Should I Stay or Shoul I Go?

[OBW]

(I know that it might seem that I am looking for a pat on the back, but I really don't care aboout that. These are serious questions.)

Despite Lee’s strong opposition to all aspects of the ecumenical movement, the trend among so many groups these days is to acknowledge that we don’t agree on everything, but that we do agree on the basics (or true fundamentals — not the junk fundamentals that set Fundamentalists apart). As a result, we are more inclined to participate in events, and even regularly attend and worship with groups that may not be entirely in line with what we think is the “most correct” way.

It is due to this kind of thinking that I have become, at times, less inclined to give a lot of grief to those who chose to remain with the LRC, including those in my family.

Now there is a truly meaningful question as to whether the many (what I will characterize as) off-track teachings of Nee, Lee and the next generation of the LSM/LRC are harmless or can damage either, or both of, the spiritual walk or the psyche. In other words, is there something spiritually or psychologically harmful about the teachings of the LRC that we should be strong to warn them of?

And do we warn them because someone somewhere else is a poor leader or is abusive in the manner in which they wield power?

I do not go into whether the LSM/LRC base of teaching is built around a system of error. I’m not sure that anyone is willing to take it that far. I think it is true, but the evidence is that it has fallen off most people’s radar.

And even if they are, is it worth all the squabbling?

I have considered these questions numerous times, both together and separately. When I take them separately, I am inclined to wander away from this forum and let it run its course. When I take then together, I become convinced that this is not just something like arguing about the exclusivism of the Church of Christ (if they are still that exclusive) or the errors of the RCC, or if it is instead something that truly warrants serious battle.

I am becoming ambivalent and need something to provide the kick in one direction or the other. And the way the forum has operated of late does not help. It has become less interesting, being so often overcome with almost off-topic posts. And then manhandled by some who seem to be of no definite position but just seem to disagree with everything or at least always put a fly in every jar of ointment. Or piece together an assortment of unrelated verses in a manner that would make Lee proud and then electronically fold their arms and declare that everyone should simply accept it as so.

The last time we had a really large group of people involved was when someone was dishing up great fodder for the fight to go get those so-and-sos at the LSM/FTTT that were forcing US citizens to marry Chinese immigrants. At least until it was revealed to be the babbling of an upset father but not at all like what was claimed.

I grow weary and I wonder if it can even be classed as “growing weary in doing good.”

I do not think that the forum should just close. But I’m not sure that I can contribute much more.

And these are, to me, alternative questions to Unto’s that I am thinking through to make my own decision about what I like about the forum, what I think it needs, and what part I can or will play. Maybe they can get someone else to think as well. And maybe you (whoever you are) can talk me off the fence. I won’t suggest that either side is preferred.

And then maybe — just maybe — someone would like to talk me into leaving for good.

Don’t bother talking about our collective history. If it is only history, it is probably time to go.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Despite Lee’s strong opposition to all aspects of the ecumenical movement, the trend among so many groups these days is to acknowledge that we don’t agree on everything, but that we do agree on the basics (or true fundamentals — not the junk fundamentals that set Fundamentalists apart). As a result, we are more inclined to participate in events, and even regularly attend and worship with groups that may not be entirely in line with what we think is the “most correct” way.

It is due to this kind of thinking that I have become, at times, less inclined to give a lot of grief to those who chose to remain with the LRC, including those in my family.

Now there is a truly meaningful question as to whether the many (what I will characterize as) off-track teachings of Nee, Lee and the next generation of the LSM/LRC are harmless or can damage either, or both of, the spiritual walk or the psyche. In other words, is there something spiritually or psychologically harmful about the teachings of the LRC that we should be strong to warn them of?

Since I was so "fooled" by LSM and taken advantage of by some LC leaders, the forum has provided great source of feedback for me personally. I came to the internet initially because I had to understand what was happening in the Recovery. I had too much time vested in the program not to research it. Gradually over time I have purged my thinking of many LC tenets I once held dear. Unfortunately this has come quite late in life. Getting feedback from others passing thru the same journey is helpful. Very helpful.

[Abounding]

I hope that you would not be discouraged. This forum has been a great help to me since my recent departure from the church life. It is the only place that I can see people who know where I have been. I hope that you would continue to help people like me with your discussions. Now that I have seen how my life has changed for the better since leaving, I do have a burden for those still deceived. I am truly free to live in grace without the condemnation that secretly came along with the practices in the church. I hope others could be helped out just like a recovered addict would hope to help other addicts. Maybe the topics should be centered to help.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Abounding, this is a real encouragement!

See Mike, not all hope is lost....so step away from that fence big guy!

At times, I think some of us take ourselves too seriously, and I include myself in the category. Other times, I think some of us underestimate how the Lord can use a venue like this one. And, as Abounding has pointed out, this is really the only place for current and former members to come and dialog in a relatively safe and sane atmosphere.

Admittedly, at times it is not as sane as I would like it to be, but let's face it, we are dealing with some very touchy issues around here, add that to the fact that by nature many of us former members are a little on the feisty and surly side to begin with, and it can make for a very chaotic place!

[Cal]

OBW,

I think this forum and the other have done a lot of good. The wrangling and wounded pride and putting up with aimless babbling and people who just don't get it have been a small price to pay to establish public information which gives people a chance to think outside the box of LRC brainwashing.

If one person's life has been made easier because of this forum, it's been worth it. That's the way I look at it. And since my life has been made easier, that's one, so it's been worth it.

I post because I enjoy doing it. It's not a struggle for me. It's enjoyable. If it has ceased being enjoyable to you, then, as Norman Vincent Peale said, there is something wrong with your approach.

But don't fret about it. Take a break. Or never come back. It's up to you. But be happy. God doesn't need our help.

I've very much enjoyed seeing your gifts and talents in action on this board and being used toward a good cause. But I would never expect you to take part in something that you didn't enjoy anymore; and I don't think God would either, because enjoyment is one way he confirms we are doing his will.


G

[Paul Cox]

There are very few places left where Local Church members can somehow be exposed to the truth about their organization, or where former Local Church members can find comfort and clarity. This site has served that purpose very well. Although I don't come as often lately, I have gotten great help from you saints. I vote that it stay available by all means.
P.C.

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

There are very few places left where Local Church members can somehow be exposed to the truth about their organization, or where former Local Church members can find comfort and clarity. This site has served that purpose very well.
P.C.

Very true! The LC thrives on information control. The internet in general takes this away from them but only if various forums including this one exist to openly discuss it's teachings, practices, history, etc. That's why the Politburo in Anaheim hates these forums and the internet in general.

Remember what Nigel did? He used the internet to send an email to all the coworkers. The Politburo went crazy and shut him out of the system. What did they do about Jim Moran when threatening to sue him didn't work? They bought his website and shut it down. But they can't control open forums like this one.

So OBW all I can say is if people like you stop participating in these forums they will lack solid content. If they lack solid content they will become hollow and irrelevant. If they become hollow and irrelevant they will become useless. If they become useless the Politburo will shout with glee because their deception and cover ups and outrageous claims can continue without refutation and exposure. If their deception, cover ups and outrageous claims can continue without refutation and exposure more people will be duped into joining or remaining in the LC system. So if don't want more people to be duped into joining or remaining in the LC keep posting!

[OBW]

I thank everyone for their comments. Even if they were not exactly what you might think I would be thankful for.

And this includes the one I received privately that said it was probably time to move on.

And while a couple sort of caught onto the main thrust of my dilemma, many did not get it, so I will be a little blunt.

This was, for me, both the asking an processing of questions that are different from, but related to, the questions that Unto asked about the forum just a few days ago. I had a reason to join up with these forums — first with the Bereans back in 2005, then this one when it opened at least partly in response to problems we were having with that initial forum.

The main thing it did for me was move my thinking away from any thought that I could ever go back there again. (No, no, no, no, NO!! I'll never go back anymore.) Every time I worked through something different, I realized a new entire arena in which Lee and the LRC were way off. And then that sense of "offness" began to transfer onto Nee. I'm still kinder to Nee. But he made the same kinds of errors — just not in as egregious a manner and with much less arrogance. But I can attest that he spoke with humble arrogance. (He was humble as he declared that God has showed him things that no one else had or could see.)

There was an interest in the kinds of willful control that Lee and his followers, the BBs, exerted upon the membership. But since my mind latches onto facts, logic, grammar, and so on, the more that we get into emotions and feelings, the more isolated from the mainstream of the discussions I become. Note how often the one or two posts that I make in one of those "I've got the goods on the bad behavior" threads is more on the theological issues on the side of it rather than the meat of the discussion.

And for me, there has been too little substantive discussion of the theological errors that gave way to so much outward unrighteousness and also to complacency in the membership. So many of the people who really want to go there are no longer here. I feel like a relic of a past era.

But more than that, my questions were for the collective consideration of everyone. Similar to Unto's questions, I sort of am asking, "what is your calling related to this forum? Why are you here?" There probably are not many bad answers. But for me, not every one of them is the same. And if few enough are here for the reasons I am, then my part becomes extremely limited, or destined to be seen as a kind of sniping and off-topic because that is not where the forum membership really wants to go.

Oh, I will probably never completely go away. I've said I was taking a break many times, going all the way back to 2008. And I always return.

But there is too much interest in picking on the posters we don't like. Bilbo, Harold, zeek. There were others before them. And I do not say that there is nothing to say about it. But too often we do just what some of them probably want, and that is to focus on them and their antics rather than the meaningful topics of the forum. So, as we lambaste them and get out our tar and feathers, they are winning the battle.

The key to winning against trolls and baiters is to not take the bait.

But even if we manage to act better, the nature of the forum is currently changed. And it is not sufficiently to my interest to remain strongly active. I like a lot of you. And a lot that have since gone.

But that one private encouragement to move on was not someone trying to get rid of me. They think that they have been through the same thing and it may just be that my time is winding down. My goal is not to have a bunch of people like me. My goal is to engage in issues of interest. And I must admit that the interest factor is fading.

I hope that things change to be whatever it is that is needed to reach those in the LRC that are curious about another perspective. Mine may be too blunt for them anyway. I belong in the group that takes them further down a path away from the LRC once they have changed their mind at least a little. My positions are a little too much like saying the "C" word all the time (without ever saying it). For those willing to sit an listen, I will provide the evidence for them. But for someone just daring to look into these forums, I might as well have said it.

So, without a large community of people taking all kinds of stances within this broad topic pool, I'm a little bit too much.

Oh, I'll see you more often than you see me, but I think that until something changes, I will be much more silent. If that is not enough for you, then draw me out.

[Cal]

OBW et al,

It's natural that as the psychological effects of having been in the LRC begin to fade; and you begin to move beyond trying to convince yourself of something and come to truly believe it; and your LRC past no longer haunts you, but becomes, as it should be, just another part of your past from which you have learned and grown; it is natural at that point to become less interested in discussing that past. Why should you in fact, when there is so much more to live for?

This is healthy and normal and desirable.

We would be a sad lot indeed if we simply dwelt on the past, year after year.

OBW is past that. I am, too. My main interest is in helping people reexamine things they may have retained even after being out of the LRC for years. For example, all those lingering ideas about "getting God wrought into your being," which sounded so compelling when we first heard them; but which, as I've discussed, I've seen are a counterproductive way to look at transformation.

There are a lot of others. So it seems I often have something say.

But I would think that, unless one feels a special calling, the proper way to participate in this board is to eventually outgrow it. Many have come and gone, so it seems that may be happening. If so, that is a good thing.

So I say, good for you, OBW, if it's come to that with you. God speed, my friend. God has bigger and better things in store for you, and all of us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was an interest in the kinds of willful control that Lee and his followers, the BBs, exerted upon the membership. But since my mind latches onto facts, logic, grammar, and so on, the more that we get into emotions and feelings, the more isolated from the mainstream of the discussions I become. Note how often the one or two posts that I make in one of those "I've got the goods on the bad behavior" threads is more on the theological issues on the side of it rather than the meat of the discussion.

And for me, there has been too little substantive discussion of the theological errors that gave way to so much outward unrighteousness and also to complacency in the membership. So many of the people who really want to go there are no longer here. I feel like a relic of a past era.

This comment displays how different posters have different vantage points. OBW seems to thrive on "substantive discussion of the theological errors." He definitely invests much more thought and analysis into each post. My posts, however, are "short, quick, and to the point," and tend to address the events of LC history rather than an analysis of LSM teaching.

Personally I think both approaches can be beneficial, and others too. Not all LC readers are of the same mold. I have known some ex-members who just could not bring themselves to post. That is fine too. They were helped by reading. Also I have initiated very few threads over the course of time, so I appreciate those like Igzy and OBW who tend to initiate discussions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW et al,

It's natural that as the psychological effects of having been in the LRC begin to fade; and you begin to move beyond trying to convince yourself of something and come to truly believe it; and your LRC past no longer haunts you, but becomes, as it should be, just another part of your past from which you have learned and grown; it is natural at that point to become less interested in discussing that past. Why should you in fact, when there is so much more to live for?

This is healthy and normal and desirable.

We would be a sad lot indeed if we simply dwelt on the past, year after year.

OBW is past that. I am, too. My main interest is in helping people reexamine things they may have retained even after being out of the LRC for years. For example, all those lingering ideas about "getting God wrought into your being," which sounded so compelling when we first heard them; but which, as I've discussed, I've seen are a counterproductive way to look at transformation.

There are a lot of others. So it seems I often have something say.

But I would think that, unless one feels a special calling, the proper way to participate in this board is to eventually outgrow it. Many have come and gone, so it seems that may be happening. If so, that is a good thing.

So I say, good for you, OBW, if it's come to that with you. God speed, my friend. God has bigger and better things in store for you, and all of us.

I don't think it is so much about not needing it anymore myself. Instead, I think there have been two reasons to remain for some time now; 1) to find keys to tearing down the resistance in my family that remains in the LRC, and 2) to provide what I hope are useful thoughts and analyses for the ongoing discussions.

Since I have reason to set reason #1 aside, at least for a while, then #2 has to hold my attention. And it has too often been failing. Not because I think the forum is failing. It just isn't going where my kind is comfortable.

It all comes back to the kind of thinker and participant that I naturally am. I listen, think, analyze, process . . . And when I think I see something that is being missed, I peel myself off the wallpaper and make my posts. If there is a lack of clarity evidenced by responses that are not directed at what I actually said, I respond. If there is evidence of a desire by some to go further with it, I may continue. Otherwise, I disappear back into the wallpaper.

And it seems that for some time there have been fewer of the discussions that truly engage that kind of analysis. (BTW, i am not presuming to be really good at analysis. I'm just saying that it is what I do, whether well or poorly.) So I tend to see statements in posts on less analytical topics that awaken my mind. That's when I do something like comment on the assumption in a post that Nicolaitan means clergy laity (I've done that one several times. Even ticked-off Ohio at least once. And he doesn't generally tick of that easily). Not trying to bait into a different discussion. But I always consider that if there are "stipulated facts" in the form of unestablished assumptions, it might be that everything about where the conclusions go is suspect. I could be wrong (and probably am at times). It might be absolutely fine to presume that the sky really is green for purposes of one discussion, but not for another.

Or questioning a premise built upon the assumption that Jesse did something that scripture does not provide actual support for. It might be a benign assumption for one discussion, but not another. Should we just let it go until we know whether or not it is important? Maybe. I err on the side of caution. I do not presume that every word-picture I can draw with scripture must be good. (I just put the gold in this pot and out came . . .)

But the level of ire at that kind of behavior (on my part) has grown. And while some have suggested that I have created really thoughtful discussion topics, it turns out that most of them have been overrun by people who do not really want to have the thoughtful discussion, but instead conclude and move on. Or they get a few semi-replies that dance around the edges, then it sits dormant as it moves to the second, third, fourth, etc., screen of dead threads.

That is not necessarily a problem. But it says that what I bring is not important. And I am not trying to get sympathy when I say that. If what we consider the place that the forum is currently "at" doesn't really cater to that kind of discussion, then that is OK. It just means that it is not something that lends itself to my ways of thinking and interests.

And I figure I will continue to be a thorn to some because I am determined to show not only that Lee behaved badly and allowed others to be even worse, but his theology really is not so good. And even some of what we think is good from the LRC is because we accept the baseline that Lee provided even though it is not sound. We continue to read verses with his lens. We just reject his son and his arrogance. Somehow he manages to continue to get good teaching marks by too many when the outward evidence is that he is teaching a different gospel. One that is not found in the Gospels, and is a gross misinterpretation of his favorite author, Paul.

He thinks so much of Paul that he will dismiss Jesus' words based on an interpretation of Paul. Yeah. That's the guy I want to build my theology around.

I've rambled on enough.