A Future and a Hope

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I see what Ohio quoted as a physical picture of how some saints have been treated. When abuse does happen it is tolerated because of a concept this is an opportunity to take the cross. Maybe I am off, is learning the lesson of the cross to embrace abuse? I do not believe so. Why would abuse be tolerated? I think in part due to the teaching of Submission and Authority at the exclusion of The Character of the Lord’s Worker.

Referring to a quote to Witness Lee, “I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things." Practical Talks to the Elders No. 2 p. 23

Would have been comforting if the ministry quote was more than just words.

I view this quote by WL as total hypocrisy. Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ... WL talking out both sides of his mouth, having it both ways, breaking all the rules and then blaming others.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I view this quote by WL as total hypocrisy. Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ... WL talking out both sides of his mouth, having it both ways, breaking all the rules and then blaming others.

I agree. When I read statements like that from WL it truly makes me wonder about his touch with reality, because it is so contradictory to his actual bottom line. Simply put, those that spoke up got shot. How could he encourage messengers on the one hand and shoot them on the other? It just makes no sense. I guess it will always be a mystery to me.

[Cal]

I guess the highest compliment I can pay John on chapter 14 is that its relevance and value are not limited to those associated with the LCs.

In fact, I sent the excerpt below to all my pastors and some other church leaders. I've already received positive feedback. (We count ourselves as a seeker-sensitive church. Although I must say we've avoided most, though not all, of the errors John sheds light on.)

Halfway through the twentieth century, seekers began complaining that in the hands of the religious faithful, the truth had become like beef jerky. It was beef, certainly enough, but religious traditionalists had cooked it to the point of being hard, inaccessible, and all but indigestible to the common man. The response from contemporary church growth gurus was a pendulum swing to the opposite pole, with too much attention paid to felt needs and relevance. These heralds of the new approach served up “how-to” seminars, sold experiences, promised riches and blessings of various kinds, and utilized the scriptures to teach what has been called deistic therapy (the use of theology for the primary goal of bolstering self-image). Still others saw the pulpit as a means of advancing social agendas and politics. The theology employed fell below being seeker-sensitive and became noticeably sinner-sensitive, avoiding themes that would convict listeners of righteousness and judgment.

These alternate recipes captured attendants and gathered them into mushrooming mega-churches by the thousands. However, their eventual long-term effects have been called onto the carpet. Statistical analyses have shown that disciples (serious, spiritual, and service-oriented Christians) were not being produced.

Fairly speaking, the ideals of the seeker sensitive approach were landmark discoveries. The people who perfected them to a high science had grown tired of the church being a country club for the righteous. Their course corrections made the Christian gathering a less threatening place for the lost. Yet, a consumer-oriented mindset slowly invaded this approach. Congregations found themselves pandering to the appetites of the very people they hoped to save. As a result, too many cues were taken from the ranks of the non-committed to answer questions like “What do you guys want the church to be?” or “What would you like us to preach?”

The inevitable reaction was on the way. A new generation of ministers in the nineties began to perceive this downward slide, and responded by throttling back on seeker sensitive attitudes. They realized that in some cases, the church had surrendered important scriptural ground.

But rather than dismiss seeker sensitivity altogether, church planters developed toward a logical next phase: contextualization. That meant presenting the Word of God in a context and setting recognizable to the prevailing culture without pulling any punches in the message itself. This trend to date has yielded an explosion of domestic church planting activity. Most of it has been effective in cultural settings as diverse as hipster, suburban, inner city, and rural contexts. Blessing always seems to rest upon the simple opening of the Bible, even when it includes all of the politically incorrect and cringe-worthy parts.

Plenty of new high profile ministries capture this fire. The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, and Sovereign Grace, are a few that have had a tremendous influence among Christians, as well as new networks that spring into existence practically every month. These brim with youth who love to exegete the Word in the midst of missional life.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree. When I read statements like that from WL it truly makes me wonder about his touch with reality, because it is so contradictory to his actual bottom line. Simply put, those that spoke up got shot. How could he encourage messengers on the one hand and shoot them on the other? It just makes no sense. I guess it will always be a mystery to me.

The only things that makes sense to me is James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

What was Witness Lee, if not a "double minded man"? There were so many clues along the way, and it seems we missed most of them. Now the generation of men who follow in his footsteps are just as unstable as he was.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

What was Witness Lee, if not a "double minded man"? There were so many clues along the way, and it seems we missed most of them. Now the generation of men who follow in his footsteps are just as unstable as he was.

Seems that this is too true. And when others say it, they sometimes get chastised for being just too "anti-Lee."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by JustStoppingBy

Seems that this is too true. And when others say it, they sometimes get chastised for being just too "anti-Lee."

Here's how you stay "in good" with the powers that be in LSM Publishing Company-Franchise Church:

10 Rules of a Toxic Faith System
1. The leader must be in control of every aspect at all times
2. When problems arise, find a guilty party to blame immediately
3. Don't make mistakes
4. Never point out the reality of a situation
5. Never express your feelings unless they are positive
6. Don't ask questions, especially if they are tough ones
7. Don't do anything outside your role
8. Don't trust anyone
9. Nothing is more important than giving money to the organization
10. At all costs, keep up the image of the organization or the family
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...toxicfaith.htm

All of these fit the "Leeite" clan to one degree or another.

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those in the Recovery who did "notice" things, and bravely spoke their conscience, refusing to "stay silent and let the suffering go on," were subjected to far worse abuse and public slander.

This is, sorry to say, the real politics ...

This is the past and the present. Brothers and sisters being disciplined by the work for refusing to remain silent any longer. The co-workers in turn ensure local church elders receive "fellowship". We saw that in the late 1980's and we are still seeing it today.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

This is the past and the present. Brothers and sisters being disciplined by the work for refusing to remain silent any longer. The co-workers in turn ensure local church elders receive "fellowship". We saw that in the late 1980's and we are still seeing it today.

“I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things."
Practical Talks to the Elders No. 2 p. 23

"My point is that we respect the local church, we don’t step on the administration of the local church. There are elders in the church. So, the work does not dictate to the church." Ron Kangas

Here we have hypocrisy as Ohio has pointed out earlier. In word and in speaking saying one thing, but in action doing something contrary to "the ministry".

Ron says the work does not dictate to a church or churches, but in practice a co-worker or co-workers will give "fellowship" concerning a brother or a sister. Is it understood the co-workers are revered as the "deputy authority" and elders/deacons as "delegated authority"?

My point is when a brother or sister refuses to be silent anymore, (especially when responding to abuse) it is received by an elder or by a co-worker as going against deputy authority. It LC terms "rebelling against God's government". As a result the brother or sister is quarantined or disfellowshipped.