Against the LC Practice of Prophesying

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To me, I don't think the issue is so much that they are encouraging or pushing inexperienced brothers to speak, it's that they don't take into consideration who would really be best to fit that role. Moving beyond just the young FTTA graduates, it's a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere in the LC. They seem to think that any "active" brother is a good candidate to be trained in who to speak a short message or more than just something in a prophesying meeting. The problem is that just because someone is handed an outline and told what to speak that doesn't mean that they are going to do a good job. Some times I've seen brothers just read off an outline, and it was obvious that there was a disconnect to the outline that they were supposed to be speaking from.

I still feel it is profitable to give every brother some opportunity to speak publicly for the Lord in a local church setting. Time will manifest whether he has been gifted by the Lord. What about those who get saved in college or afterwards, and never had the chance to go to a Christian college or seminary?

I know OBW gets heartburn every time I mention something positive about LC practices, but that's what I have concluded. The most serious failures of LC leadership were not initially their teachings or practices, but their abuses, coverups of their unrighteousness, and corruption.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it. OBW I'll send you some Tums.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I still feel it is profitable to give every brother some opportunity to speak publicly for the Lord in a local church setting. Time will manifest whether he has been gifted by the Lord. What about those who get saved in college or afterwards, and never had the chance to go to a Christian college or seminary?

I know OBW gets heartburn every time I mention something positive about LC practices, but that's what I have concluded. The most serious failures of LC leadership were not initially their teachings or practices, but their abuses, coverups of their unrighteousness, and corruption.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it. OBW I'll send you some Tums.

Just as I hear in local church settings, criticism of non-LSM churches that employ a pastor there's the reverse criticism; a word of caution towards the practice of everyone speaking. Some may speak an edifying word according to the Word, but there runs the risk of speaking differently from the Word. It's alarming there's no checks and balances in place against "speaking differently".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I know OBW gets heartburn every time I mention something positive about LC practices, but that's what I have concluded.

You can save your Tums. I don't get heartburn. But I think I am seeing something that is worth at least considering. And it is not that everything about the LCM was wrong, evil, or corrupt. It is that the primary source of anything that caused there to be a LCM — Nee and Lee, now propped-up by the BBs, kind of like Bernie — did not pass the qualifications to actually be a minister of the Word no matter how gifted they may have seemed to be, therefore the group that collected around them should just back away and, in the words of Officer Barbrady "move along . . . there's nothing to see here."

I am not saying that the people should necessarily disband entirely. But they need new leadership and a new focus. If they can truly get it on their own, then OK. But my fear is that there is nothing to be gained to sticking together separate from others except for a lack of clarity on what is still hanging on you/us that needs to be removed. As long as we remain isolated from the rest of Christianity, it will be a fight to get sober. Like continuing to go to the bar while resisting the urge to drink.

And just like not everything that goes on at a bar is not bad, neither is everything that goes on in the LCM. And not every teaching of the LCM is bad. But to what extent are we still affected by Lee's leaven that is permeating even seemingly good and normal teachings. Do we still think of almost every teaching just a little different from how others see it. And it bothers us? Where did the difference come from? And how likely are you to figure it out if your source is still from the inside.

And I know that you are no longer on the inside. And over time — starting before you left all the way up to now — you are seeing different things that you did not see 6 years ago . . . 4 years ago . . . last year . . . even last month or yesterday.

I've been out for almost 28 years and I still see differences during the past year. But do you think I would be seeing it if I was still clinging to what I learned there? Outside of a real sense of friendship and fellowship which is somewhat difficult to duplicate, I'm not sure I really want what I learned there if I haven't come across it on the outside since. And that extra special fellowship may have been the result of all us prisoners sticking together. (Yeah, I know. Probably a little extreme, and I'm not sure I buy it either. But I don't think it was really about what Lee taught us. It was about who we were.)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I still feel it is profitable to give every brother some opportunity to speak publicly for the Lord in a local church setting. Time will manifest whether he has been gifted by the Lord. What about those who get saved in college or afterwards, and never had the chance to go to a Christian college or seminary?

I know OBW gets heartburn every time I mention something positive about LC practices, but that's what I have concluded. The most serious failures of LC leadership were not initially their teachings or practices, but their abuses, coverups of their unrighteousness, and corruption.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it. OBW I'll send you some Tums.

But profitable for what? We weren't building up something of God, we were building up Witness Lee's personal empire. Which is now the Blended Brothers' personal empire. Which was supposed to have become Titus Chu's personal empire (at least in his mind).

And we were also building up little fiefdoms within the little empires.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But profitable for what? We weren't building up something of God, we were building up Witness Lee's personal empire. Which is now the Blended Brothers' personal empire. Which was supposed to have become Titus Chu's personal empire (at least in his mind).

And we were also building up little fiefdoms within the little empires.

Profitable for me personally, and the saints i loved. Helping me as a young, self-conscious kid to mature. Challenging me to study the word until i was able to speak it to others, and praying to the Lord until i found inspiration and the anointing of the Spirit.

I will always treasure that entire dynamic. It had nothing to do with some remote headquarters. It was all together wrapped with me, the Bible, the Lord, and my local audience.

And those brothers and sisters around me, who went through the same labor dynamic, were tremendously beneficial to my learning, growth, and encouragement.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Profitable for me personally, and the saints i loved. Helping me as a young, self-conscious kid to mature. Challenging me to study the word until i was able to speak it to others, and praying to the Lord until i found inspiration and the anointing of the Spirit.

But what did "profitable for me personally" really get us? Better hooks to draw us back. An itch that could only be scratched at the tree in the middle of the "prophesying" times in the LCM?

Yes there was the challenge to know why we believed what we did. But even in those days when we were challenged to study the word to support it, was it really the word that we studied, or Lee's version, or his interpretation of it? If the challenge still exists today to study the un-interpreted word and you grow away from that rotten core, then I can agree. But I cannot assume that everyone manages to become so free of the hooks that are there.

And what was the indicator that we had the inspiration and anointing of the Lord and the Spirit? Too often feedback from others who were mired in the same cesspool. The ones that are still there defending the very things that eventually drove you out.

I am convinced that even though it has been a few years now, you are still too close to the leeks and garlic of the LCM and think that it is valuable.

I know that you don't want to consider that this might be a possibility. That prefer what Steve I wants, and that is everything Lee taught except Deputy Authority and maybe the ground and none of the unrighteous shenanigans. But everything else. You have not seen the traces of Lee's errors that dwell in so many of the even the most benign, normal teachings that we are convinced align with the rest of Christianity.

It is a package deal. Basic salvation may not have been polluted. But even maybe that was. Do you really think that saying three words "Oh Lord Jesus" actually saves you? There is power in the words only if you understand what they mean and you mean them when you say it. If it is merely three words that someone gets you excited enough to repeat a few times, louder each time due to the response of the crowd, are you sure that there was any declaration that Jesus was Lord, even for a moment, in that person's thinking, belief, or life?

But we had a better way. It is everywhere. You saw the bullying. You saw the results of the teachings. If Paul were here today he would speak to the church in [city] and say "instruct some not to teach differently. They are teaching things that result in bullies, fears, pride, and hero worship rather than the orderly working out of God's kingdom, which is by faith."

The problem is that it is not the odd teacher under the oversight of a Timothy that is teaching those wrong things. It is every teacher in the place. Not because they are always willful participants in the errors, but because they have been duped into believing it all. Our Timothy, and for that matter, Paul, were the source of the errant teachings. There was no one guarding the sheep against the wolves. The wolves were the lead shepherds.

You have to reject the source of the error. And it is Lee. And, unfortunately, it is the local elders no matter how honorable they would be in a different system.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

But we had a better way. It is everywhere. You saw the bullying. You saw the results of the teachings. If Paul were here today he would speak to the church in [city] and say "instruct some not to teach differently. They are teaching things that result in bullies, fears, pride, and hero worship rather than the orderly working out of God's kingdom, which is by faith."

The problem is that it is not the odd teacher under the oversight of a Timothy that is teaching those wrong things. It is every teacher in the place. Not because they are always willful participants in the errors, but because they have been duped into believing it all. Our Timothy, and for that matter, Paul, were the source of the errant teachings. There was no one guarding the sheep against the wolves. The wolves were the lead shepherds.

You have to reject the source of the error. And it is Lee. And, unfortunately, it is the local elders no matter how honorable they would be in a different system.

When someone such as myself has spent their whole life in the LC, this is much easier said than done. The second problem is what to disregard and what, if anything, to hold onto. I think for anyone who experienced salvation in a LC environment, that experience is something that will always be viewed positively. I can think of some positive LC experiences thereafter as well. I might be inclined to attribute some of my positive experiences to some of what Lee taught, but to be honest I can't be so sure as to whether his teachings ever resulted in that or not. The problem for me is if I just disregard those positive experiences, where do I end up? It just makes things all the more confusing. No matter how disillusioned with the LC I am, what I've experienced in the LC (both the good and the bad) will be with me for as long as I'm alive.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When someone such as myself has spent their whole life in the LC, this is much easier said than done. The second problem is what to disregard and what, if anything, to hold onto. I think for anyone who experienced salvation in a LC environment, that experience is something that will always be viewed positively. I can think of some positive LC experiences thereafter as well. I might be inclined to attribute some of my positive experiences to some of what Lee taught, but to be honest I can't be so sure as to whether his teachings ever resulted in that or not. The problem for me is if I just disregard those positive experiences, where do I end up? It just makes things all the more confusing. No matter how disillusioned with the LC I am, what I've experienced in the LC (both the good and the bad) will be with me for as long as I'm alive.

No one would suggest that you disregard your salvation. When I mentioned in some post a potential problem with those get-them-excited-to-stand-and-say-Oh-Lord-Jesus, it does not mean that those persons are never saved. But when they walk out the door and go back to their old life and never really look back, is it reasonable to declare that they were actually saved? If just saying the words is enough, then the answer is "yes." But is just saying the words enough? That is the real questions.

As for positive experiences, I cannot comment on experiences of anyone. But to let experiences be the guidepost for what you think about the place you were sitting when you had the experience, or the quality of the teachings that were being dished out at the time, or in general by the place where you had the experience is to allow your emotions and feelings to define what is and what is not of God. Getting saved in the LCM does not make it a reasonable place to remain as a Christian. But it also does not taint your salvation. Salvation is between you and God. It cannot be taken away by a wealth of lousy teachings in your proximity.

That the whole of your LCM experience will be with you for your entire life, even if you walk away today, is a fact. It is the same with almost anything about our lives. But at the same time, everything that we have been through does not necessarily define us or rule us for all of our lives. I know that it is not necessarily a popular analogy, but it can be applied positively.

A recovered alcoholic (who will refer to him/herself as an alcoholic for the rest of their life) has a lot of experience. It includes everything that led to their problem, the darkest times in the emotional/spiritual/physical hell that comes with it, the typically lengthy struggle to come out of that, and then the period of recovery and sobriety (always one day at a time). Life will always include everything that is experienced in all phases of that. And even the darkest times will provide experiences that can be drawn upon years later for various positive reasons. For example as a reminder not to go there again, or as a basis for helping others who are in the midst of those struggles, or seem to be heading in that direction.

Many of the experiences are negative. Many are positive. All remain with us forever. And all are useful in our continued life. But that does not make the dark experiences positive. Only what we gained from them is positive. The night spent in jail is not positive. The wake-up call that it brought may be.

Our experiences in the LCM are similar, yet different from that. The environment and the core teachings are problems. Yet despite that, we can have positive experiences of Christ, positive experiences of fellowship with other believers, even transition from darkness to light through salvation. But the wealth of leaven around us was not the reason that we had the experiences. There are other reasons. The wealth of leaven around us is the reason that we should seek to find our teaching elsewhere. It does not necessarily negate positive experiences. But neither should the existence of positive experiences be the reason that we stick around in the leaven bin.

At some level is an example of confusing correlation for causation. Is the fact that you were in the LCM when you had the experience evidence that the LCM actually had anything to do with it other than being in the proximity, or being the collection of people with which you had the experience. The LCM is (or at least was) a group seeking experiences. It was the reason for the exuberance. (All this despite our own declarations that feelings are not facts.) So there are reasons to question whether some of the experiences are real and from God, or are the result of the environment that was seeking an experience. That was ready to declare those training banners until they got dizzy from the excitement. But even if you determine that all of your were truly from God, was the LCM responsible for them. Or were they simply there at the same time.

And my reason for asking is that if you have a positive experience while under the tutelage of a horribly unqualified (in Paul's terms, not some seminary's) person for his position, it does not mean that you should keep learning from the disqualified source.

Some are just sure that I am simply trying to discredit Lee at every turn. But at this point, I believe that Lee has discredited himself. And the only thing I seek to do is to cause anyone who will to stop for a minute or two and check whether they can declare with certainty that sticking around the LCM, or that any credit to the LCM, is worth the risks and consequences.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But what did "profitable for me personally" really get us? Better hooks to draw us back. An itch that could only be scratched at the tree in the middle of the "prophesying" times in the LCM?

Sometimes I think you are so obsessed with Lee's faults that you can't see anything objectively. Even Christian psychologists warn of the dangers of looking back with only bitterness and rancor. Doesn't God work all things for good? Are you so bothered that I would remember anything positive in my LC experience?

Originally Posted by OBW

And what was the indicator that we had the inspiration and anointing of the Lord and the Spirit? Too often feedback from others who were mired in the same cesspool. The ones that are still there defending the very things that eventually drove you out. I am convinced that even though it has been a few years now, you are still too close to the leeks and garlic of the LCM and think that it is valuable.

And how do we know that what you post has any value? How do we know whether or not your mind has been pickled in the AOG/LCM/IBC brines, and not God's word? I have no idea whether you had any inspiration and anointing of the Lord and the Spirit. But I can speak for myself, and I get a little disturbed with this OBW shadow following me around and claiming my thoughts are "mired in the same cesspool." Does it disturb you that much that I say anything good about that place? Get over it bro!

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a package deal. Basic salvation may not have been polluted. But even maybe that was. Do you really think that saying three words "Oh Lord Jesus" actually saves you? There is power in the words only if you understand what they mean and you mean them when you say it.

And where in the world did i ever say that? I have never heard anyone say that, not even Lee. I have always said that we are saved by grace thru faith. (Eph 2.8) If you are going to refute this statement taken out of context, then why don't you also go after "the sinner's prayer." Do you really think that someone can repeat a few words off a sheet of paper and be actually saved?

Read Romans 10.13 and tell me what it says. Are you telling me that no one has ever been saved during a calamity by crying out to God?

[Cal]

RE: Ohio and OBW discussion.

Saying you got some good out of something is not the same as recommending it to others. I probably have gotten some good from Taco Bell, but I wouldn't go around recommending it because there are better restaurants.

Most of us got some good from the LCM, some of which may have been difficult to get elsewhere. The basic healthy teachings of the Brethren and the inner life teachers are only recently finding their way into the mainstream, forty years after we heard them.

What I still take with me from the LCM that is precious is that God is in me as the Spirit close and available with all his Triune riches for me to enjoy. I'm not saying you couldn't get something similar somewhere else now, but you'd probably have to wait or dig for it. I also got a great appreciation of the generality of the Church and the equal status of the members. The idea of generality is now in the mainstream, but only with the advent of the community church movement, which is only about 20 or so years old.

Now, both these things eventually got distorted in the LCM, almost beyond recognition. But that didn't stop God from impressing me with the essential TRUTH of these matters and of others, which has remained after the dross of unnecessary LCM enhancements was burned away.

Like I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore anyway, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

That's right. The good is long gone. Kind of like Taco Bell. I remember back in the mid-70's going with some friends there. I had a great chicken burrito supreme. What a great first impression! Then I tried it a few more times, and it was just not the same. Never went back. Maybe it was just good because I had the munchies.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Anyway, the LCM I got good out of doesn't exist anymore, so I couldn't recommend it if I wanted to.

I couldn't agree with you more. Not since 1986 in my experience. Now the LCM is just a shadow of what it used to be.

What I can recommend is to read Leading with Love by Alexander Strauch. In my opinion this book trumps anything Living Stream can publish.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying you got some good out of something is not the same as recommending it to others. I probably have gotten some good from Taco Bell, but I wouldn't go around recommending it because there are better restaurants.

Most of us got some good from the LCM, some of which may have been difficult to get elsewhere. The basic healthy teachings of the Brethren and the inner life teachers are only recently finding their way into the mainstream, forty years after we heard them.

But we are not just a bunch of exes, talking about what was before, understanding that we are not going back there. We are speaking in front of those who are needing to understand why they don't want to stay there. And while the past two days may not have had a comment about Lee as a gifted minister, it is a fairly regular statement made by some of our most regular exes and some newer ones.

Do we really think that? And is the challenge as to whether it is true so reprehensible that rather than think about it, we shoot at the messenger?

And when positive experiences are mentioned, are they clearly isolated from what we want to reiterate is just cause to reject Lee?

I have raised the issue of Paul's words concerning reasons for instructing or rejecting/refuting teachers and so far I can find no reason to exclude Nee or Lee from one or both of these categories. And no one has really given me a reason to rethink it besides pointing to something that they consider to be truth that Lee taught. But even if I agree on that particular point, does it excuse Lee from the general restraints on the ministers/teachers we should listen to?

So if an apparently great chef is working in a restaurant making really great dishes, but worked into virtually everything is just a hint of arsenic — not enough to kill, but enough to damage you and harm you a little — do we continue to recommend that restaurant after we discover the truth about it? (Arsenic may not be the best example since you can actually develop some tolerance for it rather than just getting slowly sicker and dying.)

I ask the question. If you don't want a discussion, don't respond. I am not in the habit of chasing around people who ignore what I say. Or if you respond that you don't care and don't want to discuss it, that is fine.

But just as you think it is not harmful to give out kudos to Lee and the LCM for certain things, if I disagree, am I precluded from expressing my disagreement? If I am, then I am being required to sit quietly while you and others say what I can only regard are potentially damaging statements without anyone providing any kind of challenge to it. If you don't want to take on the challenge, don't. But don't think that it means that others should not have the ability to assess both sides for themselves. Silence me and you silence a position that is tied to the Word. Ohio just challenged whether I had really considered and prayed about it. I have considered it over a fairly long period of time. It has been prayed about.

Maybe I should ask the same thing in reverse. Have any of you considered and prayed about whether it is a good idea to continue to suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word? Or just a naturally gifted speaker that captured all of us at one time or another?

Or would you rather I just shut up and allow my ideas to fall back into the threads that are on the third page back of languishing threads and eventually be lost in antiquity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sometimes I think you are so obsessed with Lee's faults that you can't see anything objectively. Even Christian psychologists warn of the dangers of looking back with only bitterness and rancor. Doesn't God work all things for good? Are you so bothered that I would remember anything positive in my LC experience?

You mistake what I believe is reasonable warning against a truly unqualified teacher. Paul would have rejected him in a heartbeat long before he arrived in the US. And probably would have done the same with Nee before he hardly had his first little church.

Yes, God works all things for good. But continuing to comment on Lee and/or Nee as "gifted ministers" is contrary to the very declaration that Paul would make that we never should have listened to them in the first place. It is true that we had insufficient information at that time to do that. But while it is hindsight, it is valuable to those who are still there, or who might seek to return or to pine after what we think was so great about the time.

God uses all things. But that does not mean that he orchestrates them to happen so that he can use them. Surely he does at times. But very often, he just uses what he gets. I am skeptical that he intended for any of us to spend time in Lee's garlic room. That does not mean that I dispute anyone's salvation while there. Or declare that they had nothing positive within that time. But on the whole (not necessarily in every detail or situation) I do not believe that we were all positively directed to this place by God so that we could have this experience for God to use for our good. Yet surely he did use it.

And he used the experience of stopping in at the legal whore house in Nevada. But are you ready to declare that it was God's intent that whoever that applies to was there sovereignly so that God could use it? Or is in fact one of those things that God gets to use because that is what we hand him to use?

Don't like the example? It is very real. So why is an experience of being in a church that messed with our minds with respect to right thinking and practice concerning God something that we should simply declare that God intended to use for our good rather than it was just one among many things in our lives that was what he got to use? I can't find that it makes being there positive. Just an alternative way of saying that we were actually there. And yes, we really were there. So that is what God got to use.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does it disturb you that much that I say anything good about that place? Get over it bro!

It is not just that you say anything good about the place. It is that you are among a few that continue to say that Lee was some gifted minister. He was a gifted speaker, but that is not the same as being a gifted minister of the Word. I think that we are allowing the fact that he did not simply jettison the Bible outright and teach an entirely different religion as evidence that his errors, both theological and practical, would not have Paul writing to have Lee removed from any kind of teaching role.

So I think it is worthy of a challenge. Can you accept it as a challenge and explain why you think I am wrong rather than just complaining that you don't like it? Are you unable to refute that Lee falls into the category of those who are feeding their belly in a manner that Paul points out. Or that he is teaching myths and endless genealogies along with truth? Do you think Paul would have tolerated that?

Don't bother just complaining. I think that it is a legitimate point worthy of consideration. You don't even have to respond. Just consider. And I am not just following you around. But you have provided a couple of comments I see as problematic in an environment that concerns itself with the errors of the LCM. I believe that is worthy of comment in return. Shall I ignore it just because it is you?

Get over it, bro!

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where in the world did I ever say that? I have never heard anyone say that, not even Lee. I have always said that we are saved by grace thru faith. (Eph 2.8) If you are going to refute this statement taken out of context, then why don't you also go after "the sinner's prayer." Do you really think that someone can repeat a few words off a sheet of paper and be actually saved?

just saying the sinner's prayer does not save you. And I know that there are probably some times when people who are just too nice to tell some gospel preacher to go away that they go through the words to get rid of them.

Unlike Benson Phillips (who I believe is at least one that I have heard directly say that just because they said the words, they are now saved whether they like it or not), I believe that true belief and repentance is required. While we make statements about three words, those words imply so much that it is virtually impossible to think that they could be meaningful in isolation where it does not include repentance and true belief. To declare otherwise is to strip the words of their full meaning. Satan knows and believes that Jesus is Lord. But it is doing him no good. Even the belief has to be toward Jesus as the one who saves and then stands as Lord of our life.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read Romans 10.13 and tell me what it says. Are you telling me that no one has ever been saved during a calamity by crying out to God?

This is a classic strawman. I did not say that calling on the Lord with those three words or a close alternative cannot save you. I said that it is not necessarily so that merely saying the words results in salvation. The real crying-out to God is always responded to, no matter how many or how few words. But the repetition of words without any real thought of what it means is not a profession of belief. It is an exercise in speaking your lines in a play.

And since you bother to pull this one out, it might seem that you have now said exactly what I did not say that you specifically have ever said, but the generic "you" of the LCM. At least at the level of the teachers who decided that it was all they needed to do in those gospel meetings.

I dare say that you do not actually mean that. So I do not need you to refute it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

God uses all things. But that does not mean that he orchestrates them to happen so that he can use them. Surely he does at times. But very often, he just uses what he gets. I am skeptical that he intended for any of us to spend time in Lee's garlic room. That does not mean that I dispute anyone's salvation while there. Or declare that they had nothing positive within that time. But on the whole (not necessarily in every detail or situation) I do not believe that we were all positively directed to this place by God so that we could have this experience for God to use for our good. Yet surely he did use it.

Looking back, it was like going into a Grateful Dead rock concert: it was an overwhelming sensory experience, of spirit, soul, and body. And I had a lot of fun, and lived to tell about it, but both of those things are probably due to the mercy of God more than any inherent "goodness" of the experience itself. The very spirit associated with this group, the more I look at it, the less I like it. Everything seemed to be scriptural, or at least was presented that way. And everything, upon reflection, was shot through (leavened) with something else. What there was pure? What escaped "the rich ministry"? In the end, it was "get out while you still can."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Profitable for me personally, and the saints i loved. Helping me as a young, self-conscious kid to mature. Challenging me to study the word until i was able to speak it to others, and praying to the Lord until i found inspiration and the anointing of the Spirit.

I will always treasure that entire dynamic. It had nothing to do with some remote headquarters. It was all together wrapped with me, the Bible, the Lord, and my local audience.

And those brothers and sisters around me, who went through the same labor dynamic, were tremendously beneficial to my learning, growth, and encouragement.

To me it feels that this practice felt more profitable to me when I was younger and over the years, I felt more and more frustrated with it. So over the years, it didn't feel as profitable as it once was, especially when I saw how it was being carried out. I don't really know though. It's something that I can view both positively and negatively and sometimes I go back and forth about it in my mind.