Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana
Have you read Don’s fellowship on local church history, and how he, with love, reported the pertinent things, the developments, the inclinations of heart in his brothers that later became more clearly manifested? He put matters into perspective as a father and mother might, overseeing the history, carefully, in heart; and with discernment of the meaning and worth publicly of what he was sharing.
|
Steve,
Do you not recall that the two portions that you give are but the beginning of a much longer history that has yet to be completed? Do you recall that he stated (in the forum, not in the chapters) that he was giving the view from what he remembered and thought during the time being reported? In other words, he indicated that as things either changed, or became known later, that would be the place at which it would be entered.
So using Don's unfortunately halted history as evidence of how it should be done is misguided. He chose a manner to report in those chapters. But in his posts, he had more to say. Still only from what he now knew and not just repeating what others had since reported. His way is not "the way to do it." Neither is it a bad way. And if the goal was to reach those who had simply let the long cascade of hiccups be "covered" like Noah in the tent, it is a reasonable approach. Agree with the view of the times. But as time moves forward, reveal some of the behind-the-scenes things that should have raised eyebrows but did not because it was hidden. Eventually reveal the truths concerning things that were behind so many of those sudden "turns" that were blamed for casting so many off at different times.
It is a truthful account.
But it is also a truthful account to discover that what we could think are changes starting in the mid 70s are really just more of the same going back to the 40s. With the truth being that the same man was always there, trying to make money and letting churches bail him out when he failed, but constantly bringing words of honey to entice their ears so they won't just turn on him.
You think we are just throwing stones at a prophet of God — a true apostle. But there is evidence that before he left mainland China we has already well down a path of corruption. Before he rose to the lead, he was likely already disqualified. That makes his voice that of a wolf. Of a charlatan. It really doesn't matter if some of what he mixed in was OK, or even pretty good. Oddly, the things that so many think are his best stuff are the most skewed and unsupported. But he has to many of us fooled. We like his view of things.
Maybe we don't like rose-colored glasses. But we like coke-bottle glasses. We like looking through the eyes of the little man who taught us that elders cannot be challenged. That sexual immorality should be covered at the expense of righteous men. That is the true character of the man that so many thought of as the acting god.
I can't conceive of how it is that you want back into that fellowship.