![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]() Quote:
Yes, as someone (you?) pointed out, there are some specific things that we see in the leadership, such as always defending the ministry and saying overly-broad and spiritual-sounding things to ring-fence our actual freedom to be only within the bounds that they are willing to tolerate. These leave a little room for differences. And those differences will be influenced by the nature of the individuals in each place. Not all leaders are megalomaniacs. Some are simply true believers who have real jobs and think that it is really all true. And with the lowered temper of leadership, there will likely be a lowered tendency to buck it, therefore less observation of the kind of shaming that was seen in other places. In Dallas there was really only one such person in the years I was there. And there were little eruptions around him because he wielded his "spiritual authority" like a sword, whacking off heads and arms on occasion. Asking questions that put you in an uneasy position. Even, on occasion, seeming to be at odds with the "flow from the throne," but since that was always in flux, who really knew what the latest flow was. One time, shortly after Lee made a comment about the supplement songs that were written to modern tunes being somehow worldly (Don't remember the specific way it was put after nearly 40 years), I lightly marked through the obvious targets with a pencil. At one point, this guy saw my supplement and asked what those were for. But the question wasn't really to elicit an answer. The demeanor was a sort of shaming. It was irrelevant that his implication was that my minor action (which was consistent with the spirit of Lee's latest word) was wrong. He was making demeaning it. And it was from leadership. It lowered my thoughts concerning my own assessment of things. Over time I got over it. Partly because he moved off to another city, then word came back that he was evicted from leadership over money issues, left, and eventually returned to Dallas to live in the house ne never sold. He later led a small home church of other LRC castaways. By that time I would never had considered being part of anything he was involved in. I am aware that he did much more overt verbal assaults on others. One of which I have some personal knowledge, though I was not present when it happened. I have discussed the little I know of it with a former elder who was present at the time and his comment was that both he and another elder were quite taken aback, but that since this one had moved to Dallas from Anaheim, there was hesitancy to speak against it at the time. I had at least one other run-in with this guy. Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? Had to be on before you entered the property (including the parking lot). One year I was part of the ushering team for the video training and on occasion I had to go early and turn on the air (don't remember which time of year at the present). I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally). Probably should have. It might have saved me from more of the LRC nonsense. But I just took it. (Very un-me.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]()
I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach. But the young couple that suddenly got married back in '73 was not ordered to either marry or quit even seeming to date. They did it on their own. And many years later it ended poorly. Not the elder's fault.
May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers." We were really trained well without a word being said. And possibly well beyond what they wanted responsibility for. But no one ever said anything about it. And it continued. And probably even the elders were somewhat afraid to change things because anything reported negatively back to Anaheim was bad. Most of us had little idea about that then. But we know it now. Some years back, someone from another place told of the percentage of failed marriages from a period just about 10 years after that. He was counting well over 50% if I recall correctly. Yet that was not seen uniformly everywhere. So let's try to know the connection to the practices of the LRC rather than just the errors of individuals. Even in the latter, there is probably some "help" from the LRC practices, although not so direct.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
![]() Quote:
The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule. Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]() Quote:
The funny thing is that the one elder I have talked with since has indicated that they were much less involved in the process than most assumed. And they wanted even less involvement. He did indicate that they would advise couples to do their dating somewhere out of the sight of most of the members. So in Dallas, with a collection of people living mostly in the NE part of the city, go more central, or out to the suburbes. Not bad advice when the goal is to keep people's urges to what was simply their own.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]()
Remember. I am speaking of a particular aspect of one locality. This is not an endorsement of the overall LRC system, or a suggestion that everything was hunky-dory. It was not.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
![]() Quote:
I guess it would be safe to go on the initial assumption that if a LC practice is not "official", it might just be limited to someone's experience in the locality they were/are at. The exception to that is if a practice is described that is presumably limited within the scope of the locality someone is associated with, then would it be just coincidence that I have seen something very similar in my locality? For example, with the issue of dating, I am very curious as to whether WL ever said something to bring about the type of practice you brought up. I have not been around long enough to have heard WL speak in person. Those who were in the LC many years ago many have insight into how some of these different practices developed. I suspect that if we were to list some non-official LC practices that we have experience, there would be a common set of non-official practices that we have all seen. Likewise there would be some that are limited just to a single locality. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,562
|
![]() Quote:
"It's an extra-local matter"- practice of dealing with whistleblowers who are living under the headship of Christ and not beholden to absolute submission of men. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||||
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 600
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I personally have encountered a similar dynamic outside of Texas, and 30 years later than the time period OBW is describing.
__________________
And for this cause, the Good Shepherd left the 99 pieces of crappy building material, and went out to recover the one remnant piece of good building material. For the Lord will build His church, and He will build it with the good building material, not the crappy kind. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
![]() Quote:
This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers. Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15) Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]() Quote:
And I note that someone somewhere else complained that it seemed I thought so little of the people in the LRC and their ability to see through the spiritual fog. But just like these little stories, I find less examples of gross abuse (though there were a few) and more examples of how we, the sheeple, followed whatever was put in front of us. We were not faced with a Mel Porter kind of authoritarian (though GD in Dallas had his moments), but we still were admirers of the idea that we should ask "how high" when asked to jump. I'm sure it looked different in Cleveburg and the surrounding environs. Yet even all of that might have been somewhat dismissed, or missed altogether by many of the regular rank-and-file. Of course you have a better idea on that. But it is now obvious that the leadership at the LSM did not have control of the church in Anaheim — at least not enough to stop the outbreak of negative information that caused them to publish FOTPR to try to stop the damage. (Wow. That is really kind of scary when you think about it. FOTPR was to stop damage when it should have had every reader asking more questions and trying to get to the bottom of it all and creating more damage — to the system, not the people.) Funny thing is that I do not know how I would have responded if I had heard about John I leaving when it happened rather than a couple of years later. It happened just about the time I left and while I was leaving, I would never have expected the firestorm that was around it. By the time I heard about it, I had no idea, but could find no reason to fault him. Then many years later when I learned more, I find him to have been among the few righteous ones. Sort of like Lot and his family. And he got out before the fire came down. Good for him.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
![]()
The thing about discussing Orthopraxy to me is not only the gross practices that damaged people, or cowed them into submission, but also the tendency to make practice all about spirituality.
Of course the more correct understanding of Orthopraxy, or more simply, the Christian life, is that everything is spiritual. But in most Christian groups, and very specially in the LRC, only religious things are considered spiritual. So to them, Orthopraxy is about how you baptize or hold communion. It is whether you have a worship band, or a pipe organ, or sing a capella. It is about stained glass or plain glass or no glass. It is about a well-thought-out liturgy or a more contemporaneous one. And it is about how we engage the world for Christ. In other words, how we entice them to let us preach the gospel to them. It is only marginally about how you act in the store. For example, pick something up, then decide against it, and just put it down wherever or put it back where it came from. (Not talking about leaving clothes in the fitting room which is often what the store wants you to do.) Or how we respond to the realization that we just got one-too-many dollars back from the cashier. Or how we react to the guy who cut us off on the road (my hand is raised as sometimes guilty on both sides of this one). Yet when I look at the teaching in both the NT and OT, it would appear that the daily living that had nothing to do with anything "spiritual" or religious is almost more important than the religious stuff. In fact, it seems that it is the obedience to righteousness that is the hallmark of the NT more than a call to act religious. Hunger and thirst for righteousness. Don't even think about that woman. Don't even curse at your brother. (And don't give that one-finger salute.) Forgive others when you ask God for forgiveness. Don't just forgive them in your heart (unless they don't know about the offense). Live like that and people will eventually notice that you are not like everyone else. They will ask. And even if you don't have the words, your life will help invite them to where the words flow freely. And hopefully that place is full of similar people. And, unfortunately, at some level, the quiet, humble, overly liturgical people who feel compelled to do their "works" actually portray this better than we evangelicals do. We have better theology, but are too dismissive of our sins. We just claim grace and move on. We do the religious rituals well, then try to get through the week so that we can get back to our sanctuary from the world. I note that before Babylon, there were no synagogues. They only "got together" religiously when they went to Jerusalem. And not that often. At some level, I am not so sure that our constant efforts to get to another meeting, service, small group, bible study, etc., is as spiritual as we think. We are too worried about sacrifice and less about obedience. We are looking for that spiritual escape. And then there are the healthy, wealthy, and wise gospels. Those are about getting their sugar daddy to fill their pockets and pantries. And if you don't want to be that overt about it, you can feel better about it by saying it is for the whole country and trying to shame people into joining in by saying it is about prayer. But even that is ultimately about the blessing we want to receive. I read a post this morning that was talking about how communion used to be about the Lamb that was slain for the sin of the world, but has become the personal blessing we receive for doing it. I think that Orthopraxy is too often about my personal relationship with God rather than about my living as an icon (image bearer) of God. And God doesn't need (want) image-bearers in the meetings. He can bear his own image there. He has made it so that his influence on the earth is heavily through his human image bearers. There is your Orthopraxy. That does not take away from the analysis that has been requested. But in my mind it makes the sense that the LRC's Orthopraxy is even further off than we might think. Even the seemingly good parts are missing the point, or the mark. The high calling is not to better meetings because of the alleged basis of division of your church from any other, but to living an entire life according to the righteousness of God.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
![]() Quote:
On the other hand TC was all about submission and glory. All leaders had to submit to him, and all the glory had to go to him. All good and successful ideas must be his, and when things failed, some underling must take the blame for it. In this regard, he was a duplicate of WL, using regular dress downs to maintain proper "order." TC would say that any way could be a good or profitable way, but no way was "the way." This was a wise word which was quite helpful to the churches, especially during the constant chaos of the endless winds, waves, flows, and ways coming out of Anaheim. How can any practice be "the way," when Jesus Himself is our unique Way? I remember being scolded by a young sister during my first attempt at door-knocking for not "turning left," which was one of the training regulations. How in the world can we expect God to bless us for that nonsense? Actually God blessed us for my "cooperation" at the time, going along with the "program," and remaining focused on our "objective." This obsession with finding the latest version of the "right way" brought continual conflict to the churchlife. It became a regular occurrence some young person to hear from the grapevine of the latest ministry rubric and use that to correct the older brothers. This created serious complications for the local leadership since LSM lackeys regularly solicited feedback concerning those who resisted the "Lord's up-to-date move." ![]()
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|