Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2010 14:27:27 GMT -5
Geoff, there are exceptions to every rule. However, the workers, like most of the friends fit in with the culture of the system and this often affects their judgement. It becomes difficult for many to admit they are wrong, because by acting as the principal representatives of the way, it implies the way itself is wrong (on that particular matter), because the workers are the rule book,the examples, the wisdom, the counsel, the authority and the doctrine of the way. In admitting they are wrong personally, it can lead to questioning these accompaniments are suspect as well, even to the workers themselves. This encourages a condition of "denial."
I know how well I defended the undefendable in past times and it was because I was under the influence of the culture of the "perfect" way. I do not blame individual workers for this failing but rather see them as victims of an indoctrinated mindset to which I too was once subject.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 1, 2010 15:21:18 GMT -5
"I do not blame individual workers for this failing but rather see them as victims of an indoctrinated mindset to which I too was once subject."
This also explains (I think) how it seems many have been taught about a continuous fellowship for the past 200 or so years - by those who had been taught that themselves. Doesn't make them "guilty" exactly, even if wrong in fact.
But you imply that its the "rule" that error committers do not admit their errors, and that admitters are the exceptions. While its certainly not weight the opposite way about, my experience of the split is closer to centre than to the left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2010 15:47:14 GMT -5
"I do not blame individual workers for this failing but rather see them as victims of an indoctrinated mindset to which I too was once subject." This also explains (I think) how it seems many have been taught about a continuous fellowship for the past 200 or so years - by those who had been taught that themselves. Doesn't make them "guilty" exactly, even if wrong in fact. I agree, except the teaching is nearer 80-90 years. However, there are some (in Scotland) who HAVE learned about the true origins and have done nothing to correct their previous teachings on the subject. In this they are guilty.But you imply that its the "rule" that error committers do not admit their errors, and that admitters are the exceptions. While its certainly not weight the opposite way about, my experience of the split is closer to centre than to the left. Actually, my true position is that the workers do not like to be questioned, particularly where they may be in error. Each person will only have a limited experience of this, BUT what is promoted is that we are to accept the workers decisions because they look out for us spiritually and that acceptance of the workers decisions even if they may be wrong is the right thing to do. If we do this and follow the advice of the workers, even if it is wrong advice, then we will not be held accountable by God for doing so. It will be the workers who are held to account. I don't know if it is currently a thing but back in the 1980's and 1990's it was wrong to question the workers decisions. "Questioning" was evidence of a bad spirit, unwillingness, unsubmissive, etc; even when the workers were wrong. It was do as the workers say irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of their decisions. All part of the cultic trait of "fitting in."
In this the workers were protected from being wrong.
|
|