Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's nice to hear about "new starts," but honestly what kind of new start would it be? Yes, they may be innocent of past crimes, and freed from the "ministry of condemnation," but how can they emerge from all the other hindrances? They for sure have heard about the young people in Ohio being contaminated by contemporary Christian music. They were informed that the incestuous offspring of Lot were a type of mainstream Christians today. How could they ever embrace these ones with such an pedigree?

We have also had recent posters on this forum relate how good things were "in the beginning," only to see things deteriorate after they had "seen the vision," and become regular members. NeitherfirstNorLast was one such brother. His story started here ...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...33&postcount=1

How can they follow the Lord in fresh new directions? They still have to go back to WL's writings for guidance. Just the other day I listened to a recent clip concerning the Boston Training center. The speaker cited WL's "fellowship" 35 years ago about Boston being the springboard to Europe. It seems none of the rank and file will listen or respond to fellowship unless WL's name is attached to it.

What concerns me most is that they have to overcome history. They have followed all the exclusive ways that the Darby Brethren have gone, and then somehow we hope that they will not end up exactly as they did. As they say, "hope for the best, but expect the worst."

Yes, the new generation will go to WL's writing for guidance, but it doesn't mean they have to follow every thing WL's says to the teeth. I read WL's writing a lot, but I don't agree with everything he says (especially his ministry of condemnation and exclusivity).

Regarding using worldly music in the meetings, I'm not sure if the young people today agree with this interpretation of Lot. From the some I've spoken to, they have a hard time receiving this kind of word. They love music. Music draws us closer to the Lord in many ways. Whether a particular type of music is too worldly for the church life is very subjective. For example, if you look at our hymnal and some of the young people's song book, there are a few songs that came from the Beatles. Now we know the LCs sang those songs in the 70s. The Beatles were still pretty popular then. Yet LSM didn't consider that worldly. I think the BB just used this whole worldly music as another "weapon" to carry out their fight against Titus. Just another reason they used to get rid of him. But I don't think the young people today buy it. They may be silent because they are not in the lead. But it doesn't mean they agree with everything that goes on in the Recovery. The young today are much smarter than we are when we were young. They are not stupid. With the internet, they will figure out everything very soon. We don't live in China where information is censored. Also they know what abusive authoritarianism is. Once they are in the position of leadership, they will have to make a decision on how to lead the Recovery on. The current BB will be in the grave by then. If all this doesn't happen as I predict, then the Recovery will only get smaller and smaller and suffer the same fate as the Brethren.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Truth

For example, if you look at our hymnal and some of the young people's song book, there are a few songs that came from the Beatles. Now we know the LCs sang those songs in the 70s. The Beatles were still pretty popular then. Yet LSM didn't consider that worldly.

Actually, they did. Not at first, but eventually they stopped using those songs. I recall a "word" about those songs while I was still in Dallas. Before I was married (in 79). Since then they slowly found alternate tunes in most cases.

It is possible that over the 25 year since I left, they may have brought some of them back. Or is this only in the GLA or other marginal or non-LSM groups? I have no idea.

In any case, I'm sure that the Budweiser jingle always raised eyebrows. I liked it, but I also had a kind of uncertainty about it.

Yet, it is interesting that some of the great "hymns of the faith" were words put to what were then bar songs. Since we don't know those songs as anything but hymns, we have no problem with them. But we can't tolerate more modern tunes with worldly origins. I recall that some years ago we went through the old supplement and dug up all the old pop songs from the 50s through the early 70s that were used for tunes. Beatles, Elvis, Tony Orlando, Simon and Garfunkel, Danny O'Keefe (Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues), Debbie Reynolds, the Carpenters, the Eagles, and so on.

I understand using restraint where there is a shadow of currently popular words with negative overtones (or worse). But even that restraint can be stifling. In these kinds of things, a true sense of the "temperature" of the group might be meaningful. (Not a unilaterally declared "taste of the body" without any real idea of its "tastes.")

[Truth]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is possible that over the 25 year since I left, they may have brought some of them back. Or is this only in the GLA or other marginal or non-LSM groups? I have no idea.

They have brought back some of the songs not just in GLA, but in many of the LSM LCs.

Like I said, it is hard to say what is worldly or not. It is very subjective. Some people may like to separate worldy music from "church" music not because of what WL says. But to them, they feel just don't feel right when singing hymns using rock music. Others may like to sing rapp songs to God. Let's not judge one another in how we worship God. What is important is that we worship in spirit and truthfulness. Whether we use an electric guitar, a piano, drums, or a banjo is not important.

Personally, I wouldn't want to sing certain modern tunes with God's word because it distracts me. But I don't judge others who do like to sing to God with such tunes. We are all different. That is what makes life so wonderful. What if we are all the same? This would be a boring world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Like I said, it is hard to say what is worldly or not. It is very subjective. Some people may like to separate worldy music from "church" music not because of what WL says. But to them, they feel just don't feel right when singing hymns using rock music. Others may like to sing rapp songs to God. Let's not judge one another in how we worship God. What is important is that we worship in spirit and truthfulness. Whether we use an electric guitar, a piano, drums, or a banjo is not important.

What?!? Are you sure you still meet in the Local Churches? Just kidding.

Actually, when WL first came to the USA, he spoke like this often. One such book was the Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It spoke about clinging only to crucial things, giving one another needed liberties, and letting go of meany things which frustrate the believers' fellowship. WL spoke this to visiting Christians, desiring to find a richer ministry than what was provided by the old denominations which seemed to dominate the Christian world of the early 60's.

Sorry to say, but it did not take too long for WL to return to his Brethren and Chinese roots of overbearing control on all member churches. In this regard, there are like two WL's -- one that the Blendeds knew, and one that the GLA found in the old books, one that was combative and controlling, and one that was big-hearted and liberal towards all. WL was definitely both. When I came to these forums I wondered who was the real WL?

When I researched the Plymouth Brethren split, I discovered John Darby was the same way. Gentle as a dove to new believers and guests, and ferocious as a tiger to any and all potential rivals. These things, brothers, ought not to be so!

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What?!? Are you sure you still meet in the Local Churches? Just kidding.

Actually, when WL first came to the USA, he spoke like this often. One such book was the Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It spoke about clinging only to crucial things, giving one another needed liberties, and letting go of meany things which frustrate the believers' fellowship. WL spoke this to visiting Christians, desiring to find a richer ministry than what was provided by the old denominations which seemed to dominate the Christian world of the early 60's.

Sorry to say, but it not take too long for WL to return to his Brethren and Chinese roots of overbearing control on all member churches. In this regard, there are like two WL's -- one that the Blendeds knew, and one that the GLA found in the old books, one that was combative and controlling, and one that was big-hearted and liberal towards all. WL was definitely both. When I came to these forums I wondered who was the real WL?

When I researched the Plymouth Brethren split, I discovered John Darby was the same way. Gentle as a dove to new believers and guests, and ferocious as a tiger to any and all potential rivals. These things, brothers, ought not to be so!

Yes, I treasure this book very much: Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It had great influence on how I view other Christians. Growing up in the LCs, I used to be much more judgmental of other christians...until I read this book.

It is too bad we don't practice what is in this book (as a whole organization) because of the leadership. But I have seen individuals in the LCs who practice this. And it is wonderful. I try to practice this myself and encourage those around me to practice the same.