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

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why the "one global work" under the "ministry of the age" view cannot be valid. Because in reality what church could say no to anything the "global work" says? The LRC gives lip-service to the idea of church autonomy, but everyone knows that when push comes to shove it's the churches that get shoved. Every time.

Watchman Nee had the theory of the work being regional not global. Witness Lee took it to the global level with himself at the center of it and now the Anaheim Politburo.

But whether regional (example GLA under Titus Chu) or global I think the result is the same: the elders at the local level are subject to the authority of the coworkers/apostles. This is just how the LC system is set up.

To "reform" the system would take strong local elders drawing boundaries constantly until "the work" got the message and left them alone until they were invited to participate as guest speakers. Of course this kind of "reform" won't happen because most elders are happy with the arrangement the way it is and so are the coworkers - what better circumstances is there than pliable elders who will closely follow the agenda and programs of LSM?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Watchman Nee had the theory of the work being regional not global. Witness Lee took it to the global level with himself at the center of it and now the Anaheim Politburo.

But whether regional (example GLA under Titus Chu) or global I think the result is the same: the elders at the local level are subject to the authority of the coworkers/apostles. This is just how the LC system is set up.

To "reform" the system would take strong local elders drawing boundaries constantly until "the work" got the message and left them alone until they were invited to participate as guest speakers. Of course this kind of "reform" won't happen because most elders are happy with the arrangement the way it is and so are the coworkers - what better circumstances is there than pliable elders who will closely follow the agenda and programs of LSM?

I would add that besides strong elders that also various "works" would need to be recognized and welcomed. This would limit the feeling of entitlement the "work" has developed. Ironically, the principle of the free market would keep works honest and humble in their approach to offering their ministry. On the other hand, if they know they are the only ones in the theater selling popcorn, there is little incentive to respect the customer's prerogative to look elsewhere.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would add that besides strong elders that also various "works" would need to be recognized and welcomed. This would limit the feeling of entitlement the "work" has developed. Ironically, the principle of the free market would keep works honest and humble in their approach to offering their ministry. On the other hand, if they know they are the only ones in the theater selling popcorn, there is little incentive to respect the customer's prerogative to look elsewhere.

Excellent point! LSM would have to become one of many ministries "endorsed" by local elders.

But will such reform occur with such an ingrained system firmly in place? Not gonna happen IMHO.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Excellent point! LSM would have to become one of many ministries "endorsed" by local elders.

But will such reform occur with such an ingrained system firmly in place? Not gonna happen IMHO.

Right on alwayslearning. Under such a scenario, LSM would go from "the big fish in a pond" to "just another fish in the ocean". Not going to happen when it pertains to LSM's revenue.

[Cal]

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

There there are a variety of ministries (1 Cor 12:5) serving many different churches. These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

Paul's attitude reflects that of one who understood that churches had the right to question his ministry (2 Cor 6:11-13; cf. Rev 2:2). Paul spends half of 2 Corinthians appealing to the Corinthians to consider his ministry trustworthy and worthwhile. But he stops short of commanding them to submit to him. This shows he knew they had the right to reject him if they viewed his ministry as damaging.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

Amazing isn't it?

The basic premise of the Recovery from the very beginning was simple -- all of Christianity has misaimed, and now only we do it right. Building on that supposition, all kinds of things were introduced into the LC's which at best were but failed experiments. The institutional para-church structure called "the work," which supposedly was established to serve the churches, was chief among these aberrations. Loosely based on Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, this system grew over time until now we have a monstrous deformation of what ministry should look like.

John Myer was just one of many gifted brothers to pass thru the Recovery over the years. He was a well loved brother, definitely of a rare free-thinking, inspirational lot, and never once exhibited the tendency to create some rebel faction which is always attributed to those who buck the system. One of his complaints could be summarized thus: "why do you want me to bring young people to Cleveland and then ridicule me in front of them." Any Christian in the whole of the body of Christ would agree that this was a more than reasonable request.

But not LC leaders.

LC senior workers do not live to freely minister to you, because they are not ministers in the sense of the pattern laid down by Jesus and the apostles. They will not "serve" you unless you first allow them to "rule" you, and then "own" your saints as their own. John Myer was just one more brother who failed in his attempts to change the system, and then was forced to depart. I doubt if any leaders in Cleveland even care. Play by my rules or get out! TC then made this easy for JM by instructing the brothers to stop supporting him. Forget about the Columbus elders praying to seek the Lord's leading about this serious matter. As one elder said to the effect, "We are TC's fruit, he raised us up, we have to take his fellowship."

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John Myer was just one more brother who failed in his attempts to change the system, and then was forced to depart. I doubt if any leaders in Cleveland even care. Play by my rules or get out! TC then made this easy for JM by instructing the brothers to stop supporting him. Forget about the Columbus elders praying to seek the Lord's leading about this serious matter. As one elder said to the effect, "We are TC's fruit, he raised us up, we have to take his fellowship."

Do I understand this correctly: John Myer and some other elders left the LSM LC system. And then sometime after that Titus Chu manipulated him out of the work and those elders that previously left with him let that happen at the local level? So John was left out there flapping in the wind?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There there are a variety of ministries (1 Cor 12:5) serving many different churches. These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

Paul's attitude reflects that of one who understood that churches had the right to question his ministry (2 Cor 6:11-13; cf. Rev 2:2). Paul spends half of 2 Corinthians appealing to the Corinthians to consider his ministry trustworthy and worthwhile. But he stops short of commanding them to submit to him. This shows he knew they had the right to reject him if they viewed his ministry as damaging.

This is really it isn't it? In no way does the bible support "the work" with all elders and churches under submission to one apostle or a Politburo appointed by him as his official successor. This idea cannot be found anywhere in the NT. And neither can the idea of one apostle per region running the show be found anywhere. These are just the ways and means of the LC system with no basis in scripture but have become ingrained as their traditions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

To "reform" the system would take strong local elders drawing boundaries constantly until "the work" got the message and left them alone until they were invited to participate as guest speakers.

Recent events in the GLA are just proving once again that LC senior workers will never "serve" you, unless you first allow them to "rule" you, and "own" your saints as their own.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Recent events in the GLA are just proving once again that LC senior workers will never "serve" you, unless you first allow them to "rule" you, and "own" your saints as their own.

The only way reform would work is if almost all LCs had strong local elders who knew how to put "the work" in it's proper place e.g. one among many ministries that we may invite to guest speak on occasion, financially support (if we want, when we want, how much we want), might announce a ministry event if it doesn't disrupt the local agenda, etc.

This attitude and practice would isolate "the work" if it didn't want to cooperate. Let Titus Chu and his workers stay in Cleveland and talk amongst themselves until they learn to respect the local elders and the fact that they will not be beholden to the coworkers.

Do I think this will ever happen in the GLA or Anaheim versions of the LC system? Absolutely not! Most of the elders currently in place are where they are because of their loyalties to certain coworkers. If they switch their loyalties to the local flock and start to vet para-church ministers and their ministries their positions as elders will be in peril.