Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.
|
There was a time when the Spirit of God was so alive in th LC meetings, at least the 3 LC's I was apart of. It was our practice to give testimonies after the message was given, and those times were so invigorating, refreshing, and enlightening. Perhaps not every testimony, but there is no way to compare the current so-called "
prophecying" practice of repeating Lee's messages to that time.
I can't tell you how many times I heard an opening line starting with, "
BruLeesaid," or another in Ohio, "
Ti'said" for "
Titus said." That's what happens when you ask the congregation to study their messages and repeat them. That must have sounded so weird to guests. Fortunately, or really unfortunately, we never had many guests. Actually we used to have many guests until we were instructed by outsiders what our meetings must look like.