Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends. Personal testimonies are often too personal to be of any value. It is nice to know that God did this and God did that for you in the last week. But that only tells me what God did for you, not what I should do for God. Prophesying is better because it can tell me what I need to do for the next week, not just what God did for you in the last. Testimony is about us, but prophesying is about Christ. We should reject all personal matters when we prophesy and focus on Christ.

I think you have mischaracterized the issue. It is important to realize that before 'prophesying' was ever a standard practice in the LC, WL had already long been a proponent of having a portion of meetings set aside for testimonies. As I have been told, this mostly turned into a platform for the more boisterous members to tell their "sea stories." So it's no surprise then that this kind of practice produced a less-than-desirable outcome. The die-hard LC fanatics would argue that the issue was the content of people's speaking, thus necessitating the practice of 'prophesying' in order to provide 'focus' to the speaking.

From an objective standpoint, however, WL's move to prophesying was just a band-aid on the problem. This is the point which I've tried to make again and again. The LC meeting format just doesn't work in the way that it's intended to. It's not that there's anything wrong with wanting to allow everyone an opportunity to speak, it's just that there's a time and place for that. Even then, just because someone is allowed the freedom to speak doesn't mean they should speak. In the LC, I saw too many examples of people speaking who shouldn't. Even when 'focused' on the same subject (aka HWFMR), unless the speaking is more than mere repetition, all you have is one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways.

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think you have mischaracterized the issue. It is important to realize that before 'prophesying' was ever a standard practice in the LC, WL had already long been a proponent of having a portion of meetings set aside for testimonies. As I have been told, this mostly turned into a platform for the more boisterous members to tell their "sea stories." So it's no surprise then that this kind of practice produced a less-than-desirable outcome. The die-hard LC fanatics would argue that the issue was the content of people's speaking, thus necessitating the practice of 'prophesying' in order to provide 'focus' to the speaking.

From an objective standpoint, however, WL's move to prophesying was just a band-aid on the problem. This is the point which I've tried to make again and again. The LC meeting format just doesn't work in the way that it's intended to. It's not that there's anything wrong with wanting to allow everyone an opportunity to speak, it's just that there's a time and place for that. Even then, just because someone is allowed the freedom to speak doesn't mean they should speak. In the LC, I saw too many examples of people speaking who shouldn't. Even when 'focused' on the same subject (aka HWFMR), unless the speaking is more than mere repetition, all you have is one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways.

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

How is it not an issue with the content? If everyone spoke in the proper way and the proper content why would this not fix the problem?

Let's accept the reality - if we give 100 people the opportunity to speak, a proportion of them will not speak in the right way. The format will not change that.

I see it as a choice between a format which does not let members speak, only the pastor/priest can speak and what they say may be wrong, and a format which lets everyone speak, where a proportion may say the wrong thing.

100 people speaking is not one sermon re-spoken 100 different ways. Normally it is 100 different portions from different aspects of the one sermon. Yes there is overlap on certain topics. But there is also great variety.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So when you talk about the things spoke in other groups that allow 'testimonies', it's easy for you to characterize it as being less-than-desirable, but I find it ironic that you refuse to make the same characterization about the LC.

And in the other places, the so-called testimony meeting is typically an occasional event, not the normal situation for all meetings. In those cases, hearing of the "sea stories" is not necessarily a bad thing. We do need to hear how God is working outside of the gospel efforts that are regularly highlighted in so many churches. Even if it means we hear from those with less than perfect filters, speaking ability, and even understanding of what is really needed or wanted.