Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all. . . .Therein perhaps lies its power -
|
When you step back and get the tiniest bit of objectivity, the disparities appear quickly. At one point it's all about the local and autonomous assembly, then suddenly it's the "Jerusalem principle" and everyone's talking about consolidation, about "coordination" and "blending". So which is it?
Answer: whatever Leadership wants today. Yesterday's reality was "B", today's reality is "C", and Leadership is always right. That's the unchanging constant. Leadership must always be right. That, my friends, is the basis of Nee and Lee's "good order in the church."
Leadership can flatly contradict itself; just ignore what it said yesterday and give a hearty "amen" to today's speaking. "Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to what is before". Leadership can say one thing and do another, but Leadership is always right - just compartmentalize the disparities and everything will be fine. Ignore any feelings of unease or dissociation, which are temporary and will fade in time.
Leadership can say that today's proposed activity is the move of the Lord, straight from the throne of God, while anyone else doing the exact same thing is criticized as a movement of men. Likewise, other teachings are dismissed as opinions of fallen men, while our Leadership's interpretations and inspirations are pure revelations from God.
Even the Bible can't escape the grip of this cultural vice: scripture that doesn't square with whatever Leadership is promoting today is held to be natural concepts. Today's speaking by Leadership, however, is always oracular - Leadership never has opinions, Leadership has revelations.
So if the Bible says, Remember the poor (Gal 2:10); Leadership can say, "We don't care for that", and guess who prevails? And if Jesus taught, "Give to those who cannot repay you" (Lu 14:12-14; cf Prov 22:9); and the FTTA trainer replies, "Don't waste your time", whose voice prevails? Paul twice encouraged the saints to sing Psalms, calling them the "words of Christ", yet if WL dismissed them as low and without merit, who won the day?
The one constant in all this flip-flopping and whip-sawing, the one solid rock in all these flows and moves and winds of teachings, is that Leadership must always be right. That's the culturally-derived constant that WN and then WL took as having unchallenged validity, truth, or reality. They weren't egomaniacs so much as simply assuming what they'd been culturally conditioned toward. The fact that Paul and other apostles didn't arrange themselves thus wasn't noted - it didn't square with the social construct. Turns out China wasn't virgin soil, after all; no, the gospel made its home there amongst fallen human culture, just as it had everywhere else.
Is it coincidence that if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you'll lose your job? And that likewise anyone in the LC who publicly criticizes or questions WL will lose whatever standing they have, no matter their good character and/or years of faithful service? One simply can't criticize Leadership - it's a cultural imperative. If you break the cultural norm, you'll break the culture, the very fabric of society itself, and what's left? Chaos and darkness. So they choose the prison of culture. Because it's safe; it's all they know. Put a few Bible verses on top of it and nobody will know the difference.