Group Think: A Sinister Snare For Elders and Congregations Alike

[TLFisher]

Please take time to visit this link and read the article.

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0203/020304tritle.php

[Cal]

This dovetails perfectly with some questions I've wanted to ask the forum:

Going along with the crowd (i.e. groupthink) is almost never a good thing, because the crowd is almost always wrong.


So the questions are these:

• What's the difference between oneness and going along with the crowd?

• What's the difference between oneness and groupthink?

• Give me an example in the Bible where a great spiritual person went along with the crowd.

• Specifically when the LSM/LC encourages "oneness" to such an extreme aren't they in effect encouraging going along with the crowd and groupthink?

• Can you come up with a definition of oneness that doesn't require going along with the crowd and groupthink?

[Suannehill]

So...
Genuine oneness is from the Father...and WHO in the LC could possibly discern the difference? Follow the leader becomes the mantra.
It is much easier to go with "the flow" than work on a relationship with the Father God. And, YES, this is the voice of experience talking. Church history tells this story much better than I can, but, I am also guilty of this.
Sue

[Suannehill]

"The crowd" wanted a King for Israel and got what they wanted.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This dovetails perfectly with some questions I've wanted to ask the forum:

Going along with the crowd (i.e. groupthink) is almost never a good thing, because the crowd is almost always wrong.

So the questions are these:

• What's the difference between oneness and groupthink?

• Give me an example in the Bible where a great spiritual person went along with the crowd.

• Specifically when the LSM/LC encourages "oneness" to such an extreme aren't they in effect encouraging going along with the crowd and groupthink?

• Can you come up with a definition of oneness that doesn't require going along with the crowd and groupthink?

What's the difference between oneness and going along with the crowd?

In the military..especially bootcamp...everyone serving in the military is 'one'.
The people of the land are going along 'with the crowd'.

The awful example that comes to me..is when Hitler 'reigned'. The military buildup was extremely united under his psychotic leadership. The crowds all gathered to support Hitler. So one might say the military was one (with Hitler) and everone else was going along with the crowd.

That said, now Igzy,
Jesus did pray that we would be ONE as He and the Father are ONE.

Recently I told a sister in the LSM these 2 things:

When we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, each of us are going before the JUDGE individually. We ain't going in a group..husbands & wives aren't walking in together.. It'll be God and me only and GOD and You only. Nobody else.

We also will have no excuse.."Lord, didn't I follow Lee's ministry? (or any other ministry for that matter) to the TEE...for the sake of 'oneness'? ...

The 2nd thing I told her went something like this: To keep the "Oneness", I'm not going to jump in the lake! If something is WRONG..I'll speak up. This came about because supposedly Lee & Nee disagreed on some things but Lee 'kept the oneness' even if they didn't agree on everything.

Nevertheless we believers and followers of Christ Jesus and the Word of God, ought to build up one another in the Faith. God will take care of the "oneness".

[UntoHim]

"Oneness" is actually not quite the priority to God that we were lead to believe by Witness Lee.

There are many, many things that should NEVER be sacrificed for spiritual (much less religious) oneness.

Let's start with the first man to be "called" by God - Abraham (known as Abram back in the day). God called him OUT of the "oneness" he had - "Go from your country, your kindred and your fathers house.." As humans, what higher and deeper oneness do we experience then our kindred and our fathers house? Yet God called him out of this oneness.

Fast forward to the children of Israel in Egypt. They certainly had a kind of "oneness" with the Egyptians - so much so that when they first escaped (right after the miracle of the passover) they still complained to Moses that they would be better off back in Egypt. Again, God was calling some person(s) away from the familiarly and comfort of oneness.

Then, just taking a cursory look at the gospels and the book of Acts, God was again calling his people away from the familiarity, comfort, and yes even oneness, of their religion (albeit a religion composed of God's chosen people) It does not take a biblical scholar to see that the Pharisees, Sadducee et al had a certain spiritual, religious (and to them biblical) oneness. Yet they opposed God to His face (literally), and even were instrumental in seeing that the Messiah that came to save them was put to death. Now if any of you think that the Pharisees and Sadducees did not have as strong a oneness as Local Churchers then I think you are highly mistaken.

Now, what about us? Do we get "a pass" where all the others called by God down through the centuries did not? Do we get to sacrifice the truth for the sake of oneness? Do we get to sacrifice His holy Word for the sake of oneness? Do we get to sacrifice our families, our hopes and dreams, our careers for the sake of oneness?

Just something to think about my brothers and sisters.

PS: Thanks to Terry and Igzy for this thread

[countmeworthy]

Igzy wrote
Going along with the crowd (i.e. groupthink) is almost never a good thing, because the crowd is almost always wrong

Another red flag concerning groupthink/'oneness'.........it breeds insecurity...especially in the LSM/LC. People lose their personal identity & once they leave, they're 'lost'. They don't know what to do with their lives. Their lives evolved around the LSM/LC. They don't even know how to TRUST GOD for direction & Guidance!!! It takes a long time..and even then, they're haunted by their involvement.

The ones who talked the talk on 'oneness'......don't know how to minister to the 'lost' anymore...to draw them, to point them to Jesus because they're oneness was not in Jesus. But it looks like it is because they call on the name of the Lord all the time. In truth, they're oneness is in the LSM/LC. And their calling on the Name of the Lord..is almost a coverup..'cause they're really calling on the Name of the LSM under the pretense of calling on Jesus. (Not ALL I'm sure...but for some reason I won't call on the Name of the Lord with that bunch! )

I suppose if there is 'one' good thing about the LSM/LC...and that IS a play on words.......is everything revolves around the RcV & the LSM books.
If a person truly wants the LORD JESUS and deliverence, they can pick up a KJ, NASB, Living Translation, Amplified for Bible reading. There are countless books, teachings, & a variety of ministries to tap into.

Not everything out there in Christendom/Christianity is beneficial...but thankfully we have a discerning spirit in Christ. Shedding the LSM/LC wineskin is the hardest..but the Word says OUR HELP comes from the Lord. We know that is true.

The whole LSM/LC dynamic is Sad...very, very sad.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Oneness" is actually not quite the priority to God that we were lead to believe by Witness Lee.

I have arrived at this same conclusion also. What dramatically changed my views in 2005, after 30 years in the LC, was examining the record of events surrounding the quarantine of John Ingalls. I had always held "oneness" and its numerous "sisters" such as "thinking the same thing" and "having no opinion," in extremely high regard. I considered the Lord's prayer in John 17 as His highest desire for the church.

Reading the accounts of many former members has caused me to carefully re-examine this matter. Sadly, I learned that much of the emphasis over the years on "oneness" and the "one accord" had other motives in mind. These items became vehicles employed to silence internal critiques which were then desperately needed. WL and the BB's have effectively twisted many Biblical truths for their own gain, and numbed the conscience of the faithful, using a distorted presentation of "oneness."

Unfortunately, it was the Roman Catholic, or should I say the "Holy Oneness Church" of Rome which has mastered this art. Since I grew up in that system, I suppose I was more vulnerable than most. Some of the most rotten things in church history were done in the name of "oneness." A oneness the Lord never had in mind when He prayed on His last day.

When we look at the present day LC's and how far down they have spiraled, perhaps the single most important factor is "oneness with the ministry." It all sounded so good. There was a time when many of the brothers around me were clamoring its benefits. Now we have the unique advantage of time. We can look back and ask the reasons why something "so good became so bad." Here is just a partial list of the bad fruit of this devious teaching:

• Changed the emphasis from Christ-centered to man-centered
• Changed us from pleasing God to pleasing man
• Changed us from the word of God to the teachings of man
• Changed from independent local churches to headquarters
• Changed from the Headship of Christ to the leadership of man
• Changed from the liberty of the Spirit to the regulations of man

I have watched each of these (and more) happen slowly over time. I don't blame any of the saints. The leadership failed us. They are rightly called evil workers. They have placed their own interests above Christ and the saints.

[TLFisher]

Ohio, on your post above if there's two points I differ with it's

Changed from independent local churches to dependence on a ministry publisher (instead of headquarters).
At this time I resist using the term evil workers. The leadership did fail the local churches. They do have interests which have and are misguiding saints in the local churches. These interests center on lifting up a man and his ministry. In the process what is lost? Start with John 15:12.

Ohio, you brought about how far the local churches have spiraled. Indeed they have. My perspective is when the churchlife went from Christ centered to ministry centered. Listening to brothers that were there from the sixties and early seventies, the churchlife was Christ centered and there was a oneness through Christ.
When the churchlife became ministry centered, there wasn't a oneness through Christ, but an expectation to conform via group think in the ministry. As a result, no liberty and no freedom to follow the Lord's leading and still be accepted with open arms in the local churches.

Terry

[Overflow]

I was at a Sally Clarkson Wholehearted Mother Conference this weekend and I feel like this quote really applies.

"In the absence of biblical conviction people will go in the way of culture. Culture gives us permission to do whatever we want."

I think that this applies to whatever culture we are being influenced by. Back in the day, most of us were deeply entangled with the LC culture due to a lacking of personal biblical conviction!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio, on your post above if there's two points I differ with it's changed from independent local churches to dependence on a ministry publisher (instead of headquarters). At this time I resist using the term evil workers. The leadership did fail the local churches. They do have interests which have and are misguiding saints in the local churches. These interests center on lifting up a man and his ministry.

When I first declared that denominations became what they were, not because of some name, but because of a controlling headquarters, I saw both Anaheim and Cleveland together, with little distinction between them. The dependence on LSM as just a publisher, does little but stock our shelves with books. Anaheim was consulted for all major decisions. So was Cleveland. HQ's provided all direction, determined all teachings, set up all agendas, hosted or directed all conferences and trainings, determined the speakers, became clearinghouses for worker funds, ran trainings or seminaries, appointed elders, etc. Many a local church existed only as a satellite for headquarters. For years, I was part of a "suburb" of Cleveland, then a "suburb" of Anaheim during the mid to late 80's, and then a "suburb" of Cleveland again until today. One sister, whose husband and brother-in-law served FT under TC, made this interesting comment about 5 years ago, "TC is shuffling the deck again," referring to the movement and manipulation of FT'ers.

One of the worst parts of "the work," was the accepted premise that no worker could choose the city where he could live. That decision was made by the senior brother. That condition alone robbed many brothers of the freedom to follow Christ, and Christ alone. But, since the brothers understood this before embarking on their service, one could say that "what's fair is fair."

What is not fair was the mistreatments and abuses the workers were forced to endure, for one and only one reason, that all the glory and power would be centralized in the leader. Any one else could and would be sacrificed to maintain that order. Many brothers, both under the leadership in Anaheim and under the leadership in Cleveland, were gifts from the Head to the body, but became rivals to the leadership, and thus had to be put "in their place." If they decided to speak out against the leader, then they were branded as rebels. This is why I call these leaders evil workers, because of their unrighteous treatment of others.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I first declared that denominations became what they were, not because of some name, but because of a controlling headquarters, I saw both Anaheim and Cleveland together, with little distinction between them. The dependence on LSM as just a publisher, does little but stock our shelves with books. Anaheim was consulted for all major decisions. So was Cleveland. HQ's provided all direction, determined all teachings, set up all agendas, hosted or directed all conferences and trainings, determined the speakers, became clearinghouses for worker funds, ran trainings or seminaries, appointed elders, etc. Many a local church existed only as a satellite for headquarters.

A term Watchman Nee used when I read The Normal Christian Church Life is center. This is how I view Cleveland and Anaheim. Churches that subscribe entirely to these centers may have their meeting format dictated by these ministries. Do these centers control localities in every way? I don't think so. There is limited local administration. There are occassions a center will interject with their fellowship. This fellowship extra-locally influences decison making which does undermine local administration in the manner of group think. If a local church isn't conforming to the group think, it's usefulness as a local church to that center comes to an end. As a result it is evident local churches exist only as a ministry franchise for the center.

Terry

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Overflow

"In the absence of biblical conviction people will go in the way of culture. Culture gives us permission to do whatever we want." I think that this applies to whatever culture we are being influenced by. Back in the day, most of us were deeply entangled with the LC culture due to a lacking of personal biblical conviction!

One danger of "culture and groupthink" came about in the LC's when the ministry imposed upon Americans that their culture was inherently "bad," and in its place often imposed a Chinese culture, which to Americans was supposedly "spiritual" because it was foreign to them. One example was the celebration of holidays, another was in the marital relationships, and the treatment of women.

The statement, "Culture gives us permission to do whatever we want," must have a limited scope, don't you think? One horrific example in our culture is abortion. The laws, the government, the media -- our whole culture -- promotes all the "benefits" of abortion. But we Christians are fighting an upward battle for our youth -- within our churches, our families, and our schools -- to provide another "culture" for our youth.

Overflow, your comment about "lacking of personal biblical conviction!," has merit. Another shortage for us was the "lacking of personal family conviction!" It seems the LC was the most damaging to those who lacked both personal biblical conviction and solid family relationships. I definitely qualified for both. All of us who placed the church above our family did indeed suffer much. Groupthink produced a kind of atmosphere where it was somehow "unspiritual" to spend quality time with one's family.

I remember early on, one young brother in his mid-20's, about my age at the time, who had two small kids, and had spent his free nights caring for personal family related things during the past week. On Saturday, when we were together serving, the older brother "interrogated" him and then shamed him in front of several of us other brothers, humiliating him for having a "naked and barren" week. None of us dared to speak up. Fear often gripped us in a "state of consecration." Groupthink in action. I really loved that brother. We had migrated together with others to start a campus church. The dear brother and his family were soon gone.

[Cal]

One thing that's now funny was the claim that any culture was inherently bad along with the claim that the LC had no culture or that its culture was "Christ."

This is so preposterous in retrospect as to be laughable. The LC may have had a very bland culture, but it certainly had an extremely strong culture. In fact, I would make the claim that the strength of a culture is directly proportional to the amount of peer pressure present in it. And the LC, on a peer pressure scale of one to ten, was about a thirteen.

Culture isn't inherently bad any more than habit is inherently bad. Culture is just corporate habit. The question should rather be: Is the culture a hindrance, a help or simply benign? I can understand an exhortation that "Christ should be our culture," but who knows whether or not Christ wants us to celebrate birthdays and holidays? I see nothing wrong or detrimental with either. In fact, I see certain benefits.

On the other hand, I see many detriments in LC culture, cocksure claims of it being "Christ" notwithstanding.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another shortage for us was the "lacking of personal family conviction!" It seems the LC was the most damaging to those who lacked both personal biblical conviction and solid family relationships. I definitely qualified for both. All of us who placed the church above our family did indeed suffer much. Groupthink produced a kind of atmosphere where it was somehow "unspiritual" to spend quality time with one's family.

I often considered how come so many children raised in the local churches are no longer meeting in the local churches? One answer is to make the ministry more important than the family life. Not taking the time to know their children, to nurture, to listen, etc.

Terry

[OBW]

I will begin to take on Igzy's last question. "Can you come up with a definition of oneness that doesn't require going along with the crowd and groupthink?"

Oneness in Christ, not in books
Oneness in Christ, not in headquarters (with or without)
Oneness in Christ, not in doctrine
Oneness in Christ, not in look
Oneness in Christ, not in culture
Oneness in Christ, not in assembly
Oneness in Christ, not in opinion

The list goes on. Even taking Paul's exhortation that we all speak the same thing was not a call for uniformity, but for transformation. If any of the things that are not Christ become one, it is because of Christ, not because of the edict of man. To the extent that oneness outside of Christ is unimportant (and that extent is surely vast) then the differences are irrelevant and only Christ matters.

In Christ, I am one with those in my own assembly with which I do not agree on every point. In Christ, I am one with those in another assembly with which we definitionally disagree on certain things. In Christ, I am one with those who practice contemporary worship, traditional worship, liturgical worship, charismatic worship, and any other style.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will begin to take on Igzy's last question. "Can you come up with a definition of oneness that doesn't require going along with the crowd and groupthink?"

Oneness in Christ, not in books
Oneness in Christ, not in headquarters (with or without)
Oneness in Christ, not in doctrine
Oneness in Christ, not in look
Oneness in Christ, not in culture
Oneness in Christ, not in assembly
Oneness in Christ, not in opinion

The list goes on. Even taking Paul's exhortation that we all speak the same thing was not a call for uniformity, but for transformation. If any of the things that are not Christ become one, it is because of Christ, not because of the edict of man. To the extent that oneness outside of Christ is unimportant (and that extent is surely vast) then the differences are irrelevant and only Christ matters.

In Christ, I am one with those in my own assembly with which I do not agree on every point. In Christ, I am one with those in another assembly with which we definitionally disagree on certain things. In Christ, I am one with those who practice contemporary worship, traditional worship, liturgical worship, charismatic worship, and any other style.

Mike,

Good start. But I'm going to play the devil's advocate with you. How do you then interpret the verses that say things like "thinking the one thing," "being of one accord," "that you all agree with one another," and so forth? These are the verses the LSM/LC will use to defend what the article identifies as groupthink, and what I call going along with the crowd.

Let me start. I think such verses are telling us to more or less focus on what we can agree on-- instead of focusing on what we don't agree on--rather that telling us to totally drop those things.

What say you?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mike,

Good start. But I'm going to play the devil's advocate with you. How do you then interpret the verses that say things like "thinking the one thing," "being of one accord," "that you all agree with one another," and so forth? These are the verses the LSM/LC will use to defend what the article identifies as groupthink, and what I call going along with the crowd.

Let me start. I think such verses are telling us to more or less focus on what we can agree on-- instead of focusing on what we don't agree on--rather that telling us to totally drop those things.

What say you?

I would first say that you are probably onto something. My thoughts went a different way, but I do not necessarily disagree with you.

It is so difficult to say that Paul intended for everyone to absolutely agree on all doctrines when he did not really spend that much time discussing many of them. He spent most of his time talking about practical application of living the Christian life, not providing better sound bites for apologetics debates. He said to quit thinking you are better than someone else, or quit thinking that your freedom is a license to sin. It was not about deep theological topics, but the core of our faith and the life it was intended to create in and through us. When you read through many of those discussions, it is easy to hear Jesus’ words when he said that all of the law hinges upon loving God and loving others. That is more the content of Paul’s discussions than any particular agreement. It was less about agreeing and more about loving.

When we read “that you all agree with one another” why do we automatically think that means that we are to dig into the deepest things, argue a position, then have everyone line up behind that position? When I look at the things Paul spent his time discussing, it was not about whether you should or should not eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols, but to take care of your brother who might think differently. It wasn’t about the method by which people were baptized, but was about the unifying facts that baptism gave to all who have partaken. It was not about which teachers were the best ones, but to quick bickering about them. It was not that you wear certain clothes and read the same books, but that they present a unified front to the world.

Being of one accord does not indicate abdication of reason coupled with absolute agreement, but rather a determination for unity despite potential differences. Does anyone think that everyone was absolutely clear concerning what to tell the Gentiles in Acts 15? Probably not, but the sense of how to proceed came out and all stood behind it despite any thoughts to the contrary. There is nothing that says that they had all agreed before the decision was reached. But it was what went out. And Paul never denied anyone the right to practice circumcision, or to eat or refrain from eating meat, or observe or not observe days. Instead, he pointed them to tolerance for those who took a different position in practice. He also put restraint upon those who were stronger in the faith to watch out for those who were weaker. To require adherence to one way is to ignore all those things and to trample on the weaknesses of others.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Being of one accord does not indicate abdication of reason coupled with absolute agreement, but rather a determination for unity despite potential differences. Does anyone think that everyone was absolutely clear concerning what to tell the Gentiles in Acts 15? Probably not, but the sense of how to proceed came out and all stood behind it despite any thoughts to the contrary. There is nothing that says that they had all agreed before the decision was reached. But it was what went out. And Paul never denied anyone the right to practice circumcision, or to eat or refrain from eating meat, or observe or not observe days. Instead, he pointed them to tolerance for those who took a different position in practice. He also put restraint upon those who were stronger in the faith to watch out for those who were weaker. To require adherence to one way is to ignore all those things and to trample on the weaknesses of others.

Mike, one chapter of empasizing oneness is in Ephesians 4. In practice reason is abdicated in order to remain in one accord. Brothers are quaraintined just because "brother so and so said so". That is abidcating reason in order to remain one with the brothers. No proof or justification is required. This is not what Paul intended in his epistles. Remember all scripture is God-Breathed and profitable for teaching. A point Paul made in one of this epistles was not stumbling his brother. If a brother eats meat or deson't eat meat, don't make eating meat or not eating meat a point to be in one accord.

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... much of the emphasis over the years on "oneness" and the "one accord" had other motives in mind. These items became vehicles employed to silence internal critiques which were then desperately needed.

.... Some of the most rotten things in church history were done in the name of "oneness." A oneness the Lord never had in mind when He prayed on His last day.

When we look at the present day LC's and how far down they have spiraled, perhaps the single most important factor is "oneness with the ministry."

Forgive me if I repetitively beat my small drum here, but if you want an exemplar of "oneness" that is not of God's heart, look at Revelation 13:17, where no one could buy or sell unless they had the mark of the beast. This is a perfect example of an externally imposed "oneness". "Headquarters has decided (in order to avoid confusion, and maintain good order, naturally) that all transactions must have the approved seal upon them in order to take place."

Now, look at Rev. 13:17, then look over at the current "one publication/one ministry/one move of the Lord" scene in the current LCs, and tell me if that particular shoe doesn't fit uncomfortably well? Ironic that the LCs were so strong against the RCC, and then they fell into the same trap.

Okay, what is oneness? I have a suggestion: Jesus is the Lord! If you say, "Amen!" then I propose that we are one, regardless of the other stuff we are currently, and slowly, working through. If you can't give me an "amen", then sorry, I guess I don't have your portion and you don't have mine.

[TLFisher]

I thought I would bring this thread back up for some of our newer members and lurkers who might be interested in this article.

No matter is we agree or disagree with our brothers in Anaheim or Cleveland, we all are one in Christ. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

It's when you get into peripheral matters or issues, there is no consensus. If you don't line up with the brother's group think or one accord, they will have problems with your concepts. You are not wanted to have an opinion, except theirs; which is the group think. When you get down to it, it is the group think that becomes the measuring stick for accepting or rejecting fellow members of the Body of Christ.