Church Ground Becomes the Lining Up with a Man and a Ministry

[UntoHim]

I wrote this post this morning but had to run out before I actually got to put it on the forum. It's pretty stale at this point, but I'll try to add to it by reacting to some of the subsequent posts.

I think sometimes all three of the types Igzy has listed....all at the same time

Let's face it, the Local Church, and our experience of it, seem to lend themselves to exaggeration. We got used to exaggeration while we were in the movement (cf: We ARE THE Lord's Recovery! We ARE THE Church! Eating Jesus is THE WAY! Christianity is Christless! and the kicker...to say one negative thing about the Local Church or Witness Lee must mean you hate the LC or you hate Witness Lee.) Of course it's easy to look back and make these kind of criticisms, but to simply deny the attitudes we once held, and is still held by current LC members, is to rob our discussions of reality.

All human endeavors, even those which seek to please God, serve Christ and "build the Church", are subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the humans who initiate them and fight to keep them profitable and relevant. By profitable I mean something that is going to be profitable to God and his people, and by relevant I mean relevant to the world around us. There is absolutely no doubt that Witness Lee and his followers have sincerely sought to please God, serve Christ and build the Church. But the simple truth is that they have gone ahead and tried to accomplish these things without acknowledging their limitations and weaknesses, and as a matter of fact, they feel that if they do acknowledge their limitations and weaknesses, that would make them just like all the other Christians throughout history, and to Witness Lee and his followers that would be the biggest sin of all.

Even if it has been many years, some of us feel uncomfortable speaking of these human weaknesses...we are all conscience that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", and this indeed is the crux of the matter - are we truly seeking the glory of God? Is this our goal in being so harshly critical of Witness Lee and the LC movement, to seek the glory of God? Is this our goal in being so overly defensive, even to the point of making it personal, to seek the glory of God? I think we are falling woefully short on this thread so far. At least I know I am.

Lets try to elevate the conversation, shall we?

Originally Posted by Terry

There are several others;
A. Ones who go on and pretend their LC experiences never happened.
B. Ones who go on, but regarding the past analyze to reach an understanding what happened.

Terry, without trying to put words in your mouth, don't you mean to say "Ones who go on and pretend their (Positive) LC experiences never happened"? If so I don't blame you for thinking this about brothers like Igzy and me. We tend to emphasize the negative. But this does not mean we have a negative attitude or view towards our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church. We want the same things for them that we want for every believer - to know the true and living God of the Universe, His Son Jesus Christ and to be lead into all Truth by the Spirit of Truth. We don't think this is happening in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Some are convinced that at one time this was indeed taking place in the LC. I have serious doubts about this. This is NOT, repeat NOT, to say that we did have some genuine experiences of Christ, but I do not believe that the overall atmosphere in the LC was conducive to knowing God in the way the Bible describes.

As far as "to reach an understanding what happened"...well that's pretty much what this forum is all about!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry, without trying to put words in your mouth, don't you mean to say "Ones who go on and pretend their (Positive) LC experiences never happened"?

UntoHim, I was referring to churchkids I was acquainted with in Southern California localities I was raised in and subsequently crossed paths with as adults.
Whether their experiences were positive or negative, I don't know.

[Indiana]

If we are for God’s government on the earth, we will let Christ be preeminent in our lives, and have the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, self-control…against such things there is no law. In the same book of Galatians the works of the flesh are mentioned, including the making of divisions and the creating of sects. Sowing to the flesh in this way reaps corruption; sowing to the Spirit reaps life.

Are those truly under God’s government who insist on capitulation to their authority, or are they stirred and steered by the flesh to gain control. Control is what men of the flesh want. Control is what the blending brothers have obtained.


http://www.twoturmoils.com/HowtoBeco...vidShields.pdf

[Cal]

Whatever the experience in the LCM was, it's in the past. God doesn't live in the past. Now, this doesn't mean we can't discuss what happened to try to understand it, but it does mean two things which may at first seem contradictory, but actually are not:

1) The first thing it means is that the experiences can never be fully replicated. That was then, this is now. The attempt to reproduce Elden Hall or the like is a quixotic project. You might was well be trying to bring back the age of Frank Sinatra and big band music. We shouldn't try anyway, as with God now is always better than then. If you don't realize that you are definitely living in the past.

2) While completely reproducing those days is not possible, applying valid principles learned from those days should produce something like it. That is, it is not necessary to reform the Recovery to have those general experiences again. The "church life," at least the parts of it God would approve of, should be reproducible by any group of seekers who believe they should take that path. Actually, groups similar in some way exist all over. The path to God's best never requires going through a particular organization or set of people.


There were many things about the LCM which at first blush seemed to be a genuine experiences of God, but were very possibly simply experiences of human emotion in a group setting. Those experiences of "being home" of "being in God's present move" of "being at the center of the action" and all the thrill and excitement of that were very possibly just the emotional reaction to being in such an enthusiastic, dynamic and confident environment. The attitude of "us against everyone" is an emotion which classically energizes and galvanizes human beings into a feeling of unique purpose, whether that purpose is genuine or not, and such emotions can be easily mistaken for God's approval.

That said, there were in fact some things in the LCM that many, many Christians are still weak on. I would say three of these are:
1) a grand, unified vision of God's purpose.
2) a deep appreciation of the availability and power of Christ in personal life.
3) a deep appreciation of the corporate aspect of God's people.

(Note I said nothing about mingling, becoming God, spiritual authority, blending, or any of the other specific or esoteric aspects of the LCM. Those were definitely NOT strengths. The LCM got some (not all) big themes right, they got many details wrong.)

The LCM's deep appreciation of "the Church" was a very good thing. However, their mistake was to apply that wonderful Church status only to themselves. No, we are all the Church, whether we meet here or there, as long as we meet in spirit and truth. The LCM was right to celebrate the Church. They were wrong to make it a private party.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

2) While completely reproducing those days is not possible, applying valid principles learned from those days should produce something like it . . . . The "church life," at least the parts of it God would approve of, should be reproducible by any group of seekers who believe they should take that path. Actually, groups similar in some way exist all over.

The question I always have is whether producing "something like it" is really important. (And I note that Igzy didn't say it is.) Even if we are seeking something that is not a product of Lee's folly, do we think that reproducing the "good" parts is important?

Another way of saying this would be to ask whether there are not a myriad of alternate "experiences" that are just as valid, though very different in outward appearance, ranging from quiet, sober reflection all the way to some charismatic forms. Is a preponderance of any of these rather than others anything other than preference? Or is any of this evidence of some special status before God?

This is where I start to sense a need on the part of some to keep reproducing particular experiences because that is what they think was God's real, up-to-date move when in fact if God is moving at all, it is always real and it is always up to date. It is only us that gets fake and/or old.

God moves in people who jump and shout and in people who are quiet and pray. He moves in those who ad lib every prayer and in those who read prayers. He moves in those who have no absolute order of service and in those who follow a set liturgy.

The problem I find is not in any of these ways, but rather those who think that doing it a certain way will bring God to them. Whether it is a liturgy, or sufficient jumping and shouting. Once we think we have figured out the formula to it all, then we are probably just getting what we put into it and little more.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question I always have is whether producing "something like it" is really important. (And I note that Igzy didn't say it is.) Even if we are seeking something that is not a product of Lee's folly, do we think that reproducing the "good" parts is important?

Another way of saying this would be to ask whether there are not a myriad of alternate "experiences" that are just as valid, though very different in outward appearance, ranging from quiet, sober reflection all the way to some charismatic forms. Is a preponderance of any of these rather than others anything other than preference? Or is any of this evidence of some special status before God?

This is where I start to sense a need on the part of some to keep reproducing particular experiences because that is what they think was God's real, up-to-date move when in fact if God is moving at all, it is always real and it is always up to date. It is only us that gets fake and/or old.

God moves in people who jump and shout and in people who are quiet and pray. He moves in those who ad lib every prayer and in those who read prayers. He moves in those who have no absolute order of service and in those who follow a set liturgy.

The problem I find is not in any of these ways, but rather those who think that doing it a certain way will bring God to them. Whether it is a liturgy, or sufficient jumping and shouting. Once we think we have figured out the formula to it all, then we are probably just getting what we put into it and little more.

I think many LCers are in the unfortunate position of having their LC experience be defining for their Christian lives. That is definitely true for those like me who are "church kids". For those who first became a Christian in an LC context, the experience can be defining as well, especially if it involved a drastic turn from things like drugs to the Lord.

At one point in time the things that I perceived to be positive about the LC outweighed the negative. Eventually this balance shifted. Even though I now realize that not all the things that I once perceived to be positive were actually positive, when I started becoming frustrated with the negative, I had no choice but to wonder where all the "positive" went. My reaction was to start thinking up ways to "fix" things, so that I could go on in the LC. That might have been a struggle that I would have had for much longer had it not been for the writings that I found on the internet. I can say that have known LC members who are having the exact same struggle I was of the positive versus negative. The funny thing is that this inward struggle tends to be misattributed, meaning that people will blame a specific elder or LC for their unhappiness with the system as a whole. I have known more that one person that has switched to meeting with a different locality, just because they didn't like a certain brother.

What I came to realize through the internet is that with the numerous turmoils that have occurred in the LC, while the younger generation may not have any knowledge of these events, the past LC history that has been brought to light now serves as "archetypes" of what members can expect if they remain in the system. Most members who are disillusioned might just have a general disillusionment, not enough to make them pick up and leave.

This is why I think there is value in discussing where the LC went wrong, and even the possibility of what the LC might be like if things were changed. That's not to say anyone should dwell on the idea of "fixing" the LC, but I don't think it is a complete waste. Before I came to the internet, I didn't know anyone that I could talk to about my LC concerns (and I do know a number of ex-LC members). None want to talk about the subject so I leave it alone. Ironically, what helped me to eventually understand what I was up against was through reading the writings of though who dared try to figure out where the LC went wrong, still having the goal of "fixing" things.

Some of Indiana's writings have clearly documented where the LC deviated from it's original course. While I personally don't think that this is something that can be fixed, I think it does people to make sense of their experiences, knowing where the LC went wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Some of Indiana's writings have clearly documented where the LC deviated from it's original course. While I personally don't think that this is something that can be fixed, I think it does people to make sense of their experiences, knowing where the LC went wrong.

And I agree with that, but I don't think Indiana agrees with it. I get the feeling he still feels the best thing would be to fix the LCM and rejoin it. I think that's an unhealthy mentality to hold, let alone spread. We allow him to use the board as a soapbox, I think he at least owes us a clear explanation of what he's up to. Maybe that's presumptuous, but I believe it.