The Last Chaper of A Future and A Hope is now posted!

[OBW]

By the way. I like the book's cover. Sort of like the image of a tall hedge hiding a lost world, with one strong-willed person stepping through to discover that there are cars, electricity, and much, much more. Sort of like The Village (or, in a humorous way, that band of animals in Over the Hedge).

John did it. Others are looking at his footsteps and wondering if it is safe. To repackage a thought from C.S. Lewis (and I probably get it backward) it is dangerous, but it is the only way to go.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

By the way. I like the book's cover. Sort of like the image of a tall hedge hiding a lost world, with one strong-willed person stepping through to discover that there are cars, electricity, and much, much more. Sort of like The Village (or, in a humorous way, that band of animals in Over the Hedge).

John did it. Others are looking at his footsteps and wondering if it is safe. To repackage a thought from C.S. Lewis (and I probably get it backward) it is dangerous, but it is the only way to go.

Anyone else find it interesting that the Concerned Brothers website never found John Myer's book worthy of posting?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone else find it interesting that the Concerned Brothers website never found John Myer's book worthy of posting?

I think that the problem is that, on the whole, John's book puts too much of the LRC experience and doctrine in a less-than favorable light. Too many are not ready to simply say that the "ground" is worse than questionable, that Christianity is not the reprobate pariah we were taught, etc. They are not ready to face the notion that, at some level, everything is a tradition. Even a really good way of holding the Lord's Table. And intentionally shaking things up to avoid tradition is a tradition.

John wrote of what he saw and learned as he brought his flock along with him. While less caustic than this forum, it is still a little too abrupt and negative about the old LRC ways an personalities for the average member to take on all at once. Especially if they didn't already think that there were problems in the very core of their system.

And this is where I think the disconnect often occurs. Many know there are problems. But they don't really know what the problems are. They just know they exist. They presume that it is (as told to them by the party line) discontents causing trouble, ambitious people, reprobate outsiders, etc. The thought that they are holding meetings under the banner of a group whose spiritual conditions makes their existence like living in a condemned building is not what they think is going on.

So hitting them with it is just rejected. It takes something smaller and less affronting.

And while the Concerned Brothers have done that in critiquing the LSM, Myer has correctly pointed out that they have not turned the focus to the actual teachings that underpin the LRC in general — only the BBs and their attack dogs have been scrutinized. At this point, it is his book alone that seems to give a thorough critique of the whole thing. (Even Steve I's commentary is limited to the specific problems of the past and the outstanding denial of scriptural "due process" in his ouster.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And while the Concerned Brothers have done that in critiquing the LSM, Myer has correctly pointed out that they have not turned the focus to the actual teachings that underpin the LRC in general — only the BBs and their attack dogs have been scrutinized.

Not so. Under the "Reconsideration" link, Nigel Tome critiques many of Lee's teachings, and points to Lee as the source of the error, as in his critique of Lee's views on "the curse of Ham" and Satanology.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not so. Under the "Reconsideration" link, Nigel Tome critiques many of Lee's teachings, and points to Lee as the source of the error, as in his critique of Lee's views on "the curse of Ham" and Satanology.

OK. I sit corrected. But are any of the items critiqued core to the LRC framework? Do they cause the walls of the LRC to shake? Or just point to some overreaching on a few things? If Satan is not literally in our flesh, can Lee's teachings still hold? Mostly so.

What about the "ground of the church." The whole remnant theology line of thinking (that has been cornerstone in numerous aberrations of Christianity of the centuries). God's economy is "simply" dispensing and anything that smacks of effort on our part should be stricken from scripture or labeled "the law" and declared abolished.

The list goes on.

Have they gone after what makes the LRC (with or without the LSM and the BBs) unique? What makes it reek to the outsiders? Yes, they have commented on lawsuits (and been the targets of a few of them). But do they still think that it is a solid house with some bad paint, or a house of cards that needs to be dismantled (or blown down)?

And it is interesting that, while you are correct that they have pointed at Lee a little, they have not pointed at the core of what they are/were. Myer is alone in that. He has declared the whole thing to be naked. Not just a little too much skin showing around the ankles. He was nice about it. But in his own way, that is what he has ultimately done. Even the outcasts of the GLA did not avoid his negative comments.

And negative comments are sometimes exactly what is needed. Lee, the BBs, TC, etc., have hidden behind declarations of others just being "negative," yet the lawsuits, excommunications, belittling, ordering elders around, etc., is nothing if not fully negative.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

OK. I sit corrected. But are any of the items critiqued core to the LRC framework? Do they cause the walls of the LRC to shake?

For some reason this made me think of Bruno Kirby (Jess) in "When Harry Met Sally".


Jess: So, you’re saying that she’s not that attractive.

Harry: No, I told you she is attractive.

Jess: Yeah, but you also said she had a good personality.

Harry: She has a good personality. What?

Jess: When someone’s not that attractive, they’re always described as having a good personality.

Harry: Look, if you’d asked me, “What does she look like?” and I said, “She has a good personality,” that means she’s not attractive. But just because I happen to mention that she has a good personality, she could be either--she could be attractive with a good personality or not attractive with a good personality.

Jess: What is she?

Harry: Attractive.

Jess: But not beautiful, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that, on the whole, John's book puts too much of the LRC experience and doctrine in a less-than favorable light.

The real reason is that John Myer has exposed GLA leadership to be little different than Anaheim. This last chapter of his is by far the most indicting at all, pay attention to his comments about GLA leadership here ...

Aside from adjusting the source teaching that overly indulges the idea of spiritual authority, accountability is a key factor here. What would happen if a number of influential elders set a policy for leaders: “You will not be given free pass for rude, abrasive remarks and public shaming. Insults from the podium will no longer be treated as the Lord’s Word from an angry prophet. Instead, it will be seen as sinful human weakness and will be met with censure. Outbursts of anger are works of the flesh. It is simply childish to insist on something and then make snide remarks (especially from the pulpit!) when you don’t get your way. If you continue to act out in unchristian ways, regardless of your elevated status and past history, you will be asked to step down.”

What would happen if such policies were adopted? No doubt, it would be called rebellion. Yet spiritual authority does not offer someone a deferment from virtuous conduct. It certainly does not sanction manhandling ministers and neutralizing them.

As long as questionable authority patterns persist, promising brothers will continue to disappear, after years of training and comradeship and possibly after many years of faithful service in the church. No one is innocent here. Local leaders who passively accept these situations are as complicit in the deed as if they had directly done it themselves.

John Myer does not mention names here, but every GLA reader knows exactly who he is referring to. The reader knows that TC alone is "given free pass for rude, abrasive remarks and public shaming." The reader knows who are those complicit senior leaders in Cleveland, like JY and TM, who are spineless in front of TC, "complicit in the deed as if they had directly done it themselves," thus endorsing TC's abusive ways. The leader also knows of the trail of wounded and departed brothers, many richly gifted by God on behalf of the churches, those promising brothers who have disappeared over the years, "after years of training and comradeship and possibly after many years of faithful service in the church."

Their only reason for leaving -- "they had a problem with Titus."

These GLA LC's are not "of God, of Christ, and of the saints." They are "of Titus." That's what the Bible says, and that's why so many precious brothers have had no other recourse but to leave when abused, and they so-called had a "problem with Titus." Actually none of them had a problem. It's TC who had the problem, but those surrounding TC will never admit this, and that is why Myer took so much heat from Cleveland with his early chapters. Tensions have never subsided since then. The owner of that Concerned Brother website in the Chicago area is very favorable to TC, and will not post any articles which are not favorable to him.

[OBW]

OK. It is clear that Myer gives TC a really bad rap (and well deserved). But someone just said that they observed several cities (not including Cleveland) starting to steer their own course (my words, not theirs). Where are the CBs? I thought Nigel was other than in Cleveland (even maybe one of the listed cities?).

It is time that leaders in some of those other places exercise a new kind of freedom. Invite TC to come speak some time. But make it clear that his part is as a welcome outsider, not an apostle over the local leadership. He is not free to assume any kind of authority. I think Nigel could eventually do this. Set in motion a movement to the kind of assemblies that started the LRC in the US — separate local assemblies that invited a respected guest speaker whose only purpose (it seemed) was to help them grow.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The owner of that Concerned Brother website in the Chicago area is very favorable to TC, and will not post any articles which are not favorable to him.

So his "concerns" only go so far, eh?

It has been a very insightful journey with our brother John. I am very grateful to him and his family for letting us share this journey with us in this very public way. In many respects I think his journey has been very similar to many of us former members. Nobody who has been in the Movement for any length of time just walks away without any struggles, without any consternation, without any fears of what the future holds. One thing seems to hold true for most former members - the further one gets away, the worse things look. I think this is why we found John getting stronger and stronger with his criticisms, and at the end he could not hold back from a very strong word to his beloved mentor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So his "concerns" only go so far, eh?

It has been a very insightful journey with our brother John. I am very grateful to him and his family for letting us share this journey with us in this very public way. In many respects I think his journey has been very similar to many of us former members. Nobody who has been in the Movement for any length of time just walks away without any struggles, without any consternation, without any fears of what the future holds. One thing seems to hold true for most former members - the further one gets away, the worse things look. I think this is why we found John getting stronger and stronger with his criticisms, and at the end he could not hold back from a very strong word to his beloved mentor.

I was reading something yesterday on Cleveland's website -- which is really just the TC website -- and I just started shaking my head. At the annual leader's conference, leaders were testifying of their early days in the church life, and it was all about TC, and TC this, and TC that, and TC etc. After all the turmoil surrounding the quarantine, with all the promise of change and improvement, the end result is just same ole, same ole, same ole.

And someone might cry out, why don't things change? How can things improve when the same leadership is in place?

Even thought John was well loved by many brothers over the years, his tenure did not start until the mid-80's. GLA leadership was in place by the late 60's, so Myer to them is "just a kid." I remember during one meeting in which John was speaking, an older full-timer near me, still not a top "senior" though, whispered a mildly derogatory, "John-ny Myer." That told me that he did not view Myer as a peer. I doubt if he would now hear what John is saying.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing seems to hold true for most former members - the further one gets away, the worse things look. I think this is why we found John getting stronger and stronger with his criticisms, and at the end he could not hold back from a very strong word to his beloved mentor.

I would disagree UntoHim. What is common among elders who are/were co-workers, while they're part of the work, there is not the liberty to speak honestly. It is not until they are separated from the work is there liberty to speak honestly about the work.
My feeling is while they're part of the work, co-workers do have concerns, but they are cautious to express due to the desire to remain one with the brothers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing seems to hold true for most former members - the further one gets away, the worse things look. I think this is why we found John getting stronger and stronger with his criticisms, and at the end he could not hold back from a very strong word to his beloved mentor.

Originally Posted by Terry

I would disagree UntoHim. What is common among elders who are/were co-workers, while they're part of the work, there is not the liberty to speak honestly. It is not until they are separated from the work is there liberty to speak honestly about the work.
My feeling is while they're part of the work, co-workers do have concerns, but they are cautious to express due to the desire to remain one with the brothers.

Disagree with UntoHim??? Off to a thousand years of outer darkness with you!

Actually I really worry about people who agree with me too much

Seriously though, I'm not sure what part you actually disagree with. We all know why John could not be this honest and forthcoming while still having his wagon hitched to Titus Chu. It was the same for Ingalls et al in Anaheim back in the late 80s with Witness Lee. Its very problematic to be shouting out that "the king has no clothes" while still a subject of his kingdom.

I think you missed the main thrust of my post. Probably my fault for not being as clear as I could have been. Let me elaborate just a bit on what I meant by "the further one gets away, the worse things look". Let’s take the “ground of the church/vision of the church” teaching for example. While still entrenched within the Movement, it’s very easy to justify this teaching in one’s own mind and heart (or spirit as it were). But in retrospect, looking back, it really was not so much a matter that this teaching was biblical, but rather that “Brother Lee said so, so it must be so!”. The further one gets away from this mentality of “Brother Lee said so”, the more one can find themselves able to be a critical thinker in regards to many of the teachings and practices in the Local Church.