’m not questioning God’s ability. Because look at Adam and Eve, man. The creation of Adam and Eve was most definitely, undeniably, unequivocally a “move of God”, but things went south. No one, however, is questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began in that regard. It seems you are taking the short view of things. God finishes what He begins, bro.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Trapped, you don’t have to choose but you’re lack of resolve will only work to delay the inevitable.

I don’t have a lack of resolve, and you are vague on what “the inevitable” is.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If we are going to use garden analogies then let’s also include the seeds which fell among the thorns.

In Corinth, the group of believers were putting up with those preaching mistruths but the implication is that there was still a majority adhering to the gospel as Paul taught it. Because of this, Corinth would accurately portray tares among the wheat.

In the LC’s however what I’ve seen were a larger majority adhering to community centered around special revelation along with small minority of baby Christians whom became ensnared by the group for the purpose of furthering that ideology. This group represents the thorns that choke out the seedlings.

Yeah, while the thorn verses are said to represent the cares of the world and deceitfulness of riches, I don’t have a problem with what you’re saying here, necessarily. The LC’s do choke the word.

I can’t speak to the maturity of the set of believers in any group. I also can’t speak to at what point the false vs genuine ratio within any given group determines its legitimacy or not. At what point does the saturation level of real believers in a group render that group “genuine”? Only God knows.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree, it’s a great practice to refer to scripture just as long as you don’t use it solely for rebuking but also use it for personal conviction. Otherwise using the scriptures so one-sidedly you risk misusing them for condemnation rather than for encouragement.

Agreed. The nature of the topic of this thread just lends itself a little more to the rebuking side of things.

Can you use some scripture to encourage me please? I could use it, sorely.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Whether you’re seeking the moral high ground or not, statements like the ones above portray high-mindedness.

Well, that’s very kind of you to say, Jo S.

But it’s not true. It’s not high-mindedness at all. I can say that because I myself am part of the very category you think I was condemning. I’m naïve myself. I spent many years in the local church thinking that the problem was me. Wondering why God hated me. I trusted what I had been told for my whole life. I didn’t know anything different. I was just naïve.

It was just a statement that there are simply different types of people on this earth. Some are born in the clouds. Some are born with both feet on the ground. Some are born doubting and critical. Some are born trusting and naïve. We all know this.

Originally Posted by Jo S

No one comes to God unless He draws them. It’s only by God’s grace that we know Him and His truth and not through our own “critical thinking abilities” lest we should boast. Even the most brilliant individuals get caught up in these kinds of groups.

Agreed. One of Cal’s latest videos – I think the one showing Steve Hassan’s interview – noted this fact and it’s one that confounded me for some time. How are there brilliant, driven, intelligent, whip-smart people in the local churches? Well, because mind control is effective, and there are numerous controlling doctrines in the group that ensnare the gamut of people in them. It is truly by God’s grace that anyone can see through them and get out from their snare.

Originally Posted by Jo S

With that said, did you know that Mormons also call each other ”brothers” and “saints”? They are after all the “church of latter day saints”. Would you consider them brothers and saints as well?

I don’t know enough about Mormons or JWs or many other similar groups to be able to make any informed statements.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Please understand that groups use these kinds of terms as unifiers toward a common cause but outside of that specific cause this level of affection is non-existent. That’s a sign that the movement isn’t based on God’s love for His church but a love for group exclusivity.

A hard but necessary question to ask is; do these people really love the Lord or do they value community over the truth? If it's the Lord then do you believe His love would keep them in a "destructive controlling group"? Is it really critical thinking skills that people lack or could it be a lack of love toward God and His truth?

Great questions.

To be honest, some of what people lack is simply information. If you don’t know what thought-control is, you don’t even know to look for it. If you don’t know what spiritual manipulation is, you probably won’t know when you are being spiritually manipulated.

It is a hard question to ask. Your question actually touches slightly upon the problem of suffering or the problem of evil. Do I believe His love would keep them in a destructive controlling group? This kind of thing can keep me up at night. God can allow many things, even in love. One brother said to me that God might allow things to happen to us, even painful things, to show us that nothing else matters but His voice. We are looking at things at a snapshot in time, and I don’t know what plans the Lord has. God kept me in a destructive controlling group for a time, even one that made me hate Him for years. And at a certain point in time He ramped things up and ejected me outta there.

I think there is a valuing of community over truth, undeniably. I think they love the Lord within parameters, which isn’t a full love of the Lord, I guess. Don’t hold me over the fire on my answers on this one…..this is a question which I don’t have answers to. I have so many conflicting experiences in this regard from years in the church, I am still in the process of sorting it out.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Jesus speaks of two things in judging, “ways” and “measures”. The manner in which you present your argument is that God will judge you for a specific sin only when you judge others for the same sin. That’s not true. God will judge your sins no matter if you’ve judged others for the same. This verse has nothing to do with what sin is being judged but by which manner and measure you are judging by.

So the question is; do you first properly examine your own heart before criticizing your brother? If the Local Churches teach the same, well good; then do as they say and not as they do. Or will you throw the baby out along with the bath water?

Well, that’s the manner you read into my argument, but it’s not what I meant. It’s just the nature of written forums is all. Obviously I don’t mean that God will only judge a sin when we judge others for the same sin. Of course God will judge each and every one of our own sins even if we never judge a single sin of another person. That seems too obvious to state but I guess I need to state it. One Bible commentary says this, which encapsulates what I meant to say but better than I managed to say it:

“…the severity which we have unjustly meted out to others, becomes, by a retributive law, the measure of that which is justly dealt out to us.”

Yes, examination of our own hearts is the point of those verses. Otherwise we are judging hypocritically.

I do think we are in agreement on this point but somehow managing to speak past each other.

Originally Posted by Jo S

John mentions the heresy of Docetism but the main focus of this chapter when viewed in its entire context is “the teaching of Christ”. So what is the teaching of Christ? This cannot be referring to Christ coming in flesh as that was apparent to those which were with Jesus when he walked the earth so Christ did not need to teach he was a real flesh and blood human. Rather John is referring to the two commandments which Christ taught; love God and love you neighbor.

So now ask yourself; do the Local Churches love the Body of Christ or do they only extend their warmth to those within their group? The overwhelming consensus to that is that they do in fact lack love toward the Body of Christ in practice and in speech.

When you disregard one commandment you disregard the other. By this, shunning the Local Church does in fact line up with 2 John 1.

I can see where you are coming from on this one, and to be honest, it’s a fair point I’ve never considered. The implications are significant and I need to spend some time thinking about it as it applies to my own life. As a whole, resoundingly no, the local churches do not love the BofX or extend their warmth to those not within their group. On the individual level, there are some who do, but as a group, they are cold to those outside it. And what you do to others you do to God, so yes, the implications are weighty.

And if I bring in your angle of personally examining before taking action, this is a very hard one to do. I admit I don’t love everyone myself, and yet I would be judging the LC’s for doing the same.

Maybe that’s why I prefer to deal with their doctrines because I am not the hypocrite when going after their doctrines, but I am when going after their lack of love.

Originally Posted by Jo S

People aren’t slaves to legalism, they are slaves to sin. Christ sets Christians free from condemnation but not from conscience. You’re still expected to honor the commandments. Legalism is a sign and manifestation of sin within a group collective. The goal isn’t to flee legalism, it’s to do something you were not taught in the Local Churches; that is, to repent and believe in the Jesus of scripture. That applies to abusive authority as well. This is the only way you'll be freed from legalism in good conscience.

Of course people are slaves to legalism, but that does not preclude being a slave to sin too. Legalism produces a false guilt within people where their conscience is actually silent, and I can tell you from experience that it is an absolute enslavement. Wherever it is in the Bible Jesus is given grief about not washing his hands or requiring others to do so is an example of that. Hand-washing isn’t sin. It’s a commandment of men. It’s legalism. You can absolutely be a slave to it. Although I supposed in that case, legalistic hand-washing becomes a sin because it denies the truth that Christ came to set us free?

Christ came to set us free from the condemnation of sin and death, but also from oppression, and not just the oppression of sin and/or death. All kinds of oppression. He proclaimed release to the captives, sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom for those who are oppressed. This is the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom with His mouth, and then turned around and demonstrated it with His actions in healing people and releasing them. I understand all these oppressions are the result of the fall. But these oppressions are not sins in themselves. In other words, Jesus came to release people from their sins and condemnation eternally, but also from their afflictions and oppressions temporally.

While THE goal may not be to flee legalism, it’s a pretty good sub-goal. Jesus rebuked and was harshly critical of it in the Bible.

Don’t leave the forum or this thread. Just use pronouns like “we” rather than “you” sometimes. Or “my perspective is” rather than “your perspective must be”. Or when speaking of others, say, “it seems like” rather that “it is a fact”. That’s all. Your input is valuable.

[Trapped]

Jo S,

Pursuant to the title of this thread, what is your view on the responsibility of Christians related to aberrant or abusive groups (specifically the LC)?

We've talked about the legitimacy of the LC as well as self-examination, both of which you have your position on. So based on your own positions and viewpoint, which I'm not asking you to change, what do you think the responsibility of those who leave the LC is, recognizing that some who leave the LC still treat it as a legitimate group and some who leave don't?

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Pursuant to the title of this thread, what is your view on the responsibility of Christians related to aberrant or abusive groups (specifically the LC)?

Trapped

As a new believer, excited about Jesus for the first time in my life, I tried to help one of my younger brothers (I have 4 bros and 4 sis) who was visiting with the Jehovah Witnesses. I knew JW was off, and told my brother. I even read a book, something like, "When I was a WatchTower Slave," and was successful in helping him to be "set free." So I had become a "successful apologetic" in my first endeavor. I had rescued my brother, much to the joy of my dear mother, but I really had failed, since he never was brought to the Lord. My brother was freed, but not really free.

So many in those days were getting saved. I went to Ohio State, but my cousins went to Kent State, a hotbed of belligerant thought. Instead of rejoicing in our new shared love for the Savior, endless interrogations of the faith began. They embarked on radical apologetics and I was in the Local Church. Twice my cousin ruined the weddings of my siblings for me with his obsessions. He was like the dogs that followed apostle Paul around.

We were never called to set people straight. Our calling is to help others to know the Lord. Apologetics often lose sight of the gospel of God's love. Like Ephesus in Rev 2, the Recovery, me and my cousin, it is easy to become a zealot for truths, yet in the process miss God's love for actual people. I have often asked myself why am I here on the forum, and constantly must redirect my own course. It always comes back to this simple statement, people got hurt and need help.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We were never called to set people straight. Our calling is to help others to know the Lord. Apologetics often lose sight of the gospel of God's love. Like Ephesus in Rev 2, the Recovery, me and my cousin, it is easy to become a zealot for truths, yet in the process miss God's love for actual people. I have often asked myself why am I here on the forum, and constantly must redirect my own course. It always comes back to this simple statement, people got hurt and need help.

Great post Ohio! Unfortuneately, I didn't see it until right after I made aron's post the "featured post", otherwise this would have been in that slot. (not taking away anything from aron's great post!)

The thoughts you have expressed here reminded my of something Tim Keller wrote:
Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us, but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.

I can't remember the context of this excerpt, but I think I would alter it slightly for our purposes by saying: Love, expressed without the underpinning of truth, may be mere sentimentality, and may ostensibly affirm us, but leave us in denial about our ignorance and weaknesses. Truth, presented as mere information, and not as speaking the truth in love, may cause us to turn a deaf ear, and never be set free by the truth.

I heartily agree that part of our calling is to help people know the Lord, but we first must know the Lord ourselves, else we be found to be as "the blind leading the blind". Genuine theology should always lead us to know the Lord. Genuine apologetics should always lead us to know the Lord. I know this because I have observed this first hand, and I have experienced this first hand. Does that mean that the theologians and apologists have been perfect in their teachings and presentations? Of course not. The late Ravi Zacharias is a good example. He presented the Gospel in such an uncompromising, yet deeply compassionate way, that even the most hardened and steadfast critics were disarmed, and many were saved.

Again, I feel pressed to take us back to the opening post:

Originally Posted by Cal

What is the responsibility of Christians in responding to aberrant or abusive groups, ministries and leadership, particularly those which abuse authority to bully and control believers?
Given the many Old Testament verses exhorting God's people to defend the defenseless, stand up to oppressors and seek justice, do such commands carry over into the New Testament age and, and if so, how to we fulfill them?

My, my, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since this first post! Maybe Cal can come back and pick up where he left off here. Mr. Cal has a way of getting us back to making the main thing the main thing.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Great post Ohio! Unfortuneately, I didn't see it until right after I made aron's post the "featured post", otherwise this would have been in that slot. (not taking away anything from aron's great post!)

The thoughts you have expressed here reminded my of something Tim Keller wrote:
Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us, but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.

Three awesome posts in a row, by Aron, Ohio and you (UntoHim)! It makes me feel like I do with my Thursday bros, and often let them know that I am truly privileged to be amongst such ones . . . ones who are focused on speaking Christ and His love! (and please remind me of that when we're in the middle of the next food fight! )

This quote from Tim Keller is most telling and insightful, isn't it!? Love and truth - one without the other is an unturned cake (to use one of my favorite phrases of late). Scripture is so wise to encourage us to "speak the truth in love"! Having either one alone can produce harmful effects.

In terms of the LC (since we are on the LCD forum), the LC fell into the error of the later part of this saying, that is, "Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it." I think the fruit of that became evident in LC teachings and practice, which we experienced and are now testifying of on here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

.. my responsibility as a Christian is to find the truth. So I confess Jesus as risen, then what? What's my course, my path? It's not about the LC or any aberrant group... Where do I find the truth or reality of the wounded, slain, and risen Lord, now ascendant above all that is named, or can be named? That alone matters...

I'd like to flesh out the above comment by using something that Cal recently posted.

Originally Posted by Cal

"The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern." Prov 29:7

These are verses we NEVER studied in the LR. And frankly I think they make them uncomfortable. Their whole culture of allowing oneself to be abused by an organization ignores them, as does their indifference to social justice.

Let's remember this point as we consider the phrase "God's economy" and I'll try to show how such an examination, however cursory and amateurish, is an attempt to get at truth, and how this "finding our truth" can help us as Christians to address abusive sects and cults. Our most powerful weapon is truth, and if we don't seek, we don't find. So we follow the Master's commands to find our truth, and perhaps we can be of use.

Now, I'm reminded of the adage on another thread (Modalism) that theology is 10% of the contents of the Christian faith and one's heart is the other 90%. Theology matters, but not nearly as much as love, which is best lived out among others, and is also hard to type into a keyboard. So Christian "truth" on an anonymous internet forum is limited.

But that 10% matters too. The content of one's confession does matter, and it's to this that we turn. Cal rightly noted that the LR cares little for such verses as Prov 29:7. Frequent scriptural admonitions to care for the poor, the sick, the weak, the fatherless and widows are passed over without comment, whilst other "important" and "crucial" verses are rehearsed at nearly every turn. This kind of warped and distorted reading does ultimately affect one's heart, and behaviours.

So we'll look at a representative verse from the NT which the LR won't address, because of what it does to their "God's economy" metric. I'll quote three verses for context, but want to stress the last one and consider what it entails. Galatians 2:8-10 "For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."

James, Cephas and John don't ask that folks 'masticate the Processed Triune God' or some such, but to continue to remember the poor! Not merely to remember, but to continue to remember, which indicates Paul and Barnabas were already engaged, along with the Jerusalem cohort. Suddenly, Jesus' "feed my sheep" and the "daily dispensing to the widows" in Acts line up - they were feeding Jesus' sheep in Acts 6:1 - Oh, now I get it!

Not only this, but Paul says he's been eager to do the very thing, all along! Does this sound like reluctance? And is this anything like the "God's economy" taught and practiced in the LR? Or does it rather seem more like Jesus' teaching, "When you give a feast, invite those who cannot repay you in this age, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous"? And how can anyone ignore such verses as Galatians 2:10 and pretend to be "closely following the apostles" whilst pooh-poohing other Christians' theology as aberrant and deficient, as inferior to one's own? Who is blind, here?

If we can agree on the actual objective contents of the Bible, it can help those ensnared in poor theology, and by the oppressive thought systems behind that, and by the "spirit of the air" controlling it all. One of the most exposing things about this spirit is that it cares not for the poor, and avoids all such biblical exhortations, even when they're prominent in the narrative, as in Galatians 2. Along with public shaming, fear-mongering, deceit, and manipulation, this studied indifference to the poor doesn't seem like the Spirit of Jesus at all.

And look how much else of the NT suddenly makes more sense if we consider this interpretation of God's economy. In several chapters of Paul's epistles, he covers this "remembrance of the poor" in Jerusalem: in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 16. We're not talking a few cherry-picked verses, but lengthy passages explaining what he's doing, why, and how the Gentile churches, through participation in the remembrance of the Jerusalem poor, are tied into God's household and economy. It's quite explicit, should one care to look (and the LR resolutely refuses to look).

To save space, I quote Romans 15:25-29 ''Now, however, I'm on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.''

When reading this together with the passages in 2 Cor 8,9 and 1 Cor 16, a much different picture of God's economy emerges... then further, here's Paul in Acts 24:15-17 "and I have the same hope in God that they [Law and Prophets] themselves cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. In this hope, I strive always to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. After several years, then, I returned to Jerusalem to bring alms to my people and to present offerings..." In the last verse, Paul's saying he fulfilled the promise made in Galatians 2, and which occupied such a significant portion of his writings in Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans.

And yet all this was ignored by the LR in their "God's economy" metric. Now, I don't write this as an "attack" or "an attempt to put an axe to the edifice" but rather to point us to the truth. There exist alternates to the LR interpretations, some of which may be vastly preferred. Probably the most effective remedy for those in abusive sects and cults isn't to criticize but to patiently and persistently show alternatives, that it's possible to try & think, something the LR insists is deadly to the faith. We can show the opposite.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Don’t leave the forum or this thread. Just use pronouns like “we” rather than “you” sometimes. Or “my perspective is” rather than “your perspective must be”. Or when speaking of others, say, “it seems like” rather that “it is a fact”. That’s all. Your input is valuable.

The prize for the longest, most detailed and thoughtful response goes to . . . . Trapped!

Really good responses from both UntoHim & Trapped. And let me say I hope Jo doesn't leave the conversation or forum either! Anybody can have a style of communicating that may grate on certain others. I'm sure that my most wonderful communication style might even be conceived of as (if this was really even possible) bothering someone else slightly on perhaps one or two occasions.

But Trapped, I liked that you gave some very practical examples at the end. For instance, one sure way to put someone immediately on the defensive unnecessarily is by saying "YOU think this!" or "YOU do that!" And stating things like, "It seems to me . . ." and "My opinion is . . ." is also really good coaching me thinks! Again, bravo and well said (in my most very humble opinion)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I don’t know of anyone who goes about knocking down a building by starting with the foundation. They start with other “secondary” areas (roofs, walls, supports, etc), which causes the whole thing to crumble upon its foundation. Would you try to knock down the Sydney Opera House by hacking away at its foundation? It makes no sense. I realize I’m speaking of a physical building, but I think the comparison is strong enough that I don’t need to elaborate.

The other side is, you may be able to convince people that its foundation was bad, but they will just throw the “recovery” word at you and say initial beginnings or bad foundations don’t mean that God can’t come in to recover a bad start. It just won’t go anywhere. You have to show that the structure itself is bad too.

It’s also been around in the US for 60+ years or whatever. Many people within it now had nothing to do with its initial beginnings and that part is therefore mostly meaningless to them as a factor to leave. America had some sordid beginnings in its treatment and takeover of the Native Americans and their land, but does anyone de-legitimize America for that now?

I think knowing that the foundation was bad is one more ax-blow to knocking the tree down, but it seems to me that in itself is it not sufficient to affect people without the other stuff.

I'd like to amend this part of my post a few posts back. I think Jo S's point about the foundation is more valid that I gave him credit for, but we were just looking at the situation from different "heights". I was viewing it as if I was someone still within it, or as if I was 100 feet above it, while Jo S was viewing it as from someone on the International Space Station looking down. All valid, but just different viewpoints. I think the ISS looking down is too far out from where the average LC-er is to render them meaningful help when they are in it. It's incredibly valuable, but would be like explaining the genome to a 2 year old. Those who are in it would have to come to another place before they can be taken that high up. Baby steps before putting them on a rocket ship.

I believe Jo S will not be returning, which is a big loss. But the thread is still here and is, at least to me, one of the most important topics on the forum. Any input from anyone else is greatly coveted. My question in post #37 stands for anyone to respond to.

[aron]

My personal answer is that my responsibility as a Christian is to find the truth. So I confess Jesus as risen, then what? What is my course? My path? It's not about the LC or any aberrant group. What is my path? Where do I find the truth or reality of the wounded, slain, and risen Lord, now ascendant above all that is named, or can be named? That alone matters.

Now in that journey I may rebuke and expose. I may quietly bear with something yucky. But only the journey matters.

For me, since leaving the LC, it's come down to this. He left us with a few simple rules. Believe, pray. Love your neighbor. Take the least place.

I've told my story 50 times, but it's my story, what else can I tell. I was with the FTTA. The Trainer (whom I believe still runs the place) said, "Don't waste your time" on the aged and the sick. I raised my hand, and spoke. Scripture shows me something else. Do I pretend that I can't read the Bible? No, I spoke up.

Steve Isitt spoke up. Jane Anderson spoke up (not that I am comparing myself to them. My journey is mine and theirs is theirs. I can't wear someone else's) Jo and Greg Casteel spoke up. Everyone on this forum is trying to speak up. Max Rappoport spoke up. John Ingalls spoke up. Don Rutledge spoke up. And I am grateful for every voice.

But everyone has to speak their own portion of truth. God is wise, and distributes as He sees fit. Everyone has a part of the truth, equally precious. Nobody is despised in God's sight.

I've come to see, over the years, that the world probably isn't going to follow my truth, my journey of discovery. But I have to follow it. And I find that sometimes, in that journey, a voice says, Speak up.

[Sons to Glory!]

I like what you said here . . . simple and real. Can't add much to that other than AMEN!