Responsibility Of Christians In Responding To Aberrant/Abusive Groups

[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.