Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
It's a fresh perspective, actually.
I saw the tail end of the glory days of the 70s in my experience and watched the sharp turn happen.
It still amazes me what happened back then in the name of "the morale" and "the impact" - two completely non-scriptural terms deduced from Lee's interpretation of how "the one accord" might be achieved practically.
But now it's 20 years later and a decade beyond Lee's death.
Being clean of the history, what do you see? And apparently, all you see is the good stuff that still remains. But I think you absolutely have to give a much bigger pass regarding all the entrenched religious practice.
In my locality, I didn't have the experience of sitting through one-person-speaking-everybody-listening meetings. (OK, that's a slight exaggeration because that's what they were actually turning into when I left in the middle of "the New Way" being promoted everywhere else.) There wasn't much religious form at all. It was very unstructured. Virtually every meeting had the character of a prayer meeting and occasionally the "burden" of the meeting was never even accomplished.
But when you come upon them today, and you're given HWMR and instructions on how to "prophesy" and directions about observing seven feasts and such, can someone just look past all that encrusted junk?
Apparently so.
But it's got to be far less attractive overall to new ones and no amount of fasting and prayer can make that one go away.
The new wine busts out of old wineskins every time.
|
Your comments remind of the very reasons that I keep finding myself conflicted about what should happen to the LC. When we look at the general workings of a meeting from back in the 70s, it was new and fresh. And although it may never have been
THE WAY, it was quite attractive.
Then the New Way made it less atractive, and then it became a thoroughly entrenched form that didn't even resemble the one that we had in the 70s that might have been worth keeping.
But those meetings where one person shared provided a way for those whose gift/charge was teaching to provide what the rest of us needs. The only problem is whether what is being taught is worthy of the time allotted. I have great respect for the diligence and care provided by those whose daily toil is in the Word. Of course, most of the sharing back in the LC was not often from their own toil, but from repeating someone else's. (Not saying that is always bad.)
aron just wrote something about the fact that there are psychological issues surrounding all religion. And he is right. I note that there is definitely a "stuck in the past" mentality for some of the older ones where I attend, as well as a kind of dogma in the place of sound faith. Grace is nothing about us. It is strictly some free gift. They haven't read where Paul said (I think in Titus) that grace teaches us to obey.
But while aron was correct, that does not make all psychological issues the same or demand that we either go after all of them or leave them all alone.
The form of meetings in the 60s and 70s was a reasonable pattern to consider. The foundational teachings were similar to most of evangelical Christianity. But the special teachings of Lee are too often questionable (at a minimum). And the structure and operation of the system has developed to the point that it is not a healthy environment for the people that it has collected and taught to disdain anything else.
Except in peculiar assemblies, Baptists may think theirs is the best Christian group, but they live normal lives and are encouraged to seek whatever help they may need in all types of situations. I observe the effects of the admonishment to just call on the Lord more and go to more meetings. The two do not compare. There is something that seems too much like the movie
The Village.