What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

[Evangelical]

Aron, Paul did not even say or recommend his epistles could be considered Scripture. To Paul, of course, the Psalms and our Old Testament were Scripture. To us, Paul is more up to date Scripture than the Psalms.

Why do we sing the Psalms and not sing the New Testament anyway?

Is it because the word Psalm means songs and people think they can't sing anything else?

Is there some rule that says a hymn or song must use words found in the Psalms?

[aron]

Why do we sing the Psalms and not sing the New Testament anyway?

Is it because the word Psalm means songs and people think they can't sing anything else?

Is there some rule that says a hymn or song must use words found in the Psalms?

No, we don't mock either OT or NT. Or discourage them by mocking. Lee did to the OT, just that. That is what I object to.

Again, where is the NT precedent for treating OT text thus? It wasn't biblical, it was cultural. It was about control. But I never meant to suggest we must only sing psalms.

What happened was, in about 1973 to 1975 some LC Christians started putting psalms to music. Of course, we also were singing "hymns and spiritual songs" as well.

We'll, it took off like wildfire. You should have heard some of those meetings! If you could hear the Son in the assembly, singing to the Father, it was there. I heard it.

Remember that originally the source text wasn't a series of disjointed aphorisms to be mined for today's sermon. It was a narrative with narrative structure. And the composers in the LC were 'recovering' (pun intended) the narrative. They would set 8 or 10 verses to song & the meeting would get into the heavens.

And that's not the worst of it! The psalms became a vehicle for dreaded Christianity to impinge upon the 'pure' (read: isolationist) LC. I think in particular of Keith Green's psalm 51, "Create in me a clean heart", but there were others as well.

Lee would have none of it. Inspiration must only exist in the LC, and only via his mediatory ministry. So he shut it down. And thus the die was cast: the Psalms were henceforth natural and fallen texts, or 'complex' if you want to be less blunt.

Back to the topic, do you think that if in the Lutheran Church anyone said, "Our brother wanted. .", everyone would understand it was Martin Luther? Or Wesley with the Methodists? But you can bet that if a Blended shows up to your meeting and intones, "It was our brother's dream to see. . ", everyone gets it. The name of Witness Lee doesn't even need to be spoken. So who is denominated, here?

There's a reason Lee's name doesn't get mentioned much in LC meetings much - they don't have to. Everything is understood - "This is what Lee wanted." If that lines up with scripture, which it often did, we'd congratulate ourselves on being biblical. If not, as sometimes happened, Oh well, too bad. It was what Lee wanted.

[ZNPaaneah]

This is so very true. The whole idea of the church being defined by the boundary of the city is a prime example of what happens when people try to read to much into a description. New Testament urban geography 101 shows us that cities were far more spread out than they are today. The map Ohio posted on another thread shows just how spread apart some of the NT cities were: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=52884&postcount=281

In NT times, it certainly could have made sense to use the city as a means of identification. Probably more often than not, there was nothing in between cities, and certainly people didn't go live in the middle of nowhere when there was a city nearby. The boundary of the city was naturally the means by which people congregated for anything and everything.

In today's world, especially in the urban areas, cities border one another. As such, city boundaries are simply a legal designation. Quite often it also doesn't make much sense to identify things based on city alone. If I tell someone that we will meet at the Starbucks in Los Angeles, that is being about as vague as possible. Some other means of identification is necessary like a street name.

Also, transportation has served to tear down city boundaries, not build them up. No longer must a person do all their dealings in the city in which they live. Unlike NT times where travel was likely avoided if at all possible, travel is embraced as a way to stay connected. Life in the 21st century is a world apart from NT times. A church model based on city boundaries is particularly absurd.

So Watchman Nee's teaching is distilled from heading of numerous letters in the NT.

But suppose that the header on a letter from the Apostle said "the church in NYC". Couldn't that letter be published in the NY Times? Couldn't pastors and leaders of congregations all over the city read that letter in the congregation and other gatherings?

Why do we infer from this that they all must meet in a congregation that has the same elders? As long as Jesus is Lord what difference does it make?

It seems to me that Watchman Nee's teaching is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to the oneness of the Body.

As long as each congregation reading Paul's letter has one faith, worships one God, and is subject to one Lord then they are one church in NYC.

[ZNPaaneah]

This would be especially true in cities like Houston that have undertaken to absorb suburb after suburb for many years. Just think of all the autonomous churches that simply ceased to be under that rule.

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

[ZNPaaneah]

No, we don't mock either OT or NT. Or discourage them by mocking. Lee did to the OT, just that. That is what I object to.

Again, where is the NT precedent for treating OT text thus? It wasn't biblical, it was cultural. It was about control.

Witness Lee mocked and denigrated the books in the Bible that did the most to expose and protect the people of God from false prophets:

James

Proverbs

Psalms

So yes, there is a precedent for this. John warns about those who would take away, add to, or change the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

In Corinthians Paul asks if Christ is divided, or if Paul was crucified for them, or if they were baptized into the name of Paul.

So we can again see that what makes us one is the fact that God is one, that we have one Baptism, we have one faith, and we have one Lord.

Paul rebuked the Corinthian believers because they were carnal and couldn't receive the things of God. He then explained saying that one says he is of this one and another says he is of that one.

What they are missing, what they cannot see, what they cannot receive is that we are of Jesus Christ. It is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God that the church is built on. There is nothing better than that.

Now Paul says he was glad that he didn't baptize lest they should say they were baptized by Paul. You can imagine that this would be some kind of badge of honor "I was baptized by the Apostle Paul" as though that were more special or significant. This is a lack of revelation.

Think about how Paul first got the revelation of the church? What he got was a revelation that Jesus was Lord.

[Ohio]

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

In the gospels, the Jewish leaders also used geographical boundaries to divide the children of God. They were absolutely certain that their scriptural references were definitive. Though dozens and dozens of verses plainly refuted their supposed conclusions, they were assured that they had sufficient cause to reject their Messiah. Everything else, including common sense, was against their decision. He was healing the lame, giving sight to the blind, and then even raised a four day old corpse from the tomb. Still they refused to budge. After all they were convinced by their geographical basis ...

No prophet could arise out of Galilee. (John 7.52) "Search and see." Check your scrolls again.

[ZNPaaneah]

In the gospels, the Jewish leaders also used geographical boundaries to divide the children of God. They were absolutely certain that their scriptural references were definitive. Though dozens and dozens of verses plainly refuted their supposed conclusions, they were assured that they had sufficient cause to reject their Messiah. Everything else, including common sense, was against their decision. He was healing the lame, giving sight to the blind, and then even raised a four day old corpse from the tomb. Still they refused to budge. After all they were convinced by their geographical basis ...

No prophet could arise out of Galilee. (John 7.52) "Search and see." Check your scrolls again.

Idiots pretending to be experts.

Reminds me of the Dayton Newspaper in Ohio. For years the Wright brothers were testing their airplanes out at a nearby field. Hundreds of residents had witnessed them flying around the field. Yet the newspaper had stubbornly refused to print anything or even send a reporter out to investigate. Later when asked why the editor paused and then said "I guess we were idiots".

[aron]

When Brooklyn and Manhattan merged that was the merging of two of the largest cities in the country.

In 1 Cor 14:23, Paul wrote, "So if the whole church comes together" (NIV); I presume that was a practical event of some frequency. Likewise, when John wrote to the church in Ephesus, or Smyrna. . . it might be interesting to see estimates the approximate size of the various churches in the late 1st century.

But what happens when the church is 3.8 million believers? How to shoe-horn that back into the 1st century model? And what is the compelling necessity?

When the LSM did things that deviated from the NT model, they shrugged and said, "Well, times are different". They had to register with the government, for instance, and create non-profit merchandizing centers - sorry, ministries - with all the accoutrements thereof. Because it's the 20th century. Gotta stay with the times. Gotta be practical.

But the church in NYC has to be practically administered as if it were the church in Pergamos, which had maybe 65 or 80 believers? Because that's the NT model? (And even that model is pretty iffy, as discussion has shown).

[DistantStar]

When the LSM did things that deviated from the NT model, they shrugged and said, "Well, times are different". They had to register with the government, for instance, and create non-profit merchandizing centers - sorry, ministries - with all the accoutrements thereof. Because it's the 20th century. Gotta stay with the times. Gotta be practical.

You have a good point. I recall all those very conservative churches which find it wrong to register with the government. I have no opinion on whether it is right or not, but at least in this instance they are more pure than the LC. The churches of the New Testament were persecuted for rejecting government oversight, basically. Why don't the LC emulate that?

[Freedom]

You have a good point. I recall all those very conservative churches which find it wrong to register with the government. I have no opinion on whether it is right or not, but at least in this instance they are more pure than the LC. The churches of the New Testament were persecuted for rejecting government oversight, basically. Why don't the LC emulate that?

It's good that you mention this, because indeed the LC is a very hypocritical bunch. The LC is a harsh criticizer of 'organization', yet they encompass exactly what they criticize. I personally don't feel there is anything wrong with some level of organization within a church or even a denominational headquarters. Maybe excessive organization is less-than-desirable, but I would take more issue with a church claiming to not have such things even though it does.

Part of the level of organization seen in churches today is a simply necessitated by modern society. There's no way around that. Once a church gets large enough, it has to incorporate, and one of the basic steps to doing that is taking a name. A church model that claims you can't take a name, but has standard practice of incorporating under a name is completely absurd. In this regard, the only way for the LC to not be hypocritical would be to not register with the government and thereby remain a group of house churches.

If a church wants to rent a building or buy property, they have to have a means by which to do that legally, so it then becomes necessary to register with the government. There's really no way around it. Churches in the NT looked different because there weren't such requirements. Just another reason why people should be careful about trying to emulate the NT church model.

[Ohio]

Part of the level of organization seen in churches today is a simply necessitated by modern society. There's no way around that. Once a church gets large enough, it has to incorporate, and one of the basic steps to doing that is taking a name. A church model that claims you can't take a name, but has standard practice of incorporating under a name is completely absurd. In this regard, the only way for the LC to not be hypocritical would be to not register with the government and thereby remain a group of house churches.


Without a name, a church can't even get a phone line.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think when you look into this question seriously and openly you discover that the NT charges us to meet with one another, that the process of meeting with others is very important, that dealing with offenses and sins is very important, but that other than that they don't give any requirements.

1. Do you have to have the Lord's table -- NT says "as often as you eat it".

2. No minimum number for a meeting or maximum number.

3. You could rent a large room, or meet in a home. No requirement concerning the meeting hall.

In fact, the "only sign" given concerning whether the meeting is of God (true church) or not is the sign of Jonah. The members need to have experienced the cross of Christ.

The church in each city is one. But this is not due to some elders, or super apostles, or any other work of man. It is because God is one, it is because they all have one Lord, one Baptism, one Spirit.

Meeting with a church of 1,000 has its own special challenges and benefits, likewise with a church of less than 100. The issue is not the number of people, the name or the meeting hall, the key issue that makes the meeting special is the presence of Jesus Christ.

In fact the initial revelation of the church was based on the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

The initial revelation that Paul had of the church was also that Jesus is Lord.

Carnal Christians cannot see or receive the fact that Jesus is Lord in the church, they need to see a person, whether it is Paul, or Apollos or Peter, etc. This is a revelation that is the central issue in seeing the church and in practicing the proper church life. Nothing else is critical.

[Evangelical]

There are biblical commands around having no divisions:

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Paul wrote this to all the believers in Corinth. He did not write this to an independent house group. Nor did he write this to a particular denomination (division) within that city. He wrote it to all the believers.

The presence of denominations in a city such as Corinth would have violated Paul's command.

Paul would not have agreed with it then and would not agree with it now.

Paul as an apostle of Christ, means that Christ would not agree with this situation either. Whatever Paul said, Christ said.

[aron]

The presence of denominations in a city such as Corinth would have violated Paul's command.
Paul would not have agreed with it then and would not agree with it now.
Paul as an apostle of Christ, means that Christ would not agree with this situation either. Whatever Paul said, Christ said.

Now you create the opposite of a straw man.You create a straw Paul. Tell me, what would Paul think of the Great Schism of 1054? And, would he counsel Luther to "come out of her" or "in that which each was called, remain"?

It's like you ignore 2000 years of human history, manufacture Paul and his disapproval, then set about your remedy. But tell me, what assurance do you have that Paul would approve of it? I daresay a lot of thoughtful, Bible-reading Christians of today wouldn't think he would, nor would a lot of us who've experienced the proposed remedy.

So what does a current consensus think Paul would approve of, today? Is there any rough consensus? I'd guess something like, believe in the Lord. Gather together and receive one another. Testify of the hope which is in you. I daresay Paul wouldn't transpose 1st century organizational practices wholecloth on the 21st century church. Our organizing principles are faith and love. Not a quorum of elders.

[Evangelical]

I think Paul would have approved of Luther as one trying to get back to the ground of oneness.

Most "red letter" Christians are not familiar with or deliberately ignore Paul's instructions. For example, Paul's instructions about head coverings, female teachers/ministers, desiring to prophesy and the spiritual gifts, and tongues being the least gift and not to be used in a corporate way, and the matter of divisions are some things that most Christians ignore today. According to the Bible we should not only know Christ but also know Paul, for even the demons knew both (Acts 19:15).

Some of these such as head coverings and female teachers can be "explained away" by cultural reasons etc. Not so with Paul's command about divisions.

Many of these divisions are careful to observe things for which Paul or Jesus gave no commands, such as Christmas and Easter. In fact they are very careful to observe things for which Jesus did command, such as taking communion and doing it in a proper way, and baptism. Yet they ignore Paul's instructions about church.

Basically they cannot claim to be biblical churches unless they follow everything the bible says, which includes the matter of having no divisions, between all Christians in the city, not just all Christians whom they agree with.

[ZNPaaneah]

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

There are a few things that we can all agree with one another on:

One God and Father, One Lord, One faith, One Baptism, One Spirit.

No one can infer from this that we have to agree on non essential matters.

To be "perfectly united in mind and thought" requires the three things that Jesus referred to in John 17.

1st -- it requires that we are all worshipping one God.

2nd -- it requires that we heed the instructions in the Bible to deal with sin and the flesh.

3rd -- it requires that we become one with the indwelling Spirit.

These are all a process. There is no one who has fully arrived, hence Paul's word that he had not arrived.

This does not support Witness Lee's doctrine, in fact it condemns it.

1st. -- When you teach something that is not clearly spoken in the NT as a way to condemn and exclude other Christians, you cannot possibly expect all Christians to agree with that. On the contrary that kind of doctrine creates divisions. Witness Lee measures all other Christians by his "Ground of the Church" doctrine, going so far as to say that those who do not receive this teaching are not "true churches". Therefore he has elevated this teaching to an item of the faith. However, no apostles taught it as an item of the faith. Therefore you know there will not be agreement and it will cause division. Therefore the proper response is to drop this teaching so that we can all agree and that there be no division among us.

2nd -- this condemns the practice of "taking the ground". You are charged to agree with the Christians already in the city and that there be no divisions. Your actions are contrary to that charge.

3rd -- Witness Lee's behavior is a direct contradiction to the NT, for example his lawsuits of other Christians. You cannot expect all believers to agree with that action and the obvious result is that it will cause divisions.

4th -- Ignoring the sins of PL and others is not the proper way to deal with sins and the flesh. It has caused lots of strife and division.

[aron]

Basically they cannot claim to be biblical churches unless they follow everything the bible says, which includes the matter of having no divisions, between all Christians in the city, not just all Christians whom they agree with.Then why have you divided (isolated, segregated, cut off, ignored, disfellowshipped) yourselves from all Christians in your city? Would Paul approve?

And, why did Watchman Nee cut himself off from Leland Wang, anyway? It looks like manufactured pretense. "We see differently." Then, once Nee had a fully compliant flock, suddenly the call for unanimity issued forth. Same with Lee vis-a-vis Kaung and Sparks. Once they get a proprietary group, suddenly everyone else is called divisive.

[ZNPaaneah]

I like comparing and contrasting 1cor 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man."

with

Matt 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I think the only way you can reconcile these two portions is if the term "judgeth all things" refers to being crucified with Christ. We see that Jesus crufixcion judged sin, the flesh, the world, etc. It is fair to say that "it judged all things". If we receive this, if we are baptized with the Lord's baptism, then it is also safe to say that we also have judged these things as well.

So then, the "one baptism" that we all receive is an example of a spiritual man "judging all things yet he himself is judged of no man".

What is interesting is that the context is about the church and division. Why do we have division? Because believers are not "crucified with Christ".

[aron]

Why do we have division? Because believers are not "crucified with Christ".Right. I am walking down the street and see a building with a sign on front: "Church of the Redeemer." Further down is, "Church of the Nazarene."

Now, am I divided from them? Or, am I crucified with Christ?

[Freedom]

I like comparing and contrasting 1cor 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man."..

This is a good way to look at it. When I consider everything that I was taught in the LC, I realize that the whole problem of division was viewed from a very narrow scope. The mindset was to look at others, and if what they were doing was perceived to be something that was a part of division or divisive, then to stay away from them. Ultimately, it's an attitude of judgment that only intensifies the problem. We don't know other people's hearts, therefore how could we even begin to judge?

Groups like the LC attempt to avoid division just because the Bible says so. And it seems this simplistic mindset is where much of the problem originates. Why? Because it ignores the inevitability of division. Christians have to deal with all kinds of division. Most of it is not our fault, but it is on that basis that we tend to judge. By doing so we build an even bigger barrier than had existed in the first place.

It make sense then why these attempts to 'avoid' division so easily end up becoming a finger pointing game. The quest to identify division becomes a means by which judgment is passed. Those in the LC seem to think that WN/WL were the only ones to 'realize' that Christianity is divided. It's not that others didn't realize it, they just knew better than to go around making an issue out of it. I would argue that making an issue out of existing division is worse than division itself. WL liked to make issues of things he perceived to be true. He said some of the most despicable things imaginable about other Christians. He said the same directed at former coworkers of his.

[ZNPaaneah]

Right. I am walking down the street and see a building with a sign on front: "Church of the Redeemer." Further down is, "Church of the Nazarene."
Now, am I divided from them? Or, am I crucified with Christ?

Or think about it the other way. We have two different congregations. There are a few distinctions and differences. Can I meet with one of them? Sure, especially if you are crucified with Christ. Can I meet with both? Sure, if you are crucified with Christ.

Can I be one with all Christians? Sure, if you are crucified with Christ.

Can I agree with all Christians?...

How will everyone know that you are the Lord's disciples -- because you are one. How will you be one? By being crucified with Christ.

This is the only sign that we are given for the "true church". The true church is the gathering of the saints who have been "crucified with Christ".

[OBW]

There are biblical commands around having no divisions: 1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought...First, the term used was "appeal to you" not "command." Dance around this if you like. Even Christ prayed that they would be one. It was clearly a goal. If it was to be a command in the way that the LRC speaks of it, it wouldn't have been overheard by one apostle, it would have been spoken boldly to the group.
But what is it to be one, or "of one mind" with respect to anything. It is evident in Acts 15 that there was not one mind, but that it "seemed good." I have no problem going along with what "seems good" even where I might actually think somewhat differently.

But when you trot out 1 Cor 1 and find a reference to division that says it shouldn't be, you avoid chapter 11 where it says "In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval." I realize that there is the indication that there is ultimately something of God's approval. But on what? Paul himself provides instances of talking on both sides of the same subject. There are clearly issues in which the answer is not simply X and not Y.

And how do you come to arrive a the truth if you do not properly analyze all the possible thoughts on the subject? Consider Acts 15. They didn't simply silence those who suggested Jewish ritual laws. Instead they listened to some speak and then prayed. And what they came up with left a couple of the ritual laws in place. Do you think that was never revisited in any way shape or form? Of course it was. It was not decreed by some kind of oracle of God. It was agreed to by those who prayed about it. that is not the equivalent of the voice of God. But I do believe that it is close enough to agree with. And in "agree with" I mean that I can live with it. I do not subscribe 100% to the doctrinal statement of my assembly. But I can live with it anyway. I can keep any opportunity to teach within the bounds of that statement. It is not something that I am certain about. But I do think there is reason to believe differently. But it does not restrict my fellowship.

For example, the assembly I meet with is very dispensational. But I am not so sold on the whole dispensational understanding of scripture and theology. But I can live with it. There is too much else to agree with to quibble over that little bit of nonessentials.

Can you say that? Or are you bound to toe the complete doctrinal line of nonessentials of the LRC no matter what?

[Ohio]

I think Paul would have approved of Luther as one trying to get back to the ground of oneness....
Luther left the Catholic "ground of oneness" after repeated attempts to assassinate him for trying to reform them.

Paul celebrated the Passover, which Jesus clearly stood against. Which one should we follow?

Paul also gave clear instructions about not suing your brothers which all LC's clearly ignore at LSM's behest.

[Ohio]

This is a good way to look at it. When I consider everything that I was taught in the LC, I realize that the whole problem of division was viewed from a very narrow scope. The mindset was to look at others, and if what they were doing was perceived to be something that was a part of division or divisive, then to stay away from them. Ultimately, it's an attitude of judgment that only intensifies the problem. We don't know other people's hearts, therefore how could we even begin to judge?

Groups like the LC attempt to avoid division just because the Bible says so. And it seems this simplistic mindset is where much of the problem originates. Why? Because it ignores the inevitability of division. Christians have to deal with all kinds of division. Most of it is not our fault, but it is on that basis that we tend to judge. By doing so we build an even bigger barrier than had existed in the first place.

It make sense then why these attempts to 'avoid' division so easily end up becoming a finger pointing game. The quest to identify division becomes a means by which judgment is passed. Those in the LC seem to think that WN/WL were the only ones to 'realize' that Christianity is divided. It's not that others didn't realize it, they just knew better than to go around making an issue out of it. I would argue that making an issue out of existing division is worse than division itself. WL liked to make issues of things he perceived to be true. He said some of the most despicable things imaginable about other Christians. He said the same directed at former coworkers of his.

Good points.

Paul addresses these two conditions differently. In Romans 16, he speaks of those who "make divisions," and deceive the hearts with smooth and flattering speech. In Romans 14, however, Paul speaks of those already separated or divided by diverse practices, like the eating of foods or the celebration of days, both sources of contention between Jews and Gentiles, or any of a million other issues which regularly arise between God's children.

When the saints are already at odds with each other, as they were in Rome and Corinth, Paul does not instruct them to "stand on the local ground," but to remember that all of these different practices are nothing, and the Lord is everything. He reminds them that we should not judge others for how they practice the church life because we all must give an account to God. We should not judge one another over these minor items because Christ died for us all.

Concerning the demands to have one church per city, Paul would say, "The faith which you have, have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves."

This last verse strikingly characterizes LSM leadership, past and present. They judge themselves in what they approve, and do not approve. They think so much more highly of themselves than they ought to based on what they approve, and do not approve. They are constantly comparing and contrasting themselves with the whole of Christianity, in a myriad of church items, based on their own self-made analyses, or judgments.

[ZNPaaneah]

Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves.

Ps 133 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Running down on the beard,
The beard of Aaron,
Running down on the edge of his garments.
3 It is like the dew of Hermon,
Descending upon the mountains of Zion;
For there the Lord commanded the blessing—
Life forevermore.

No one is going to dwell in unity, nor is it going to be pleasant, or precious, when you have these ones judging themselves in what they approve.

As soon as someone enters the fellowship they get the 3rd degree -- do they approve the ground of oneness doctrine, do they recognize WL as the MOTA, ooh they visited their family over Christmas (that's one demerit), etc. It is like the drip, drip, drip of acid rain on marble statues.

[Freedom]

Concerning the demands to have one church per city, Paul would say, "The faith which you have, have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he who does not judge himself in what he approves."

This last verse strikingly characterizes LSM leadership, past and present. They judge themselves in what they approve, and do not approve. They think so much more highly of themselves than they ought to based on what they approve, and do not approve. They are constantly comparing and contrasting themselves with the whole of Christianity, in a myriad of church items, based on their own self-made analyses, or judgments.

The LC is filled with people who hold deep-seated convictions about the things taught/practiced by the LC. It occurred to me that when it comes to the average member, the reason there is such a strong reaction to criticism or scrutiny of the LC is precisely because they feel so strongly about what they stand for. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but a problem does develop when such strong beliefs are equated with a supposed need to judge others.

I’m not out to tell anyone in the LC that they can’t believe what they want, but I cannot accept any insistence on their way as the only correct way. The issue of judging others based upon things they believe to be absolutes is a compulsive problem in the LC. WL went so far as to call Christianity an “organ of Satan.” That was going way beyond a basic entitlement to believe what he wanted. For WL, his beliefs served as basis for judging others.

Back in the mid-2000’s, the better part of an entire region of the country was excommunicated for not recognizing WL as the MOTA. Not too long afterwards, Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde went on radio with the CRI and told everyone that they don’t claim to be the only church, but just the church. The sheer amount of hypocrisy is stunning. And it seems the double standard can be elusive to most members because of the things that are believed to be absolutes. When the possibility that others will disagree isn’t accounted for, the all the sudden everyone else starts to look like the bad guy.

[aron]

WL went so far as to call Christianity an “organ of Satan.” That was going way beyond a basic entitlement to believe what he wanted. For WL, his beliefs served as basis for judging others.

Back in the mid-2000’s, the better part of an entire region of the country was excommunicated for not recognizing WL as the MOTA. Not too long afterwards, Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde went on radio with the CRI and told everyone that they don’t claim to be the only church, but just the church. The sheer amount of hypocrisy is stunning. .

The average LC member will overlook the rolling disaster that's followed the "one church per city" idea since inception, and come back to the well that gave it birth, the "absolute" that's captivated their soul. So you must take the absolute on its own defined terms, because the sold-out (read: captive) ones will tell you that they "have no heart for negative things". They'll just keep coming back to the shibboleth, rub that good luck charm one more time.

So to confront the programme in its entirety, one needs to look at the Bible afresh, again; look at the LC philosopher's stone, and then look at the word of God. Here follows today's attempt.

I recently faced the idea of how much we don't know of the actual book, the Bible, we hold in our hands. This idea came when I saw the Greek spelling of Jesus' brother, the man who got last word in the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem, and who wrote an NT epistle. His name in the Greek Interlinear was "I'acobus" - Jacob. Not our English-named James. If you look at "I'acobus" (or, "I'acov") elsewhere, such as the patriarch, it's rendered in English as Jacob: "Jacob I have loved; Esau I hated". (See e.g. the interlinear of Rom 9:3)

Now, why'd the English translators pick an English name and not the Jewish one, since the Latin 'Vulgate' version also used "Jacobus"? Was it anti-Semitism of the northern Europeans? Or was it something else? I really don't know. And that's my point - I don't know & wonder how much we don't know - transposed to larger Christian discussion and experience - never was I told in any church fellowship (and there were many) that Jesus' brother had the same name as the Jewish Patriarch.

Now, to the English word, "Church" - why is "ekklesia" typically translated as church and not something else? I don't know. But what I do see in context (NT usage) is that the Greek word "ekklesia" meant something quite different than it does to current English readers of the word "church". Ekklesia back then meant meeting, assembly, gathering. It was a group of people convened together. It could be a meeting of Moses and the seventy elders, of the priests in the Temple, in the synagogue of the Second Temple era, of the townspeople (e.g. Acts 17:41; also 19:39).

So when in Revelations 2 and 3 Jesus spoke to the angel of the 'church' in Smyrna or Ephesus or Pergamos or Thyatira, he perhaps (so I surmise) was writing to the "meeting" of the believers of Smyrna or Ephesus or Pergamos or Thyatira. The assembly. In other words, there were probably only such number of Christians, there, that "meeting" or "assembly" and what we today think of as "church" - i.e. the standing body of all believers, assembled or not - was the same thing. (!) If there were only 65 or 85 or 145 believers in a city, then "one church per city" would be quite understandable in all senses of the word, both ancient and modern. As also would, "the church in her house" of Romans 16:5. Not so complex, is it?

Now, how many believers were there, in Ephesus in AD 92, or in Pergamos? Could they and did they regularly all fit in one meeting? If so, then the letter to the church in Ephesus or Pergamos or Smyrna or Thyatira would make sense. But if there were eight or a dozen or fifteen meetings, and those not in close operational contact with each other, then the actual recipients of the letter "to the church" might get more problematic.

I say this because I remember how initially Lee sold us the idea of "one church per city" back in the late '60s and early '70s. He'd ask the question, If John were writing to the church today, to whom would he send it? To the Baptist Church, or the Methodist Church, or &c? But I now wonder if he put modern and arbitrarily chosen (I.e. biased, skewed) understanding of a word, which differs significantly from 1st century usage and understanding, back onto the text, and judging the present condition against that juxtaposition? He created artificial conflict, or false dichotomy, based on skewed (ignorant) understanding?

I remember we all were so impressed with Lee's seemingly impeccable logic: if Jesus wrote to the church today, where would He send the letter? But "the church today" and "the church in Smyrna" might be completely different phenomena; one being 68 or 170 or 235 believers all in close contact (think of Acts 2 where all Jesus' followers were in one upper room - all 120 of them), and one being something entirely different. Entirely different. But Lee convinced us that "the church in Los Angeles" in 1965 and "the church in Smyrna" in the first century AD were, and therefore had to be, the exact same phenomenological entity! He used (our) ignorance to create artificial meaning, and then levered artificial or contrived meaning to craft his argument. And because of our ignorance, we bought it.

And once we bought it, we had to live with all the ridiculous crap that followed it. I know, I know, here come the verses - "There is one Body, the church"; Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, etc, etc - I know. Verses. But this "one" church is not one in number but in spiritual state. And one phone number won't make it one. "We who are many are one." Again, don't assume some rigid, narrow (and presently-defined) understanding to prop up your ideology.

Anyway I'm just thinking aloud here, remembering how easily we swooned under Lee's logic, and how, as I begin to examine what actually lay behind it all, there really wasn't much, there. And I sense, that's really all that held it together: cobwebs, vapours, imaginariums.

[ZNPaaneah]

We are defined by our actions, not our words.

I find it astounding that those who subscribe to Witness Lee's teaching assume that they alone think the church is something critical and important.

Any person who truly views the church as a central and critical New Testament theme knows that the apostle's must define it. Clearly they have not done so in the way we would think, but I have to believe they have done so.

So then, I think that this is what James and Paul said -- we are defined by our actions, not our words.

Be ye doers of the word, not hearers only. The church is those that look into the perfect law of liberty, and continues in it.

According to Paul -- the church of God at Corinth is composed of all those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, all those that call on the Lord Jesus in every place. They are the ones in whom the testimony of Jesus was confirmed.

Both Paul and James are defining the church by the actions, not by words.

[Evangelical]

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.

[Ohio]

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.



Completely bogus response, Evangelical.

Zondervan only prints and sells books.

LSM, however, trains, appoints, and removes elders. LSM holds FTT seminaries for ALL promising young people. They are the SOLE ministry resource for all church meetings, children's thru college meetings, conferences, trainings, retreats, and even home meetings.

Your statement here about LSM is either absolutely naive or totally disingenuous and deceptive.

Sorry but that's the truth.

[Freedom]

The average LC member will overlook the rolling disaster that's followed the "one church per city" idea since inception, and come back to the well that gave it birth, the "absolute" that's captivated their soul. So you must take the absolute on its own defined terms, because the sold-out (read: captive) ones will tell you that they "have no heart for negative things". They'll just keep coming back to the shibboleth, rub that good luck charm one more time.

So to confront the programme in its entirety, one needs to look at the Bible afresh, again; look at the LC philosopher's stone, and then look at the word of God. Here follows today's attempt.

These word ring true. In the LC, they talk a lot about 'vision'. When outcome deviates from the supposed vision (as it always does), then there is always talk of needing to see a 'fresh' vision.

In all of this, what is never called into question are the ideals themselves. That is because the vision/ideals are percieved to be absolutes.

[Ohio]

These word ring true. In the LC, they talk a lot about 'vision'. When outcome deviates from the supposed vision (as it always does), then there is always talk of needing to see a 'fresh' vision.

In all of this, what is never called into question are the ideals themselves. That is because the vision/ideals are percieved to be absolutes.

I concluded there was no heavenly vision. The only "vision" I knew of was to stick it out no matter how bad things got, otherwise why would they conclude about every departing brother, "he lost his vision."

[Freedom]

I concluded there was no heavenly vision. The only "vision" I knew of was to stick it out no matter how bad things got, otherwise why would they conclude about every departing brother, "he lost his vision."

In the LC, 'vision' is basically a test of who can ignore the facts the longest, and it's ironic. The vision that Paul saw was, in part, a vision that caused him to stop persecuting the church. He came to terms with what he had been doing. It was a true reality check.

Any 'vision' that prompts people to label fellow Christians as 'degraded' or 'satanic' is a delusion and is the exact opposite of what Christians should be doing.

[Evangelical]

In the LC, 'vision' is basically a test of who can ignore the facts the longest, and it's ironic. The vision that Paul saw was, in part, a vision that caused him to stop persecuting the church. He came to terms with what he had been doing. It was a true reality check.

Any 'vision' that prompts people to label fellow Christians as 'degraded' or 'satanic' is a delusion and is the exact opposite of what Christians should be doing.

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

[Ohio]

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

But what if they are standing on the local ground of oneness?

Doesn't their proper standing trump any deficiencies in their spiritual condition?

We heard this for years, and you have repeated it.

This error primed the Recovery for the second coming of Philip Lee.

He was as degraded as they come, yet purported to be his dad's closest and invaluable coworker.

Fully qualified to run LSM and rule all the LCs!

[ZNPaaneah]

Excellent point. This forum has taken issue with many examples of how those taking the lead in the LC churches or the LSM ministry were living and walking as unbelievers. But the response we have heard from the LRC cheerleaders is that Christianity is degraded.

They define degraded as "living and walking as unbelievers" so then does this mean the LRC is degraded Christianity?

[Cal]

The idea of one city per church is meant to be about freedom from the religious institutions. If we leave "Babylon", believers in each city is what remains.

This is more idealistic theory based on arbitrary definitions. What's a "religious institution?" As with most LCM definitions, "religious institutions" and "Babylon" are always something other than the LCM. You're kidding yourself if you think the leadership of the LCM is not as much a religious institution as most others you might cite.

The LCM sees what they think is the ideal, generously considers themselves part of that ideal, and stingily denies all other movements and groups any of it--all based on proprietary and self-serving definitions of terms like "oneness," "division," "religion," "church" and so forth.

Ideals are great. The problem with the LCM is they use their ideals to aggrandize themselves and condemn everyone and everything else. I just don't think much of Christians who use their view of God's best to prop themselves up and put everyone else down. It's just not a proper Christian attitude. It's the attitude of seeing the speck in everyone else's eyes and ignoring the log in one's own.

[Freedom]

Degraded Christians are those who live and walk like unbelievers.

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.

[Ohio]

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.

Because I also lived in the LC bubble for too many years, almost every believer I saw "walking like unbelievers" was in the LC.

[Evangelical]

Why does the LC assume all other Christians are such? LC members have such little interaction with them that such an assessment could not possibly be based upon any actual observations.


In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded. Googling, we can find that this old book makes reference to degraded Christians:
The New Testament, Arranged in Historical and Chronological Order

"The error of Arius and the usurpations of the Church at Rome were the two principal sources of all the corruptions which have degraded Christians"

In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.

[Evangelical]

But what if they are standing on the local ground of oneness?

Doesn't their proper standing trump any deficiencies in their spiritual condition?

We heard this for years, and you have repeated it.

This error primed the Recovery for the second coming of Philip Lee.

He was as degraded as they come, yet purported to be his dad's closest and invaluable coworker.

Fully qualified to run LSM and rule all the LCs!

There is no such ruling of the LC's by an individual. That is ridiculous.

[OBW]

In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded. Googling, we can find that this old book makes reference to degraded Christians:
The New Testament, Arranged in Historical and Chronological Order

"The error of Arius and the usurpations of the Church at Rome were the two principal sources of all the corruptions which have degraded Christians"

In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.You are clearly offering a false dichotomy. One in which there is the "local churches" and one in which all the others are guilty of certain serious errors that you can find in some group somewhere.

(I know that you just claimed that there are other Christians, not of your group and neither backslidden nor false. But you dismiss even those by ignoring their existence and not considering whether that constitutes the majority of Christianity or just some minority.

But by your terminology, it would appear that you do not consider yourself to be part of Christianity. If that is true, then you still separate from those "OK Christians" because you think you are something different.)

Going back to your false dichotomy . . . for example, the fact that there is any group that has decided to accept open, practicing homosexual persons into fellowship does not taint the myriad of groups that do not. Further, the fact that there is a linkage in name with other groups does not taint the whole of those with that name. For example, there are multiple groups that share the names Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopal), Baptist, etc. And there are some groups that have a somewhat common name but no overarching administration or headquarters, therefore no ability of the actions or decisions of one to have impact on another.

Yet you generally lump everything that is not part of the so-called "local churches" into a single classification of "degraded Christianity." The problem is that most are no more degraded that the so-called "local churches." And in some ways, less so.

The church is the church. No amount of posturing will make yours "the church" and others simply "degraded Christianity." That huge body of Christians that you demean with your "degraded" terminology is the body of Christ.

Just as you are. No more. no less.

Not IF they join your group or listen only to the sound of the "one trumpet" that was sounded by Lee and is replayed forever by the LSM.


Now if you really want to claim that you don't consider all Christians to be degraded, then why don't you actually take a stand on what would qualify as not degraded (and not simply social or false Christians). Anything? Anyone? An assembly here and there, but (of course) not anything with a (gasp) name.

And there is the bugaboo. They all have names, so you can dismiss them all (as you fool yourself into thinking you don't have a name).

So it would seem that the potentially includable groups don't really exist.

[HERn]

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

Of course it looks strange to you, that's because you have never seen the body.

[Ohio]

There is no such ruling of the LC's by an individual. That is ridiculous.

How do you know? Were you at LSM during the 70s and 80s?

[Evangelical]

How do you know? Were you at LSM during the 70s and 80s?

No I was in denominations but today the LSM is not like that.

[Evangelical]

You are clearly offering a false dichotomy. One in which there is the "local churches" and one in which all the others are guilty of certain serious errors that you can find in some group somewhere.
(I know that you just claimed that there are other Christians, not of your group and neither backslidden nor false. But you dismiss even those by ignoring their existence and not considering whether that constitutes the majority of Christianity or just some minority.
But by your terminology, it would appear that you do not consider yourself to be part of Christianity. If that is true, then you still separate from those "OK Christians" because you think you are something different.)

I maintain the distinction between the body of Christ and the denominations (or systems of Christianity) which you seem to find difficult to distinguish from the organic body of Christ.

If I say the Roman Catholic system is degraded that does not mean every Roman Catholic is degraded and it does not mean the body of Christ is degraded, unless you believe the body of Christ includes Roman Catholicism.

If I go to a Lutheran church that does not make me a Lutheran and if I go to a baptist church that does not make me a baptist.

Your insistence on identifying Christians by the name where they meet proves you are worldly (1 Cor 3:3).

[Ohio]

No I was in denominations but today the LSM is not like that.

That's what we all thought until their corruption smacked us in the face.

Your time is coming soon.

[Evangelical]

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.
A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

[Ohio]

I maintain the distinction between the body of Christ and the denominations (or systems of Christianity) which you seem to find difficult to distinguish from the organic body of Christ.



LSM and the LC's are a denomination and a system of Christianity. There is nothing about them which is "organic." Who in their right mind would look at a room full of "tape recorders" and think to themselves, "How wonderfully organic!"

They can't even read the Bible anymore without some accompanying footnote, Life Study, and HWfMR.

[Evangelical]

LSM and the LC's are a denomination and a system of Christianity. There is nothing about them which is "organic." Who in their right mind would look at a room full of "tape recorders" and think to themselves, "How wonderfully organic!"
They can't even read the Bible anymore without some accompanying footnote, Life Study, and HWfMR.

I'll believe you when I see that from them in writing. So far, not. One is clearly a ministry, the other is clearly a local church. I have never heard one member say they are a Local Church Christian, they say "just Christian".

Despite what some people believe, that the Bible plus their mind plus God's Spirit is all they need to arrive at spiritual truth, I don't think that it makes them a better theologian at all. Just like if little Johnny studying for the math exam thinks he doesn't need his teacher's notes, just the textbook will do, will probably fail math.

[Freedom]

In one sense of the use of the word "degraded" Lee referred to the system of Christianity. It would be hard for anyone to argue that a system which marries homosexuals could not be considered degraded.
...
In reference to individuals, Lee made no assumption that "all other Christians are degraded".

Lee believed there are different kinds of Christians. Degraded, are those who walk and act like unbelievers. Christianity has other words for those kinds of people, like backslidden, or perhaps false Christians. Lee also talked about well-behaved Christians, those that are above the standard, he did not say those are degraded.

It seems that you fail to understand that Lee’s statements were bound to be taken the wrong way. His statements were provocative on purpose. Lee (or his defenders) tried to claim he separated the ‘system’ of Christianity from the people. Christianity is composed of Christians, it’s as simple as that. So phrases like degraded Christianity, without qualification, just serve as blanket statements. I could point out numerous similar blanket statements that Lee made. I must ask, what was his purpose in making such statements? Was he truly concerned for others, or just out to discredit them? It seems he was intent on creating an us vs. them mentality.

We know for a fact that there is some amount of ‘degradation’ among Christians. But is that really the issue? Is it worth mentioning? The real issue is our own state, or at a broader level, the state of those whom we are associated with. In Rev 2-3, there are the seven churches, all with differing states. In the address to each church, notice what it ends with. It speaks of overcoming, and this includes the message to Philadelphia, the faithful church. The admonition to Philadelphia is “hold fast what you have.”

So if a Christian group feels that they are particularly faithful to the Lord according to what they teach or practice, that’s fine, they can continue on doing what they’re doing. Why would there be any need to point fingers at others and concern themselves with the perceived shortcomings of other groups?

[Evangelical]

It seems that you fail to understand that Lee’s statements were bound to be taken the wrong way. His statements were provocative on purpose. Lee (or his defenders) tried to claim he separated the ‘system’ of Christianity from the people. Christianity is composed of Christians, it’s as simple as that. So phrases like degraded Christianity, without qualification, just serve as blanket statements. I could point out numerous similar blanket statements that Lee made. I must ask, what was his purpose in making such statements? Was he truly concerned for others, or just out to discredit them? It seems he was intent on creating an us vs. them mentality.

We know for a fact that there is some amount of ‘degradation’ among Christians. But is that really the issue? Is it worth mentioning? The real issue is our own state, or at a broader level, the state of those whom we are associated with. In Rev 2-3, there are the seven churches, all with differing states. In the address to each church, notice what it ends with. It speaks of overcoming, and this includes the message to Philadelphia, the faithful church. The admonition to Philadelphia is “hold fast what you have.”

So if a Christian group feels that they are particularly faithful to the Lord according to what they teach or practice, that’s fine, they can continue on doing what they’re doing. Why would there be any need to point fingers at others and concern themselves with the perceived shortcomings of other groups?

Creating an us vs them mentality? Who exactly has the us vs them mentality? Is it the local churches who state the truth about the state of Christianity, or is it the thousands of denominations that is already an "us vs them mentality" and has been for some time now. I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

[aron]

I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

And this excuses Witness Lee, who made it an art form?

[Ohio]

Creating an us vs them mentality? Who exactly has the us vs them mentality? Is it the local churches who state the truth about the state of Christianity, or is it the thousands of denominations that is already an "us vs them mentality" and has been for some time now. I can guarantee that we can speak to anyone from a denomination and they will have something negative to say about other denominations and they will have one reason or another for choosing their denomination.

A prejudiced person is always blaming others for their prejudices and projecting his own upon them. (Romans 2.1)

[aron]

I'll believe you when I see that from them in writing. So far, not. One is clearly a ministry, the other is clearly a local church. I have never heard one member say they are a Local Church Christian, they say "just Christian".

You won't see it in writing because they know it would hurt recruiting efforts. Like the mafia Don who says, "Something must be done" about the rival family. It is implicitly understood, but still deniable.

And, "We are just Christians" means, We are just Christians who meet in the local churches affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and, by the way, we refuse every other ministry as corrupt and degraded.

The local churches are Living Stream Ministry franchises. But to sell it that way isn't palatable. So they cover and deny. But eventually you'll hear some variation like RG to BM: "We do what we are told." Or, "Philip Lee is the Office." Eventually you'll get it.

[aron]

Despite what some people believe, that the Bible plus their mind plus God's Spirit is all they need to arrive at spiritual truth, I don't think that it makes them a better theologian at all. Just like if little Johnny studying for the math exam thinks he doesn't need his teacher's notes, just the textbook will do, will probably fail math.

Then little Johnny goes to school, and the teacher uses 85 year-old textbooks, says everyone but her is hopelessly corrupt, won't be subject to peer review. . . what kind of school is that?

You create a false dichotomy. Believe it or not there are real scholars out there. But Lee received no peers, and had to be the big fish in a tiny pond. So, who was it that stayed home, with his textbook and his imagination?

[Evangelical]

You won't see it in writing because they know it would hurt recruiting efforts. Like the mafia Don who says, "Something must be done" about the rival family. It is implicitly understood, but still deniable.

And, "We are just Christians" means, We are just Christians who meet in the local churches affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and, by the way, we refuse every other ministry as corrupt and degraded.

The local churches are Living Stream Ministry franchises. But to sell it that way isn't palatable. So they cover and deny. But eventually you'll hear some variation like RG to BM: "We do what we are told." Or, "Philip Lee is the Office." Eventually you'll get it.

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?

[Evangelical]

A prejudiced person is always blaming others for their prejudices and projecting his own upon them. (Romans 2.1)

I was not blaming others. I was pointing out that claiming the local churches have an 'us and them' mentality is silly considering the present state of Christianity with its thousands of denominations. Anyway, people like you, ignorant of the real state of Christianity and too gutless to speak out against it, are the reason why almost all churches will be marrying homosexuals in a few years time.

[Evangelical]

And this excuses Witness Lee, who made it an art form?

Just pointing out that Christianity has had an "us and them" mentality long before Witness Lee came along. If fact you and others on here have an us and them mentality against the local churches, that makes you a hypocrite. You are a sad individual with nothing better to do than criticize the local churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

The New Testament church is a gathering of those who have been redeemed by Jesus shed blood. They gather into the name of Jesus. This name includes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They recognize Jesus as Lord and they all share the common faith delivered to us by the apostles.

Since there are very many gatherings, some are genuine, some are counterfeit it is important to know what sign to look for to identify the genuine from the counterfeit.

One sign has been given to us, the sign of Jonah. You should see the personal experience of the cross of Christ and His resurrection. The members may smell like fish, they may look like they just washed up on the beach, but if they have real experiences of the cross of Christ then that is the only sign you need.

In this age the sky is red, ever since Jesus crucifixion. If that death was the end of your day you will have peace in the next age. If it was the beginning of your day then you are part of a very foul worldly system.

[aron]

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?
The ones stuck in a time warp are running the show in Anaheim. They are the only ones who survived the purges of the '80s. The rest, who exited, and left written documents (i.e. testimonies) pointed out unoquivocally that these were, and by extension still are, ministry churches. The critiques of 1978, 1988, and 2007 still stand. Nothing has changed.

Just pointing out that Christianity has had an "us and them" mentality long before Witness Lee came along. If fact you and others on here have an us and them mentality against the local churches, that makes you a hypocrite. You are a sad individual with nothing better to do than criticize the local churches.Christianity had problems long before Nee and Lee came along. But Nee's "normal" was anything but.

Here's an example. Look at how the culture of the Jews avoided publicly shaming others unnecessarily. Jesus echoed this. Go to your brother privately, if possible, and clear things up.

By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame, and "whitening the face". In the local churches of Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry it is called "perfecting" and "training". Believe me, it does not perfect your soul, but distorts it.

It merely puts you in your place in the LC hierarchy. Everyone knows who gets to shame whom. It is completely blatant. I've seen the Blendeds come by, hold conferences, and call out brothers from the podium. But this calling out is never ever reciprocated; that would be "rebellion"; the most heinous of crimes. But because they are blind to their own culture, they can go on and on about the splinter of "degraded Christianity" and not see the beam in their own eye. That's why I said Lee made it an art form.

[Ohio]

Is Philip Lee still in charge? or are you stuck in a time warp from the 80's?

Since his hand-picked successors are still running LSM, you could say that Phillip Lee is still in charge.

Why is it that you have license to condemn all of Christianity for its millennial old sins, but LSM's sins in my life time are old news, and off limits?

By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame, and "whitening the face". In the local churches of Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry it is called "perfecting" and "training". Believe me, it does not perfect your soul, but distorts it.

It merely puts you in your place in the LC hierarchy. Everyone knows who gets to shame whom. It is completely blatant. I've seen the Blendeds come by, hold conferences, and call out brothers from the podium. But this calling out is never ever reciprocated; that would be "rebellion"; the most heinous of crimes. But because they are blind to their own culture, they can go on and on about the splinter of "degraded Christianity" and not see the beam in their own eye. That's why I said Lee made it an art form.

This is the Recovery "way" of leadership. Yes, "whitening the face" does produce short term benefits, much the same as the inquisitors "perfected" their captives. The system in place from Darby to Barber to Nee to Lee to Chu to your local elder exists, not to serve the Lord or shepherd His people, rather for the maintenance of a ministry power structure. It is a lust for power and control, lording over the elect.

The program turns beloved brothers into bullies. There are numerous stories I have heard about Lee and Chu going off on some tirade just to make it "perfectly clear" who was in charge. Lee, by numerous accounts, would have weekly "ice baths," berating the audience of leaders endlessly. All of his students have learned the same pattern from their mentor.

[aron]

It is a lust for power and control, lording over the elect..

It's the way of the gentiles. I point out its oriental aspect not to make it seem worse than the Caucasian gentiles, but to show that it isn't a system free of human culture, as Lee claimed. His ground for criticising "fallen Christianity" was nil.

And the local churches "affiliated with the ministries of Nee and Lee" were of men, just as were those claiming to be of Cephas and Paul and Apollos.

[Cal]

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.

Right. "The local churches" are an idealistic abstraction which the less-than-ideal LCM uses to condemn everyone else.

A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

Again "denominations" is your self-serving, proprietary term. As long as groups, whether you call them denominations or something else, are not attacking each other there is not a big problem. Everyone knows there is one Body and most have seen it. The LCM, and you, are in the classic error of denominations (which most of them avoid now) of defiantly claiming your way is the the best or only way. That is what you doing and that is what was always the worst thing about denominations. All they are now is different flavors, while the LCM remains one of the antagonists. The Body is not hindered by people having differing interpretations of the Bible and living according to them in peace. The Bible allows this and even insists we honor it (Romans 12). It is your insistence on your interpretation of matters which are not clearly stated or prescribed in the Bible which is the current problem. Anyone who hasn't seen this hasn't seen the Body.

[Drake]

Look at how the culture of the Jews avoided publicly shaming others unnecessarily. Jesus echoed this. Go to your brother privately, if possible, and clear things up...By contrast, Chinese culture revolves around public shame

So Paul was wrong to shame Peter in public and by the logic of your argument he was Chinese too!

:rollingeyesfrown:

Drake

[UntoHim]

Drake,

Nice try. Your retort is comparing apples to oranges. Paul wasn't "shamming" Peter, but rather he was rebuking him for his "conduct not being in step with the truth of the gospel". (Gal 2:14)

The shamming aron speaks of is the unbiblical practice in the Local Church as practiced by Witness Lee, who no doubt picked it up from Watchman Nee. It is still practiced in the movement to this day. Rather than handling matters in a righteous and upright manner, public shamming is used.

-

[Drake]

Drake,

Nice try. Your retort is comparing apples to oranges. Paul wasn't "shamming" Peter, but rather he was rebuking him for his "conduct not being in step with the truth of the gospel". (Gal 2:14)

The shamming aron speaks of is the unbiblical practice in the Local Church as practiced by Witness Lee, who no doubt picked it up from Watchman Nee. It is still practiced in the movement to this day. Rather than handling matters in a righteous and upright manner, public shamming is used.

-

What is the difference between a public rebuke and shaming?

When Jesus rebuked Peter and called him Satan in front of others was he not shamed for his thoughts and desires? Was not Peter also shamed with just a look from the Master after he denied Him?

The cultural argument that Jesus was a Jew and therefore echoed Jewish traditions as aron argues has no merit. Did He not shame the religious leaders of His day also? Did He not shame the money-changers when He turned their tables over?

So if the objection is about the public rebukes that Brother Lee is being credited with, there is no basis for it being a Jewish or Chinese thing. There is no scriptural support for that. It's just a made up argument.

Drake

[Ohio]

So Paul was wrong to shame Peter in public and by the logic of your argument he was Chinese too!

:rollingeyesfrown:

Drake

Huge difference. Paul addressed an action by Peter which had public consequences, which were contrary to the truth, and damaged the gospel.

The public shamings we are speaking of had nothing to do with errors committed by the recipient. (1) For example, one dear brother in Cleveland who was bald would regularly be called "hard-head" and "stiff-necked" by Titus Chu. The entire audience would laugh, but the brother remained silent. It was so regular, that everyone expected it, and no one ever spoke up in his defense. (2) Another brother was constantly chastised for not quitting his job and serving full-time. The whole GLA would look at this elder with that in their mind, rather than the immense respect he deserved. (3) Another brother John Myer stopped going to Cleveland for TC's conferences because he grew tired of explaining to the younger brothers why TC treated him such. (4) Another dear brother was constantly blamed publicly for every church problem to the point that some young full-timer almost beat him up, believing what TC said was true.

Don't get me started on all the horrific abuses I have witnessed and heard of in the LC. And, if you think TC was unique, then read the stories about Lee and Son, or if you think it only happened to brothers, then read Jane Anderson's testimony about what Benson Phillips did to the sisters.

No, brother Drake, this kind of shaming was not scriptural, nor was it isolated, rather it was very much systemic, abusive, controlling, brutish, and exclusive to the Recovery.

[Ohio]

What is the difference between a public rebuke and shaming?

Drake

For starters, a public rebuke addresses a specific action or teaching. It protects others from harm or error. Public sins by public figures require public rebukes. No one laughs during a serious rebuke.

Shaming tears down the integrity, reputation, and character of the person. It is used to bring all under subjection, so that all know "who is the boss." It is strictly an exercise of power, to lord it over others. Shaming often includes mocking and laughter, but is not necessary. Shaming has utility in a military setting, but not in the household of God.

[Drake]

Huge difference. Paul addressed an action by Peter which had public consequences, which were contrary to the truth, and damaged the gospel.

The public shamings we are speaking of had nothing to do with errors committed by the recipient. (1) For example, one dear brother in Cleveland who was bald would regularly be called "hard-head" and "stiff-necked" by Titus Chu. The entire audience would laugh, but the brother remained silent. It was so regular, that everyone expected it, and no one ever spoke up in his defense. (2) Another brother was constantly chastised for not quitting his job and serving full-time. The whole GLA would look at this elder with that in their mind, rather than the immense respect he deserved. (3) Another brother John Myer stopped going to Cleveland for TC's conferences because he grew tired of explaining to the younger brothers why TC treated him such. (4) Another dear brother was constantly blamed publicly for every church problem to the point that some young full-timer almost beat him up, believing what TC said was true.

Don't get me started on all the horrific abuses I have witnessed and heard of in the LC. And, if you think TC was unique, then read the stories about Lee and Son, or if you think it only happened to brothers, then read Jane Anderson's testimony about what Benson Phillips did to the sisters.

No, brother Drake, this kind of shaming was not scriptural, nor was it isolated, rather it was very much systemic, abusive, controlling, brutish, and exclusive to the Recovery.

The kind of shaming you described by Titus Chu is not something I have been exposed to directly.

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Denominations is an apt description of what they are. That is what they are.
The Bible makes clear there is only one way to God and it is a narrow way. There are important things, matters of faith, of which there can only be one.
The Bible is clear that there is only one Body (Eph 4:4). Do we see one body? No we see many different bodies. Automatically this rules out your notion of "many different ways".

You may say that the local churches are an idealistic abstraction. Likewise, it seems your notion of different groups being one Body is an idealistic abstraction. The reality is quite different. Christ came to earth not with peace but with a sword (Matthew 10:34 ). Christ came to cause division between those who would follow Him and those who would not (Matthew 10:38). Just because denominations are in peace with each other does not make them the Body, nor solve the problem. Christ is not interested in peace but in dividing between those who follow Him and those who don't.

[Freedom]

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

There was a video on youtube (I think it has since been taken down) where WL had a translator read/translate one of his outlines in English in front of the people in the meeting. The translator spoke the phrase "God's economy" instead of "the economy of God," and then WL went off on him. It seemed like such a petty thing for WL to make an issue about.

When you say that sometimes issues need to be addressed directly, yes I agree to that. But I don't think this means leaders can choose to make issues out of petty things just because. If issues are being addressed publicly that shouldn't be, or someone is making issues out of things that aren't issues at all, then there is a problem.

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

[Drake]

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

There is no pecking order in the churches.

You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

Drake

[Freedom]

There is no pecking order in the churches.
You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.

That's just a general observation I made, but I did see various times where church meetings were used to unnecessarily put someone on the spot for whatever reason. Anyhow, I don't know that it's so easy to separate the local churches from their trainings because the two are hopelessly intertwined. By the way, I saw plenty pressured to attend the FTTA or semi-annual trainings in a way where they didn't attend in an enthusiastic manner.

Back to the subject of shaming. Shaming is shaming regardless whether it happens in a meeting hall or training center. I think the concerns that others have relayed here are due to the fact that such a practice can easily qualify as spiritual abuse, and I don't think that concerns about that kind of practice 'distract' from anything. They are 100% valid.

When I think of all the instances where I saw someone put on the spot, I can't see really any of those situations as having been necessary. Putting people on the spot like that, or shaming (the extreme method) always serve the purpose of showing who's in charge. That's why I say that there is a pecking order. Visible or not, if shaming is taking place, it's a clear sign that there are people trying to assert themselves as being above others.

[Indiana]

In the LC, they talk a lot about needing to be 'perfected'. My experience was that LC leaders will engage in a lot of nonsense in the name of 'perfecting' people. Why do they do it? It seems a big reason is to reinforce whatever pecking order exists.

There is no pecking order in the churches.
You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.


Drake, As to the question of their being a pecking order, we don't think of the church life in that way but we should come to know that our leaders have read Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee and all the messages he gave on authority after the resumption of his ministry in 1948. / Later, during the late 1980s turmoil under Brother Lee's leadership, that book was reprinted and renamed Authority and Submission, with key chapters left out in order to amplify Nee's word on submission to authority.

Authority and Delegated Authority
“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.
Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.”

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee and the global authorities who he mentored.

The Testimony of the Body – Everybody Should Submit
Nee said: Living the church life demands our very life. The first thing we have to do is not to think, but to submit. The saints should present all the problems to the elders, and the elders should present the problems before God. In this way the saints can come to God through the elders, and God’s authority can be realized among the saints.

We have to ask God to do one thing today: If a person rejects the leading in the Body, he will be deprived of all leadings. The Lord’s leading in the work is manifested in the Body. If we pay our attention to our individual ways, we will miss God’s leading. )The principle of service in the church is that all the one-talented ones have to rise up. But as soon as they rise up, the flesh rises up also. Hence, in order for the church to become the church, all the one-talented ones have to rise up. However, in order to deal with the flesh, there must also be the exercise of authority. Here the only solution is for man to listen and obey. If you think that something is right, you should obey. If you think that something is not right, you should nevertheless obey. Everyone should rise up, and everyone should learn obedience.

If we would rise up as a whole Body, the whole of China will be taken; no one will be able to withstand us. At the time of Martin Luther, God began to take the way of recovery step by step. For the past four hundred years, God did some recovery work every fifty years. During the past one hundred years, His Work has been especially strong. It seems as if the last few decades have seen the peak of recovery. There has never been a time when the church has been as rich as it is now. . . . The ultimate work among all these works may very well be the recovery of the Body testimony.

Witness Lee, ultimately copied at the end of his ministry what Nee did at the end of his ministry. The reins of leadership were given over to Br. Lee as the universal leader in the world-wide movement of churches under him, as both the head of the work and of the church. This was not a move of the Lord but a huge cloud cover rolling in from another source to obscure our view of the church, oneness, and proper ground for meeting.

[Drake]

Indiana,

The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.

This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.

This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.

Drake

[Indiana]

Indiana,
The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.
This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shortening it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.
This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.
Drake

That's good, thanks Drake.

From book on Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu:. “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

[Drake]

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

[NewManLiving]

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals.

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

Christ alone is the head. Any other head and you have a human organization. How quickly both Lee and Nee forgot. In WL book, The Spirit and the Body ch 14 Lee forgets the unique headship of Christ by including the head in his analogy of the body. However, the Head is Christ "from whom" the whole body... So the ears and eyes belong to Christ alone. In days past God spoke through the fathers and prophets. Today He speaks through His Son, the Head of His Body the Church. Unfortunately Nee and Lee resort to the Fathers and Prophets to make an argument for their authoritarian movement. Today is no different - the Ministry supersedes the headship of Christ

[Indiana]

Indiana) "As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals." W. Nee

Who is the head here?"

Are you quoting Brother Née or are you quoting Lily Hsu?

If Née, please provide the reference and let's have a look.

Drake

Here we go Drake.

Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu: “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals".

Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

[least]

The chapter you are citing concerns The Leading of the Body.
This chapter and others before and after are about bringing in the function of the Body. My reading of the context is that all the members of the Body must rise up and function. A beautiful harmony is described between those with one talent whose functioning will bring in the flesh and those who are given charge over the flock to deal with that flesh when it comes in. The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body.
This is very far from turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him. Quite the contrary, when read in context.
Drake

One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent.
those given charge over the flock deal with that flesh when it comes in? Horrible words. That rings a bell. Some one on this forum said according to his own experience that 'my shepherd has become my butcher'.
I can see WL messages became LSM bible; and LSMLCs one talent bring the flesh and LSMLC 'those in charge' taught to be shepherds turn butchers.
*
"The purpose of this arrangement is to accelerate the long learning period an individual would need by himself and shorten it from 10 years to overnight through the authority in the Body."
These are words in the LSM bible and can be defended by vampire scholar orthodoxy. Your organisation, your authority to overnight promote anyone to whichever 'positions'; and whoever smart enough to be in line with 'the body authority' save climbing the 10 years long ladder.

This is 'EXACTLY'- turning over reins to a universal leader through a worldwide movement with all the churches under him.

[Ohio]

The kind of shaming you described by Titus Chu is not something I have been exposed to directly.

However, that is different from what we see in the Bible. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to address issues head on individually and corporately when relevant and necessary. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Every leader does it. It is not against Jewish custom or a preferred custom of the Chinese. All those type arguments are rabbits that distract from meaningful conversations.

Drake

But what TC does is the same as what WL did, and both practiced this regularly.

Were you exposed to that?

[Ohio]

There is no pecking order in the churches. You are perhaps referring to a training of some sort. If you subject yourself to the terms of a training then do so enthusiastically. Otherwise, just enjoy the church life.
The pecking order has long existed at LSM among the workers in order to control the LC's. Because you have not seen it doesn't mean it has not existed over the years.

Many precious ministering brothers left the Recovery because they wanted no part of the "pecking order." After they left, the Chief Peckers declared them "ambitious," and "rebellious," and part of a "vast global conspiracy." The greatest Pecker of all was Lee's own son Phillip, who ran LSM. Perhaps you didn't know that.

No elder, deacon, or full-time worker "just enjoys the church life." They all must participate in endless trainings run by headquarters. That is where shaming regularly occurred, and not so much with the general public, but with the more mature brothers.

[TLFisher]

Fascinating how that works. You create a doctrine which is quite good, but the practice somehow morphs into something quite evil. When anyone questions the practice you point them to the doctrine which is quite good.

When they point out the hypocrisy between the doctrine and the practice the argument is that denominations are just as bad. And so you go full circle from "coming out of her my people" to "hey, we aren't any worse than her my people".

Interesting as it relates to CRI and the local churches. CRI would touch the local church doctrine, but wouldn't touch the practices.

[TLFisher]

The pecking order has long existed at LSM among the workers in order to control the LC's. Because you have not seen it doesn't mean it has not existed over the years.

Let's call it what it is, a hierarchy. Though subtle and hidden, the local churches do have a hierarchy. Edicts or asking for permission are generally referred to as "fellowship". Localities need to get approval from blended brothers in order to welcome former elders.
Case in point was one I raised a hypothetical question to an elder regarding Bill Freeman who was still living at the time. The elders response was "they need to check with Anaheim". Another instance was a former, but long time elder who made frequent trips driving from the NW to Southern California. Often visiting a particular locality in Northern California who seemed to welcome him. Point was most of the brothers and sisters welcomed this former elder and his wife, but not the localities' elder. He squashed any more potential visits. This goes into another mindset.

[Ohio]

Let's call it what it is, a hierarchy. Though subtle and hidden, the local churches do have a hierarchy. Edicts or asking for permission are generally referred to as "fellowship". Localities need to get approval from blended brothers in order to welcome former elders.
Case in point was one I raised a hypothetical question to an elder regarding Bill Freeman who was still living at the time. The elders response was "they need to check with Anaheim". Another instance was a former, but long time elder who made frequent trips driving from the NW to Southern California. Often visiting a particular locality in Northern California who seemed to welcome him. Point was most of the brothers and sisters welcomed this former elder and his wife, but not the localities' elder. He squashed any more potential visits. This goes into another mindset.

It's amazing how much disconnect LCers have between their teachings and their practices.

"We have no hierarchy," says the LC elder, "but let me call Anaheim," when the saints desire to invite a brother they all know well, but had been blacklisted for speaking his conscience concerning corruption at LSM.

All manner of hierarchy will hide itself as a "protection" for the simplistic.

Didn't Nee in his book TNCCL specifically teach that the "highest authority in the church is the elders?"

[Drake]

Here we go Drake.
Nee and the Shanghai church, by Lily Hsu: “In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.
"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals".
Reference
10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.
Who is the head here? To whom was Nee directing the co-workers attention?

Indiana,

The "head", little h, in this section refers to the many members in the body as an illustration of the many members of the Body.

"In the Body we are authorities one to another."

In this section Brother Nee uses the physical body to illustrate that the members of a person's body have a ministry that renders help to the rest of the body. The ministry of that member, an eye or an ear for example, has authority based on its function or ministry. The head in our physical body directs the members. An eye has authority in seeing, an ear in hearing, etc. That is why he says we are authorities one to another.

Drake

[Drake]

One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent.

The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it.

The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested.

Drake

[Drake]

But what TC does is the same as what WL did, and both practiced this regularly. Were you exposed to that?

No. Not the way you have characterized it.

Have I observed public correction or rebuke by Brother Lee? Yes, especially in trainings and then mostly in testings.

Have I personally ever been the focus of public correction by Brother Lee? Yes, and not just in a training.

You may characterize it as shaming, I did not.

However, your description of Titus Chu's shaming is not what I observed or experienced with Brother Lee.

Drake

[Ohio]

Then the differences in our descriptions is purely subjective. You are in the program, while I have left, which alters our point pf view.

There are many, many dear brothers who were berated by WL and TC and eventually left the system. Later it would be said that they, "had a problem with WL, or had a problem with TC." These were usually coded words from public shaming. Why is it that the victim has no recourse for such abuses? Why is it that Lee or Chu did not speak privately to him?

Both Lee and Chu had a way of making enemies out of beloved brothers, and why is that? Why is it that so few brothers have left the Recovery peacefully, without being bad-mouthed by those who remain?

Have you read Don Rutledge's account of being abruptly chastised with John So? If not, i can link it or copy it.

[Drake]

Why is it that Lee or Chu did not speak privately to him?


I don't recall the specifics in that situation but sometimes it is needful and better for the benefit of others to address a matter openly. There could be any number of reasons for that.

[Ohio]

I don't recall the specifics in that situation but sometimes it is needful and better for the benefit of others to address a matter openly. There could be any number of reasons for that.

There you go again, Drake. Always justifying bad behavior. Read this account. (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=1594&postcount=56)


Here is the story. The LSM office had seemly come out of nowhere and began setting the direction for the individual local churches. This was raising some alarm bells. The booklet, "The Beliefs and Practices" was announced after a morning training session. John So and I had scheduled a lunch that day. We both had gotten a copy and were very troubled by several matters. Not the content, but the authorship, "The Co-Workers of the Lord's Recovery." Here was an entity and group of which we had never heard. To us, the Lord's recovery was a spiritual activity originated in the third heavens at the throne of God rather than some group or organization on earth.

Also who are these seemingly self anointed emissaries? In addition, we were not happy that the brothers and sisters could just hand someone an official publication, as was promoted with the announcement of the booklet, rather than being ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them. In addition, how could you not say that we now had a head quarters which could speak for all the so called Local churches?

As we spoke and walked to the diner, other brothers began to join us, kind of like Luke chapter 24. Francis Ball, Ned Nossaman, and James Barber were with us. I am pretty sure that Dick Taylor was also there. They all agreed that they had a bothering. Francis as an elder in Anaheim prayed with WL before every meeting. He proposed that he set up a private fellowship with him after the evening session. We all agreed. James was in total agreement with John and me and expressed his desire to be in that meeting and to express his concerns to WL.

Right after the meeting James informed John So and I that WL was very upset. Francis had tipped off James. WL did not want to have a quiet private talk but chose to dress the two of us down in the hall for all to see. As soon as the meeting was over, we two were marched to the front. Chairs were rearranged. John and I set by ourselves facing WL and about 50 brothers including James Barber who set behind WL in support of him. Scores of the attendance milled around the little court room and became an audience. WL never asked us to open our concerns but immediately launched into a tirade against us and issued a general warning that if we continued to question what the office and the ministry was doing we would cause a lot of damage to the saints and we would damage ourselves. I can never forget the glare of despising we got from Ron Kangas as WL continued for about 10 minutes with the rebuke. Then he dismissed the meeting and we all went home. Was I ever in shock!!! So was John So. I was taking hospitality with Ned. On the ride home he laughed and laughed. He said this regularly happened to the elders in Orange County California.

James had that sheep eating dog look while WL defended the booklet, the LSM and warned John and I to keep silent. After that night, there were no more auras around the WL coordination for me. I determined I would never be bullied again. I still held to the vision of Christ as Life and the Oneness of the Body of Christ is a vital matter, but the personality cult was broken for me. I did backslide and allowed myself to get drawn into the lawsuit for a while. But I never jumped again when WL or one of his cadre yelled frog. I never again promoted the activities from Anaheim as something all the members in Dallas should plunge into. We begin to shepherd the church according to the need of the members. I decided to take what was helpful and leave alone what was some wild hare. Shortly after this I learned of the secret bank account of WL and LSM being run by Benson and an elder in Dallas. Yet it still took several years for my direction and loyalties to change. Whoa I am getting way ahead of myself.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Freedom]

As to the question of there being a pecking order, we don't think of the church life in that way but we should come to know that our leaders have read Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee and all the messages he gave on authority after the resumption of his ministry in 1948. / Later, during the late 1980s turmoil under Brother Lee's leadership, that book was reprinted and renamed Authority and Submission, with key chapters left out in order to amplify Nee's word on submission to authority.

Good point, and I should clarify that this is what I meant by “pecking order.” The LC heavily emphasizes authority, and what that emphasis may not happen in an overt way, it is make clear who is in charge and what boundaries shouldn’t be crossed. It seems a lot of what Lee did in the way of shaming others was done behind the scenes in elders meetings. No doubt, the elders took this ‘example’ to heart when it came to leading the local churches they were overseeing.

The principle of service in the church is that all the one-talented ones have to rise up. But as soon as they rise up, the flesh rises up also. Hence, in order for the church to become the church, all the one-talented ones have to rise up. However, in order to deal with the flesh, there must also be the exercise of authority. Here the only solution is for man to listen and obey.

I think this quote highlights a lot of the authority problem in the LC as it relates to the average member. Like least said, the problem with the one talented member wasn’t the ‘flesh’, it was hiding the talent. The LC encourages everyone to function, but all too often that opportunity is really a just short leash and choke collar in disguise. What do I mean by this? An opportunity to ‘function’ is sometimes presented to someone (someone in desperate need of feeling like they have value), but the true purpose of the 'opportunity' is really to give the elder a chance to correct/perfect that person.

This isn’t just a hypothetical that I’m making up. It is something I’ve experienced firsthand. I remember one situation where an elder asked me to help some with cleanup after a meeting. As soon as I got started, he was there to ‘perfect’ me, telling me that I was doing it all wrong. In that situation, it was just basic cleanup, so there was no ‘correct’ way to do the cleaning. Everyone was doing their job their own way, and there had been nothing wrong with how I had been doing it. He was just being petty, and that’s exactly what he had wanted by asking me to participate in cleanup. He wanted the opportunity to ‘correct’ me, to make it clear who was in charge. And this leads to what is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the blatant abuse of authority in the LC. Most who are being taken advantage of have no intention of rivaling the person in charge. The vast majority of the rank and file are completely happy being such persons. Regardless, leaders feel the need to constantly reiterate who’s in charge.

[Ohio]

The LC heavily emphasizes authority, and what that emphasis may not happen in an overt way, it is make clear who is in charge and what boundaries shouldn’t be crossed.

It seems a lot of what Lee did in the way of shaming others was done behind the scenes in elders meetings.

No doubt, the elders took this ‘example’ to heart when it came to leading the local churches they were overseeing.

The vast majority of the rank and file are completely happy being such persons. Regardless, leaders feel the need to constantly reiterate who’s in charge.

Note the progression here. I never put this all together, until I stepped away and read others' accounts. The so-called "way" in the recovery is not God's Economy, but this pattern of abuse of spiritual authority.

When the reader learns this, then everything else begins to make sense. All my "why's" began to be answered.

Aron constantly interjects Chinese culture into the mix. There are reasons why the philosophy of Confucius was essential to facilitate their dynasty dictatorships.

[Drake]

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

The straightforward reading shows two prominent brothers who were vocally upset and disgruntled with decisions that had been made without them and who believed the local churches were being compromised.

A correction in the presence of 50 leading brothers was apparently deemed needful for Don and John but also for the other brothers. Perhaps an actual transcript of that 10 minute correction would show something else but just based on the account from Don I think it is no more complicated than that.

I understand it was difficult to be openly corrected or rebuked but dissenting viewpoints should be done with the right spirit and in fellowship. I am not saying that the leaders are always right nor that their decisions are always right. I am saying that the lesson here is attitude and approach are important to the outcome.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

Let me share my own example of this "pecking order". Ed Marks and I both came into the church in 1978 in Houston. We were in Houston together until we both moved to Irving from Houston in the summer of 1981. We were both in Irving together for a year an a half. After the Peter training I moved to Odessa Texas. Years later I was in Taipei working with LSM as a trainer (I was sent by the church in NYC and was the only representative at the FTTT that NY had) while Ed was in Anaheim also working as a trainer. When I returned to the US I stopped by Anaheim and took Ed and Francis Ball to lunch. My point is that I have known Ed since 1978.

In 2015 Ed came to NYC on a Monday night to have some fellowship. Prior to the meeting they had a very small gathering in the basement to eat dinner together, about 20 or more of us. I went to the meeting with my son. Dennis Cooley was there and we talked a little about his brother (I was with him in Odessa) and about our kids (they both went to the same HS). I went up to Ed during this meal to talk to him relatively privately. Other than his wife no one else would have overheard our conversation without intentional effort on their part.

I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet.

Ed then left to go to the elders room to fellowship and I stayed behind talking to several saints that I had not seen for many years. I was still there talking to one brother I had known since 1978 when Dennis Cooley came up to me (I used to live in corporate living with Dennis' brother, I loaned Dennis my car while I was in Taipei with the FTTT and I had known Dennis since 1978).

Up to that point it seemed to me like the appropriate, Biblical, and proper. But then it got strange. Dennis Cooley, a brother who has been in the leadership of the church in NY since 1979 (and someone who I knew very well since that time) came up to me and asked "how dare I speak to Ed?" He told me to leave the meeting hall at the behest of all the elders.

Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

[Ohio]

Ohio,

You are on a quest to find proof for your beliefs and so you dismiss alternative explanations that are more obvious.

The straightforward reading shows two prominent brothers who were vocally upset and disgruntled with decisions that had been made without them and who believed the local churches were being compromised.

A correction in the presence of 50 leading brothers was apparently deemed needful for Don and John but also for the other brothers. Perhaps an actual transcript of that 10 minute correction would show something else but just based on the account from Don I think it is no more complicated than that.

I understand it was difficult to be openly corrected or rebuked but dissenting viewpoints should be done with the right spirit and in fellowship. I am not saying that the leaders are always right nor that their decisions are always right. I am saying that the lesson here is attitude and approach are important to the outcome.

Drake
I already have undeniable and irrefutable proofs, it's you who are in denial.

Think about it. Two brothers watching LSM beginning to take over control of the LC's. There was no need for "correction or rebuke," as you say, since they had done nothing wrong or inappropriate. They were only voicing the bothering of the Spirit within. They were being faithful to the Lord. Others also had the same bothering, so they too wanted to fellowship with WL.

Francis Ball, who publicly proclaimed that he would rather be "an ostrich with his head in the sand" rather than be faithful to the truth, then plays toady to WL in order to score points. He was exposed for playing the man-pleaser. Same with James Barber. How about the glare of despising we got from Ron Kangas? Then Nossaman laughed it off saying this kind of stuff was a regular occurrence. He probably had a turn last month. Lee was simply displaying his true colors. The apostles never behaved this way.

Drake, look at how everyone here acted and reacted. Quite telling, don't you think? Don and John got crucified with Christ and suffered on behalf of righteousness. The more I read this account, the more each one's heart was made public. If that's the kind of people you want to be associated with, then fine with me, but don't think God was expressed thru any of them except John and Don.

[Ohio]

Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

Brother ZNP, how dare you bother Ed's conscience?

It's so much easier to bribe a dark conscience with esoteric doctrines and man-exaltations.

[Indiana]

Indiana,

The "head", little h, in this section refers to the many members in the body as an illustration of the many members of the Body.

"In the Body we are authorities one to another."

In this section Brother Nee uses the physical body to illustrate that the members of a person's body have a ministry that renders help to the rest of the body. The ministry of that member, an eye or an ear for example, has authority based on its function or ministry. The head in our physical body directs the members. An eye has authority in seeing, an ear in hearing, etc. That is why he says we are authorities one to another.

Drake

I want to come back to this matter of Spiritual Authority but first to extend a challenge to you, brother Drake, the same as I did privately.

I share here briefly a response to your post to "least", a new forum member.

************************************************** ****
This should resonate with everyone. Do whatever good you can for us. A lot of people are looking on.

"The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it. [Drake]

"The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested. [Drake]
_________________________________

I am interested in our line of fellowship and just came on the forum and will read thru. Again, many saints and seeking ones are reading what we are saying and how we say it. I have invited the blending brothers to come on to have fellowship with us as you are doing in a very good way to put forth what you have inside. They will not come on, no time for us or interest, but actually there is much for them to respond to and to become accountable for. I was ready to call for someone, anyone, to come on and talk specifically with me about how I am wrong in the writings I have presented over a 15 year period. Not one person has done it. It is because I speak the truth and they know it. They cannot respond - intelligently, fairly, or at all - or they will get caught. If not by me, then by Ohio or another one who addresses the other side of the story as to what the churches have heard from the mouths of Local Church leadership. I am ready to concede to anything or to anyone who can make the argument strong and solid that I am one of the most evil speakers on the internet, etc. I was going to get off the forum and now see what you have to say and what you still believe because of the things still being taught that no one, NO one will concede is wrong. And you inspire me to stay. There are three evil books I that I address point by point and no one refutes what I say and no one concedes either and admits publicly that these books were wrong. But they wait for and expect others to capitulate to them. I have one writing that I just noticed two days ago in reading it again that I think was my evil speaking, in part; I went too far. I think I will address this and show that I am willing to capitulate when I am wrong. Anyway, you are here, Drake. Are you one who will capitulate to the truth before God and man? If so, you will be the first LSM defender to do so!

Instead of capitulating over the years, they condemn anyway, and marched out a modern version of the falsehoods of our church history in publishing Sail On, a book endorsed by Minoru and Andrew Yu, totally avoiding addressing their three books of defamation and now add a fourth one. Who will speak the truth? - will you, Drake, and capitulate to it when it comes to you and you see it, and recognize - this is TRUTH. What a man you would be!

[ZNPaaneah]

Brother ZNP, how dare you bother Ed's conscience?

It's so much easier to bribe a dark consciences with esoteric doctrines and man-exaltations.

Wasn't it Evangelical who said that the definition of the church should be that they deal with sin (excommunicate)?

In that case I was told by the elders in NY that Ed "doesn't want to deal with this now". Does that mean they are not a true church?

[Ohio]

Wasn't it Evangelical who said that the definition of the church should be that they deal with sin (excommunicate)?

In that case I was told by the elders in NY that Ed "doesn't want to deal with this now". Does that mean they are not a true church?

Oops, have you forgotten that Ed Marks is with LSM, which is a ministry, and does not need to follow the rules of a church.

[Indiana]

Christ alone is the head. Any other head and you have a human organization. How quickly both Lee and Nee forgot. In WL book, The Spirit and the Body ch 14 Lee forgets the unique headship of Christ by including the head in his analogy of the body. However, the Head is Christ "from whom" the whole body... So the ears and eyes belong to Christ alone. In days past God spoke through the fathers and prophets. Today He speaks through His Son, the Head of His Body the Church. Unfortunately Nee and Lee resort to the Fathers and Prophets to make an argument for their authoritarian movement. Today is no different - the Ministry supersedes the headship of Christ

I believe that this healthy word by NewManLiving is in stark contrast to the history of practice of Local Church leaders, which can be seen in the following link along with my letter to them.


www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

My burden is that Local Church leaders actually become who they say they are - a true expression of the Body of Christ on the earth - a preposterous claim in their unrepentant state and denying of a litany of falsehoods.

[Drake]

Ohio) "Drake, look at how everyone here acted and reacted. Quite telling, don't you think"

Well, frankly no Ohio. You react pretty much the same way on every topic. There is a predictable landing zone with every conversation where we will always end up. That's okay, not complaining, just an observation.

I understand why you see that situation with the two brothers as you do. I'm not denying that it happened. I am rejecting the explanation that it was shaming for the sake of shaming, some Chinese thing, some power play to toy with the masses, or whatever explanation is getting the Likes this week.

At least one if not both brothers had direct access to Brother Lee. Why not go directly? If you look at all the major issues what do they have in common? There was some kind of back office chatter as a forerunner. Of course we are only hearing one side but even at that it s pretty obvious what the issue was.

Drake

[Ohio]

Yeah, maybe you're right.

[least]

The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it.

The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested.
Drake

hey Drake,
I was angered by what you said that: one talent functioning will bring the flesh. And I responded to that.
" Originally Posted by least,
One talent functioning will bring the flesh? I've read that one talent hid his talent."
Now you change tone to explain that 'one talent must not despise his portion'.
Twist and turn.
Jesus said the parable of the master and his servants (whom were given different talents), concerning the kingdom of Heaven.
'the whatever Body' that you said will be manifested "When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent' ...Phew! ...
That's your bible.
And the discussion was not about the 'one talent' in particular.
I will not continue to argue.
I call on the Lord... Lord, I anger no more before the sun goes down. Thank you Lord for your love and grace and mercy.

[Drake]

Sorry least. No offense intended.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

[Post 340 -- question asked of Drake] Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?

Drake -- ?

[Drake]

ZNP ) "Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?"

ZNP, if you are asking my opinion based on what you wrote my observation is that there is no hierarchy but you apparently crossed a line here:

"I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet."

If you were not meeting with the church in NYC in 2015 but showed up at this gathering with Ed and proceeded to regurgitate a decades old issue and pushed an Internet letter at him then you would be viewed as an opposer. If you were meeting with the church in NYC at the time of that meeting then your actions would be considered bad form and unwise. In either case, it would have been better for you to leave since that was not the purpose of his coming.

Apparently the brothers in NYC placed a different value on that topic than you did. :rollingeyesfrown:

Drake

[Drake]

I want to come back to this matter of Spiritual Authority but first to extend a challenge to you, brother Drake, the same as I did privately.

I share here briefly a response to your post to "least", a new forum member.

************************************************** ****
This should resonate with everyone. Do whatever good you can for us. A lot of people are looking on.

"The one talented one hid his talent and was severely dealt with for doing it. That is why all the one talented ones must use their talent and not bury it. [Drake]

"The one talented one must not despise his portion. The ones with multiple talents must not hinder the one talented one. When all the one talented ones exercise and apply their talent then the Body will be manifested. [Drake]
_________________________________

I am interested in our line of fellowship and just came on the forum and will read thru. Again, many saints and seeking ones are reading what we are saying and how we say it. I have invited the blending brothers to come on to have fellowship with us as you are doing in a very good way to put forth what you have inside. They will not come on, no time for us or interest, but actually there is much for them to respond to and to become accountable for. I was ready to call for someone, anyone, to come on and talk specifically with me about how I am wrong in the writings I have presented over a 15 year period. Not one person has done it. It is because I speak the truth and they know it. They cannot respond - intelligently, fairly, or at all - or they will get caught. If not by me, then by Ohio or another one who addresses the other side of the story as to what the churches have heard from the mouths of Local Church leadership. I am ready to concede to anything or to anyone who can make the argument strong and solid that I am one of the most evil speakers on the internet, etc. I was going to get off the forum and now see what you have to say and what you still believe because of the things still being taught that no one, NO one will concede is wrong. And you inspire me to stay. There are three evil books I that I address point by point and no one refutes what I say and no one concedes either and admits publicly that these books were wrong. But they wait for and expect others to capitulate to them. I have one writing that I just noticed two days ago in reading it again that I think was my evil speaking, in part; I went too far. I think I will address this and show that I am willing to capitulate when I am wrong. Anyway, you are here, Drake. Are you one who will capitulate to the truth before God and man? If so, you will be the first LSM defender to do so!

Instead of capitulating over the years, they condemn anyway, and marched out a modern version of the falsehoods of our church history in publishing Sail On, a book endorsed by Minoru and Andrew Yu, totally avoiding addressing their three books of defamation and now add a fourth one. Who will speak the truth? - will you, Drake, and capitulate to it when it comes to you and you see it, and recognize - this is TRUTH. What a man you would be!

Indiana,

Happy to address any particular point or if there is a post in an existing thread you want to reference.

As stated I am not speaking for anyone but myself and I am no one special. If that's ok with you then i will address specific points to the best of my ability.

Drake

[least]

Sorry least. No offense intended.

Drake

I was not offended by you. No offense was intended, I knew that.
I was angry.
Once upon a time, I faithfully read many messages, that by now, I can see that in that period of time, the messages were 'my bible'.
The Holy Spirit 'whirlwinded' me out of that environment, overnight, and the next morning THE BIBLE is 'my bible'. Hehe, was immediately reported to headquarter in Anaheim, and 'these people' were guarded with 'fire' and 'sword' from using, accessing or buying LSM published bibles and hymnals. Hahaha ... how wonderful. :D
No need to know who and where 'these people' are. The Lord told Elijah "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him."
Amazing LORD I have. The LORD my God. Saviour.
Kiss the Son.

[Indiana]

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.

Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.” 10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension from his ministry. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee, and then the global authorities he mentored succeeded him with order "in the Body" on auto pilot, a movement of "one accord".

We need to determine what Nee meant by the "head". In the work is one brother being the head ok, but not in the church. Who would ever say that Nee was the head of the church? This is clearly wrong to say. But when referring to the work, is it ok to exhort the brothers to find out who is "ahead of you" and who you should submit to? Or is this a capital way to blur the work and the church? With everyone submitting to the ones above them, by the time you get to the top you have the head, Watchman Nee. You can get away with that when talking about the work; but once it is established who the head of the work is, it is understood that he is the leader in the church or the head of the church.

Nee then interchanges the spellings of Head and head in his rhetoric to the brothers so that the Head is Christ but it is also Nee, the concepts become blent as to who is the head. And the work and the church becomes blurred as a result. If you take away the work altogether and throw it into the ocean, you are left with only the church. And it is clear in the Bible Who is he Head of the church, Christ. But, according to one LSM leader, Paul Hon, it is ok to have an hierarchy in the work, but not in the church. However, in actuality whoever was head of the work became head of the church. Nee in his time and Lee in his did have the reins of the churches in their hands. Moreover, both introduced the concept of the minister of the age to the co-workers and to the church. And it was clear who held the distinction. It followed, then, that Lee could become the Commander-in-chief for "the Lord's new move", which involved both the work and the churches and a signed pledge of 417 brothers to follow Witness Lee and his leadership.

Dear Brother Lee:

After hearing your fellowship in this elders training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth. We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." (February 1986, Elders' Training, Anaheim)


The One Accord Movement

Witness Lee
"If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The Socialist party stresses socialism. Any political party has its own “ism”. They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge” (One Accord For The Lord’s Move, W. L., pp. 97, 99-100)


Global Authority Today

Those that grasp the global leadership today, the blending brothers, still follow Brother Lee and his blueprint for "the Lord's new move" which has actually been a movement for a long, long time to propagate the ministry around the world and establish "ministerial churches" (Nee)under their head, Witness Lee.

Senior Taiwan co-workers with Prominent Elder John Ingalls 1989

"One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord. This is how denominations are formed. But the Lord had preserved some for Himself. This situation did not develop suddenly, and we cannot expect it to clear up suddenly."

Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP ) "Why? The only possible issue was that I had "dared to talk to Ed". That was the only issue Dennis mentioned.

Now I interpret this to mean that there is a hierarchy in the church and I had somehow crossed some invisible line by talking to Ed. If that is incorrect, please provide me with the reasonable alternative explanation. What is it that I did between my first conversation with Denis and the second that warranted being kicked out of the meeting hall?"

ZNP, if you are asking my opinion based on what you wrote my observation is that there is no hierarchy but you apparently crossed a line here:

"I wanted to know what Ed's role was in apologizing to PL. From my perspective it was a shameful act, but I was seeking to find out if there was something that I was not aware of. I gave Ed a copy of the letter that I had printed off of the internet."

If you were not meeting with the church in NYC in 2015 but showed up at this gathering with Ed and proceeded to regurgitate a decades old issue and pushed an Internet letter at him then you would be viewed as an opposer. If you were meeting with the church in NYC at the time of that meeting then your actions would be considered bad form and unwise. In either case, it would have been better for you to leave since that was not the purpose of his coming.

Apparently the brothers in NYC placed a different value on that topic than you did. :rollingeyesfrown:

Drake

What does this mean "not meeting with the church in NY"? I was in the meeting on Sunday and shared a testimony. I also came Monday night.

Why do you use the derogatory term of "regurgitate". This matter had not been dealt with and never had. As Ed and the elders in NY relayed to me "Ed does not want to deal with this now". So yes, it is decades old, yet he has never to this date dealt with it. It is despicable to pretend that you can ignore a sin and after a certain period of time it has "expired" and can no longer be an issue.

What does "viewed as an opposer" mean? I am a brother, with a relationship with this brother for 30+ years trying to deal with a sin and help those offended by it. Since when are people who try to be faithful to the Lord to deal with sins viewed as "opposers"?

My actions are considered bad form? Pray tell us all what "good form" looks like? This is a joke. Ed by his own admission behaved as a monkey that saw no evil for the sole purpose of pleasing man (Witness Lee to be precise). He apologizes to a sinful man on behalf of the church, knowing that this would hurt and offend many saints in Anaheim that had been harmed by this man. He has never (by his own admission) dealt with this sin. And my actions are considered bad form? Do you guys have any fear of the Lord Jesus at all?

[Drake]

What does this mean "not meeting with the church in NY"? I was in the meeting on Sunday and shared a testimony. I also came Monday night.

Why do you use the derogatory term of "regurgitate". This matter had not been dealt with and never had. As Ed and the elders in NY relayed to me "Ed does not want to deal with this now". So yes, it is decades old, yet he has never to this date dealt with it. It is despicable to pretend that you can ignore a sin and after a certain period of time it has "expired" and can no longer be an issue.

What does "viewed as an opposer" mean? I am a brother, with a relationship with this brother for 30+ years trying to deal with a sin and help those offended by it. Since when are people who try to be faithful to the Lord to deal with sins viewed as "opposers"?

My actions are considered bad form? Pray tell us all what "good form" looks like? This is a joke. Ed by his own admission behaved as a monkey that saw no evil for the sole purpose of pleasing man (Witness Lee to be precise). He apologizes to a sinful man on behalf of the church, knowing that this would hurt and offend many saints in Anaheim that had been harmed by this man. He has never (by his own admission) dealt with this sin. And my actions are considered bad form? Do you guys have any fear of the Lord Jesus at all?

ZNP,

You solicited my view on your encounter using your version of events. Having provided the feedback you sought you now act like I was the one who asked you to leave! :scratchhead:

I'll give this another try assuming you really wanted to know my point of view on your question and perhaps I just didn't say it well. But don't get indignant if you don't like the feedback. It's just that, feedback.

Seemed to me, based on their reaction, that they did not think your question and the letter from "the Internet" was appropriate in that setting and at that time. Perhaps if you had fellowship with them ahead of time there may have been a way to present it but I doubt it because the issue is decades old and the only place it is really still alive is here. So they probably put two and two together and figured anyone who prints off a letter from the Internet and didn't fellowship about it in advance may not have the best intentions. You clearly caught everybody off guard.

In short, your perceived reason as "hierarchy" is highly unlikely and an alternative and highly plausible explanation is provided above as requested.

Since that incident occurred last year and you know Dennis did he offer an explanation afterwards? Ask him.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

The problem is there is a long history with this particular event. People did ask for fellowship and were denied. Some sent letters, some sent the letters by registered mail, some sent them via courier, etc.

Therefore I consider this idea of "if you asked in advance" to be nothing but one in a long line of excuses. Yes, some might try and present that as the explanation, but it is nothing more than a superficial excuse.

In my opinion if someone has offended you then it is up to you to let them know. This is what the Lord told us to do. However, the way the Lord said it the onus is not on the offended one.

Matt 5:23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister[i] has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister,[j] and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court[k] with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Yes, I reminded them, and they were all reminded that their brothers and sisters have something against them and that they have not been reconciled.

They can view me as an opposer for reminding them of their offense, they can accuse me of "regurgitating" this offense, they can say that it was "bad form" or that it was inappropriate, or they could even argue that the only place the issue is still alive is with those who were injured and harmed.

I would say that they are in danger of this being resolved at the judgement seat of Christ.

Let me give you the background on how I came to be in that Monday evening meeting. I left the meetings in NY in 1998. I returned for a funeral service for a sister that I knew and had lived with at Dunton house. Also, since my children had a relationship with some saints there I had visited once or twice in addition to that. But other than that I had not been to the meetings since 1998. Then in the summer of 2015 I became very bothered inside to return. I dreaded it, came up with every reason not to go, and ultimately began visiting other churches in the area, telling myself that what the Lord really wanted was for me to visit other congregations. Ultimately I felt I was cornered and had no other choice so I went to the meeting Sunday with my wife and son. When the meeting was over I stood up in line and shared a testimony at one of the microphones. After the meeting a number of saints came up and talked to me. I was on very good terms with everyone, in 1998 I did not leave under any kind of discipline or request from anyone. I left in 1998 because I felt something was wrong and by this time in 2015 I felt the church was terribly off and couldn't see why I would endanger my family getting entangled in the meeting. However, after the meeting they announced that Ed was going to be there Monday night. I felt the thing was sovereign of the Lord so that I could see Ed and talk to him. Ed should take heart because to me that shows the love and mercy of the Lord that He would still send someone to him. For me I was thankful because many years ago Ed had given me a car and I felt this was a chance for me to repay him. I felt I had a debt to him. My thought was that if he could deal with this offense now, in this life it would be far, far better for him. So it seemed so perfect to me by the Lord, it showed the Lord's care and love for both of us.

But I would say that the risk is that they harden their heart, in which case this will just be one more witness against them. I fear the price they will have to pay will be very high. If they choose to take this path of "bad form", "opposer", "caught us off guard", "we're not ready".

The Lord's word is to "come to terms quickly". They will be without excuse. They can't say they didn't know. They can't say they were faithful to the Lord.

[Drake]

ZNP,

Perhaps the Lord's sovereign arrangement of those two nights was for you to receive healing.

Drake

[Evangelical]

The devil can quote scripture, as can you.

Yes, but you can't quote anything lol. I'll give you some help, this is a page that lists all the bible verses about denominations:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

I cannot see one verse that allows or prefers a conglomeration of denominations as representing the Body.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,
Perhaps the Lord's sovereign arrangement of those two nights was for you to receive healing.

My personal experience of PL was very limited. I met him once while serving in Irving on the meeting hall. I took an instant aversion to him and realized that this was not a man of God.

Also since I was in Houston I did see the sister that moved from Anaheim to Houston due to PL, though we were only told the vaguest of explanations of what took place and had no idea of the details or that it involved PL.

No, I think I have a very clear understanding of the Lord's sovereign involvement of myself and would characterize it from Matthew 18. When I first came to this forum it was the first I had heard of many of these things and concerning others I learned far more details than I had known. If you look at my posts at that time you can see that I was arguing for a clearer presentation of the evidence and a fair presentation of both sides. I see myself as the 2-3 that the offended parties were supposed to go tell, who then were supposed to help those harmed. Read my testimony, I have had very positive experiences of my LRC experience which include full time and part time service in LSM for many years.

But I will say that this experience, now more than six years, with this forum has enlightened me quite a bit. I am not referring to the realization of the reprehensible and hypocritical behavior of many saints in the lead. Many of whom I have worked closely with for years. I would not characterize that as "enlightenment" only a slow, sad realization of their depravity. For example, after giving Ed a copy of the letter to jog his memory and make sure we were both talking about the same thing he requested the envelope as well. That was when I realized he wanted to figure out who else might be involved in having the audacity to hope for a repentance. He talked to me in a way to indicate he felt remorse while at the same time he was already planning on taking retribution. No the enlightenment was to see the position and importance of the book of James. I think I can find every little bit of enlightenment from my experience with the errors of the LRC elegantly expressed in that book. It is amazing to me to think that every Bible student knows the significance of the "first mention" principle, and yet ignores the fact that since James is the first NT book it literally should be viewed as the first mention for every verse in that book.

It has also enlightened me to much that the Lord shared. For example I see the wonderful wisdom in Matthew 18. I can imagine that those who were directly harmed by this person, then saw the elders in Anaheim forced out, replaced by a rubber stamp for Witness Lee (I am paraphrasing Ed Marks words to me) and then seen the church they had given themselves to apologize to the person who had abused their wives and sisters, for those brothers and sisters I can imagine how difficult this would be.

Here you are 20+ years later, no one has repented and you are told to stop regurgitating that old story. Or you are told that you didn't realize anyone still cared about that. Or you are told that you are an opposer. The mistake is with you because didn't write first. Of course when you did write they ignored the letter. They ignored the registered letter. They ignored the courier delivered letter. Nope, the person in "bad form" is not the man molesting the sisters, nor is it the man apologizing and cow towing to the molester, but it is you for bringing this up. That is what is so brilliant about the Lord. I don't have a dog in the fight, I am not outraged and incensed. If that was my daughter or my wife I couldn't continue to repeat this and go through this fight. But since it isn't I am more than happy to shout this from the rooftop. There is a very nice progression and Jesus anticipates that they "will not hear you". Let's be honest, that is what is happening here. They have spent 20 years coming up with excuses for why "they will not hear you". But what do you do then? You tell it to the church. Check, done that. They should be as heathens and publicans to you. Check, done that. This is a strong basis for my building the case that Witness Lee was a false prophet, that the Blendeds are the fruit of a false prophet, and that the LRC is Laodicea with Jesus on the outside knocking for any remaining believers to open the door and come outside to Him.

No, I would not describe this as "Receiving healing" but rather as "overcoming Jezebel and Balaam".

Remember the Lord's judgement on Jezebel, "in the pool where the prostitutes wash the dogs will lick your blood". When the sins of these cults like the church of scientology are exposed it is on the front page of newspapers. They bring this judgement on themselves. The people that tried to deal with the sins acted in a way that was proper, polite, dignified, discreet, etc. Yet they always had an excuse for why they had come in the wrong way, at the wrong time, to the wrong person, with he wrong attitude, etc. 20 plus years they do that until there is no other way but to hash this out on a public forum, like a newspaper or internet forum.

[Cal]

Yes, but you can't quote anything lol.

I've referred to the Bible a lot. Your statement is disingenuous. And honestly I'd rather not quote the Bible than misuse it as you do. But I have quoted and referred to it many times, as I do below. You are just being dishonest.


I'll give you some help, this is a page that lists all the bible verses about denominations:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations



I cannot see the word "denomination" used in any of these verses. You are going to have to do better than this.

I certainly am against true division. But I don't see that denominations as they exist today necessarily constitute division. You have created ordinances against names that the Bible does not cite. Even so, simply not taking a name and saying you embody the oneness of the Body would not be enough anyway. You need to have an inclusive attitude. And you certainly don't. No matter what words you use, your attitude is divisive as far as I can tell.

James and John thought they were on the side of righteousness when they asked Jesus about calling fire and brimstone down on the Jews. But Jesus said they were of the wrong spirit and put them in their place. I see you the same way. You think are on the the Lord's side, but really you are just like James and John as far as I'm concerned.

And I see the LCM as much more divisive than any major denomination I can think of. Like you, their spirit is wrong. You might be able to make a superficial argument about your stand for "oneness." But that's not what's important in this matter. What's important is one's true spirit, and the spirit of the LCM is divisive as far as I'm concerned.

Clean it up and you might be able to brag. But you certainly have no ground to brag now. Take the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in others'.


I cannot see one verse that allows or prefers a conglomeration of denominations as representing the Body.

I cannot see one verse that says it wouldn't. But actually your whole idea is misguided, because the idea of "representing the Body" is not Biblical. The Body is the Body. No one "represents" it. We are all just it. The church is not a Republic; we don't have representatives. The LCM's idea that they "represent the Body" is just another way they prop themselves as something special and discount everyone else.

Actually the idea of representing the Body is counter to your whole argument. We are God's ambassadors, not the Body's. We go in his name, not the Body's name. To say you "represent the Body" is to say you've taken the Body's name, not the Lord's.

[Ohio]

And I see the LCM as much more divisive than any major denomination I can think of. Like you, their spirit is wrong. You might be able to make a superficial argument about your stand for "oneness." But that's not what's important in this matter. What's important is one's true spirit, and the spirit of the LCM is divisive as far as I'm concerned.
The Bible condemns those who make divisions and causes of stumbling serving their own bellies and deceiving others' hearts. (Homework assignment: Look the verses up.) We cannot apply these verses to those who grow up e.g. in a Baptist church. The verse never applied to them.

If names were so wrong, then we must condemn every man of God for the last two millennia who departed from the Catholic "oneness" church. What do we do with those named after their leader (e.g. Hussites or Waldensians) or some practice (e.g. Baptists) or teaching (e.g. Pentecostals)? Often it was not the leader, but the papists who initially named them, much the same as the believers were named "Christians" by their opposers.

Do you really think the Lord Jesus will say to some at the judgment seat: "You followed and promoted the reprobate PL a known molester, you lied and smeared Ingalls' et. al. reputations to cover up sins, but all is OK because you had the correct church name. Well done!"

[Evangelical]

James and John thought they were on the side of righteousness when they asked Jesus about calling fire and brimstone down on the Jews. But Jesus said they were of the wrong spirit and put them in their place. I see you the same way. You think are on the the Lord's side, but really you are just like James and John as far as I'm concerned.

No one is talking about calling fire and brimstone down on the denominations. We are talking about Christians coming out of Babylon. But it seems that you prefer your brothers and sisters in Christ to remain in idolatry. That is not love Igzy. It is not loving to prefer that your brothers and sisters in Christ remain in the idolatrous denominations, especially Catholic. If you truly cared about your brethren, if you truly stood for Christ, you would wish them to come out of that. But you "don't see a problem", because you are living in your mind. I doubt you've ever asked the Lord whether He approves of Catholicism, for example. I doubt you've bothered to hear His answer. You certainly have not found it in His written Word. Can you find a verse that supports Catholicism?

The whole website is about denominations. Anyone, even those outside of the recovery can see that the verses apply to denominations which are divisions. It seems as if you think that denominations are simply a different building to meet in with a different name of the one Body. But actually they are divisions. There was a good reason why Luther separated from Catholicism. And there is a good reason why the Recovery separates from the denominations. When I was a Protestant, and we knew of any who attend Catholic, we would lovingly and concernedly see if they would come out of Catholicism. Now that Protestantism has followed the idolatrous path of the Catholics, I would say the same to any in Protestantism.

I know you refer to the Bible, but on this topic of denominations you cannot find a verse to support your view that denominations are acceptable. When you say denominations are acceptable you are saying that Babylon is acceptable. You are saying that Roman Catholicism is acceptable with all of its idols and various things (Catholicism is the major denomination, remember).

[Evangelical]

Yet you justify the hundreds of names LSM uses, saying it is a ministry and not a church. That is most hypocritical. Where is the scriptural support for these ministry names? There is none. What legal entity (DCP) or attack publication (A&C) did the apostles ever startup?

You also have not provided any scripture to show denominations are okay. The website I posted about denominations is sufficient.

In Matthew 6:18 Christ said he would build his church (singular, not plural).

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The fact you say "churches (plural).. with a name" proves you don't understand the Body and believe in division. You are in Babylon and in Babylon you "roam". With the Catholics and the LGBT churches and all the other denominations which you love.

I don't think any person in their right mind would consider DCP or A&C or LSM a denomination. By your logic, then Zondervan would be a denomination, and the Christian Research Institute" is also a denomination.

[Evangelical]

The Bible condemns those who make divisions and causes of stumbling serving their own bellies and deceiving others' hearts. (Homework assignment: Look the verses up.) We cannot apply these verses to those who grow up e.g. in a Baptist church. The verse never applied to them.

The Baptist pastors "cause division" every time they choose to attend their own church rather than the different church right next door.

[OBW]

The Baptist pastors "cause division" every time they choose to attend their own church rather than the different church right next door.Why do you not apply that to the pastors and members of that different church next door?

And if you do, then on what basis do you think they should or must meet together? If there are nearly too many for a reasonable meeting in either one, then two is almost assuredly called for. What do you now have to dig down into for the purpose of deriding them? That they disagree over how communion/Eucharist should be labeled, observed, and how often? Over the mode of baptism? That one is truly Calvinist while the other is less so? Would you insist that the two forget it all and just constantly mix among themselves so as to make the differentiation immaterial?

What would you then say about the need for a unified message? A clear sounding of the trumpet to put it in LRC terms?

The fact is that the two groups sitting across the street from each other allow for peaceful meetings without conflict over unimportant things. You will generally find that the two groups are not so "divided" to use your terminology. They are both clear that the other is part of the body of Christ. And they are typically clear that their differences are not a bar to salvation or to actively joining together for the work of Christ in the world.

The "division" that you insist is there is not really so divided. Nothing like the problems going on in Corinth.

[Cal]

When you say denominations are acceptable you are saying that Babylon is acceptable. You are saying that Roman Catholicism is acceptable with all of its idols and various things (Catholicism is the major denomination, remember).

Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.

Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?

But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.

The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.

[Evangelical]

You do not have the proper perspective on this issue. A denomination is a degradation away from the practical oneness of the body. The cycle of leaving one denomination and joining or creating another is the problem. There is no good reason why the Lutheran church for example had to exist just because Luther recovered the truth that we are saved by faith alone. Today, everyone knows salvation is by faith alone and we do not need the Lutheran church to tell us that. But they still exist today, 500 years later, why? What is their purpose in the world? Why do they still exist? Why have they not joined the Baptists which are much better? Why have the Baptists not joined the "community churches" which are better yet again? Because they don't see themselves as part of the one body.

There are many who see this who are not in the Recovery. For example, these posts agree with what I am saying:

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23839/what-biblical-justifications-are-used-for-having-separate-denominations

The longer you say denominations are OK by the Bible the longer you are in denial. I agree with one posters comment
" "Denomination" isn't some sort of victorious mantra. It's admitting some level of defeat. It's descriptive of our fallen nature rather than prescriptive of what the church should look like."

So by accepting denominations you are accepting defeat. You are not striving for the victory which Christ enabled for us on the cross.

[Drake]

ZNP,

I too have had disagreement with some of the things that have happened. I didn't always agree with what was shared by the brothers. Sometimes I was publicly left blinking and blushing. There were times I believed I wouldn't be able to go on in the Lords Recovery unless something changed. There were periods I stayed away.

However, whenever I reached out to talk to the leading brothers or Brother Lee they never turned me down, they were always genuinely concerned about my concerns, and I always received help from them, and was restored in my heart to the fellowship in life.

I love these brothers with all their faults, shortcomings, and missteps. Not just because of the personal help that draws me closer to Him, but because the love they have for the Lord, their consecration to the ministry of life, and their willingness to suffer in this life for the reward of the future. I really consider them as brothers and as such I never broached an issue with them in the way of demanding answers or expecting them to clear something up to my satisfaction. Rather, I shared what was bothering me and how it was impacting me. They always stepped into the gap with a healing word or an offer for fellowship.

Don't misunderstand, there were brothers or sisters that I knew were to be avoided or ignored. I figured those dear ones needed more life, just like me. Sometimes I had to deal with something head on. But an attitude of standing for the truth coupled with a heart to restore and a view to the judgement seat of Christ usually carried the day. When it didn't I just trusted the Lord so that I did not carry the offense in me. He has not commissioned me to straighten everyone else out. Eventually He will set everything and everyone in order.

Grace,
Drake

[Cal]

So by accepting denominations you are accepting defeat. You are not striving for the victory which Christ enabled for us on the cross.

I refer you to a post by brother Drake here (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=53654&postcount=361)where he defends his not calling out bad behavior by leadership in the LCM:

"Sometimes I had to deal with something head on. But an attitude of standing for the truth coupled with a heart to restore and a view to the judgement seat of Christ usually carried the day. When it didn't I just trusted the Lord so that I did not carry the offense in me. He has not commissioned me to straighten everyone else out. Eventually He will set everything and everyone in order."


I don't think denominations are ideal. But I do see the Lord working in and through them. I sense his presence in gatherings there. If He's willing to do that I think my complaints should be tempered. And I do see his work and the landscape changing. Names and affiliations are much less important than they were 30 years ago. Progress toward more unity is happening and its being done by the Lord, not by self-righteous rock throwers. Pastors in our city from various types of groups and denominations meet regularly to pray and fellowship. As Drake said you can't fight or win every battle. You seem to be jousting windmills as they existed half a century ago, i.e. as Witness Lee described them. I don't see that as very productive. That coupled with the fact that you turn a blind eye to your own group's failings leads me to take you less seriously.

My chief complaint about the LCM is how it condemns other groups and people while soft-peddling its own failures and how it indoctrinates its members with fear of leaving the group. Much damage has been done by these practices. I know there is a certain edification in the LCM. I don't argue with that. My problem is with the claims and teachings that have manifestly done monstrous damage to many, including myself. My aim is narrow. I don't shoot with a scatter gun as you do at what you vaguely describe as "denominations" and "Christianity."

[ZNPaaneah]

This was my attitude 6 years ago. But when I realized that Watchman Nee was actually guilty of having a mistress, that the elders that disciplined him were not keystone cops, that the entire story fabricated by Witness Lee was a sham, then I considered 2Peter 2 again:

2 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not.

I don't want to "regurgitate" the entire thread on this, but I have concluded that

1. Witness Lee's teaching was a destructive heresy. I consider all "schools of thought" to be heresies, no doubt Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were a school of thought. I feel that this elevates to "destructive" or "damnable" when they teach divisive teachings like the ground of the church, MOTA and one trumpet.

2. Denying the master is absolutely critical -- I consider that the MOTA teaching does this. WL uses types of Jesus in the OT and applies them to Watchman Nee and by extension himself. The One Trumpet is another. Lawsuits are a third. Parsing the Bible to decide what is and is not the word of God is a fourth.

3. Lascivious doings are a very clear sign that these are not men of God. Surely you knew PL, how do you reconcile a "man of God" like WL, RG and BP submitting themselves to PL and allowing him to run the ministry? The Sister's rebellion shows the lengths WL would go to in order to cover for PL. The exit of the Anaheim elders demonstrates that this is a very serious matter of the conscience.

4. The way of the truth has been evil spoken of due to WL and his lawsuits and his slander of all other Christians, ministries, teachers, etc.

5. Feigned words, or fabricated words clearly refer to the story Witness Lee told us about Watchman Nee's discipline by the elders. Why would he do that? The only credible explanation that I can accept is out of covetousness. If he was WN's closest coworker, the one to carry on his ministry, then WN's sins taint him as well. On the other hand the "martyr" and "inept elders" creates a narrative that serves his purposes for creating a monopoly for his ministry. Daystar, Tennis rackets, Blue chairs, Standing orders, Training fees, lawsuits, seizing church property, MOTA, One Trumpet -- these all are ways to make merchandise of the saints.

Hence my conclusion that Witness Lee was a false teacher.

[Ohio]

I love these brothers with all their faults, shortcomings, and missteps. Not just because of the personal help that draws me closer to Him, but because the love they have for the Lord, their consecration to the ministry of life, and their willingness to suffer in this life for the reward of the future. I really consider them as brothers and as such I never broached an issue with them in the way of demanding answers or expecting them to clear something up to my satisfaction. Rather, I shared what was bothering me and how it was impacting me. They always stepped into the gap with a healing word or an offer for fellowship.


Brother Drake, my question for you is whether you have witnessed brothers (or sisters) badly hurt by LSM/LC leadership? And I'm not talking about a stray brother who had his feelings hurt, but a trail of wounded spanning time and space. Ones who were slandered, falsely-accused, and bad-mouthed as they were ushered out the door.

[Drake]

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.

"As long as there is the ministry, there is authority….The head manifests itself as the head by its ideas and proposals. The meaning of submitting to the authority of the Head is that one does not need to make many proposals and will not have many ideas of his own.

Ministry is authority. When the Lord gives a ministry to a person, He is giving authority to that person. Many people worry about many problems, but as a member we have to learn to remove our own heads.” 10. “The Exercise of Authority in the Body and the Body-consciousness,” in The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry, CWWN Vol. 57, Chap. 24, Sect. 2.10.

Why is the word "head" capitalized only once? At the resumption of his ministry, Nee grabbed the reins the elders gave to him as they submitted to him, as their head. As far as leadership goes in the work, he was the head. And all had to find their place in the pecking order of the work. And, to submit to him as the head of the work was to submit to Christ in their concept. The church and the work blurred with Watchman rising to the top in both the work and the church following a six-year suspension from his ministry. The same thing happened later with Witness Lee, and then the global authorities he mentored succeeded him with order "in the Body" on auto pilot, a movement of "one accord".

We need to determine what Nee meant by the "head". In the work is one brother being the head ok, but not in the church. Who would ever say that Nee was the head of the church? This is clearly wrong to say. But when referring to the work, is it ok to exhort the brothers to find out who is "ahead of you" and who you should submit to? Or is this a capital way to blur the work and the church? With everyone submitting to the ones above them, by the time you get to the top you have the head, Watchman Nee. You can get away with that when talking about the work; but once it is established who the head of the work is, it is understood that he is the leader in the church or the head of the church.

Nee then interchanges the spellings of Head and head in his rhetoric to the brothers so that the Head is Christ but it is also Nee, the concepts become blent as to who is the head. And the work and the church becomes blurred as a result. If you take away the work altogether and throw it into the ocean, you are left with only the church. And it is clear in the Bible Who is he Head of the church, Christ. But, according to one LSM leader, Paul Hon, it is ok to have an hierarchy in the work, but not in the church. However, in actuality whoever was head of the work became head of the church. Nee in his time and Lee in his did have the reins of the churches in their hands. Moreover, both introduced the concept of the minister of the age to the co-workers and to the church. And it was clear who held the distinction. It followed, then, that Lee could become the Commander-in-chief for "the Lord's new move", which involved both the work and the churches and a signed pledge of 417 brothers to follow Witness Lee and his leadership.

Dear Brother Lee:

After hearing your fellowship in this elders training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth. We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." (February 1986, Elders' Training, Anaheim)


The One Accord Movement

Witness Lee
"If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The Socialist party stresses socialism. Any political party has its own “ism”. They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge” (One Accord For The Lord’s Move, W. L., pp. 97, 99-100)


Global Authority Today

Those that grasp the global leadership today, the blending brothers, still follow Brother Lee and his blueprint for "the Lord's new move" which has actually been a movement for a long, long time to propagate the ministry around the world and establish "ministerial churches" (Nee)under their head, Witness Lee.

Senior Taiwan co-workers with Prominent Elder John Ingalls 1989

"One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord. This is how denominations are formed. But the Lord had preserved some for Himself. This situation did not develop suddenly, and we cannot expect it to clear up suddenly."

Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.

Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?

But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.

The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Hi Drake, I hope to come back to this that you had answered but not the question I asked,

Authority and Delegated Authority

[COLOR="darkslateblue"]“In these meetings, Nee repetitively affirmed the authority of the church. He had always emphasized the church authority, but now he focused more on delegated authority. He said: In the body the first thing we have to learn is to find those whom we have to submit ourselves to. We must know those who are ahead of us. All the authorities in the Bible are deputy authorities and not direct authorities.


I find it interesting that the thread on the definition of the church must come to this idea of delegated authority.

I believe this is why Paul told us that there are 7 "ones" regarding the church, and one of them is "one Lord".

For example a policeman is a delegated authority of the locality that he is serving, but so is a fireman and so is a postman. Who has authority over who? The town has authority over all. A policeman could stop a postman for a traffic violation, he has violated the regulations that the policeman has been delegated to enforce. But, if that postman is also a volunteer fireman and a fire alarm has been sounded, then that authority supersedes the authority of the policeman, etc.

Jesus is the only one that is "Lord of all". As long as you are being faithful to the Lord you are a delegated authority and that authority will apply to all. For example, if the Lord sends me to talk to Ed Marks, and then Ed Marks and the NY elders respond "how dare you talk to Ed Marks" it is not for me to deal with that, it is for the Lord who sent me.

Yes, the NT talks of "delegated authority" but never once does it suggest that any brother or sister is not under Jesus. It is very clear that Jesus can send a small brother to lay hands on Paul so that he could receive his sight.

What we need most of all is to be able to hear the Lord's voice. That is far more important and far safer than learning that brother so in so is in charge and you dare not speak to him. This is how I knew that PL was not a spiritual man, according to his "position" he should have been. If you judged him according to the flesh (son of WL, in the recovery his entire life, president of the LSM) you might assume he was. But to submit to this fornicator would have been a shameful thing to do.

This applies to everyone. We were not saved by WL regardless of how much RG wanted to claim we owed WL for our very lives. We were saved by Jesus redeeming blood. Now WL could teach wonderful truths that enlightened us, but the minute he tries to usurp the Lord's position, perhaps by saying that a prophet like unto Moses was Watchman Nee, teaching that at any given time in History God only has one person he is speaking through (so far this is true) and that during Watchman Nee's ministry it was Watchman Nee (that part is the usurping of the Lord's authority -- during this age Jesus is the one person that God is speaking through), that is the minute he needs to be rebuked.

When WL teaches that the ground of the church is typified by the ground of the temple, the same ground where Abraham offered up Isaac in a type and where David paid for a sin and peace offering (so far this is true), and that today this ground is inferred to be the boundary of a city (this part is false -- we don't need to "infer" what the ground is. The ground was purchased with Jesus blood on the cross, not by a city council, when we stand on His redeeming work we are standing on the proper ground to meet with God. There is no background check requiring a good mailing address, receiving Christ's redemptive work is the only requirement for standing on the proper ground). Once again WL and all of his cronies should be strongly rebuked for this damnable heresy.

When WL teaches that the NT uses the trumpet call of an army to typify the word of ministry (this is true) and that this word needs to be clear and precise (this is true) therefore there should only be one publisher among us (this part is false). The orders for the trumpet come from the Lord Jesus, not LSM, not WL, not PL, etc. The Bible is very clear that "many are those that publish". The analogy that he is using is also very clear -- any army would have many, many trumpets. You could be sounding retreat in one theater at the same time you are sounding attack in another. Anyone speaking for the Lord is a trumpeter, the key requirement is that they can hear the Lord's commands clearly, being distracted by LSM's commands would be counter productive, even evil. This is just another example of WL usurping the Lord's authority in the church.

[Evangelical]

This was my attitude 6 years ago. But when I realized that Watchman Nee was actually guilty of having a mistress, that the elders that disciplined him were not keystone cops, that the entire story fabricated by Witness Lee was a sham, then I considered 2Peter 2 again:

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.

[Cal]

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?

The Bible never uses the term. The Bible never prohibits a group naming itself. The fact that the Bible doesn't give examples of a church naming itself does not mean it is wrong.

The question should come down to what is truly divisive. Division in the Bible is always associated with a kind of animosity. I don't live with my cousins, I rarely see them, but I'm not divided from them. I have no animosity toward them. I think you need to start concentrating on real animosity and stop obsessing about these technical and arbitrary characteristics that the Bible doesn't even prohibit.

As for having a brand, if the LCM isn't a brand nothing is. The LCM is Witness Lee. His image dominates its expression. Do you think because his churches call themselves the church in whatsit city that makes them any less of a brand? That's delusion.

I understand the attraction of generality. Lee once taught generality. But the LCM is now anything but general, and really never was truly general. The church I attend now has much more generality and reception than the LCM ever had. We understand oneness, and insisting others follow your way is not it.

Your attitude toward the Lutherans is out of line. You don't know what benefit individuals have received or what work God may have done through Lutheran congregations. You are not omniscient and once again you are displaying the wrong spirit.

You sound quite immature, like the kid whose parents get him the best bike in the neighborhood (he thinks) and he goes around bragging and putting down all the other kids' bikes. The Lord had a word for that spirit in Revelation 3:17.

[ZNPaaneah]

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.

No. It was a young woman. The elders were not keystone cops.

But you did hear that story from Witness Lee and others in the LRC. However, you won't find it written anywhere, he was too careful for that.

[Ohio]

The "mistress" Nee had turned out to be his mother I thought.
No. It was not his mother. Only a bunch of imbeciles would have done what Lee claimed they did and excommunicated Nee, but these were elders hand-picked by Nee himself.

[Indiana]

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

PARAGRAPH CHANGE AFTER READING IGZY POST
Yes, I agree with you in the quote, brother Drake, but I basically don't get into hierarchy discussion. I am more comfortable to talk about the misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual authority and its the devastating effects.

The establishing of a universal leader became clearly evident by the writing of a letter to Witness Lee signed by 417 leaders of churches. The movement accelerated with this collective pledge and agreement in the churches to follow Witness Lee absolutely as their leader.
www.twoturmoils.com

[Cal]

No. It was a young woman. The elders were not keystone cops.

But you did hear that story from Witness Lee and others in the LRC. However, you won't find it written anywhere, he was too careful for that.

The story as Lee told it went something like this:

It was rumored that Nee was living with a woman not his wife. The elders came to him and asked "are you living with a woman?" To which Nee replied with one word. "Yes." The elders then, supposedly, ran with that and excommunicated Nee for immorality. Turns out, said Lee, that stoic Nee felt not to "vindicate" himself by further elaborating that the woman was his mother.

Common sense tells us this story is highly questionable on several fronts. First that the elders would act so impetuously and second that Nee would hold back such crucial information. Lee's story sounds more like the improbable plot of a TV show than real life. You know, one of those shows where characters inexplicably hold back important information or don't rationally ask for more information, just to heighten the drama.

The details of what probably really happened are explained in the book "My Unforgettable Memories" by Lily Hsu. (https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgettable-Memories-Watchman-Shanghai-ebook/dp/B00C6EHY1Q)

The most believable story is that Nee had a mistress. That the LCM would cover up sexual sin among leaders was confirmed with the Philip Lee situation.

[Cal]

Brother Indiana,

I have quoted your whole post because there appear to be a dozen places to address So I will start off this way and see f we can find common ground as a platform to work from:

Hierarchy is a very real danger to the churches and everything must be done to avoid it because it destroys the function of the Body. This is probably one of the most damaging and dangerous things to the church life because hierarchy is in us. So, even though we may think and declare we are against it outwardly, yet it is always there within ready to ready to slip in and take over.

So first and foremost to guard against hierarchy one must first know that it exists, understand and be aware of its nature, and then commit yourself to deal with it both outwardly and inwardly.

I believe you will agree with this but will pause here for your viewpoint.

Drake

This is one of those ideas that easily flows from the mouths and fingers of those in the LCM but really does not have support in the Bible. Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it.

What is really so bad about hierarchy? Where exactly does the Bible condemn it? Paul had authority. He had co-workers who submitted to him. Those co-workers, like Timothy, would represent him to others. That's a three-level hierarchy right there.

Wives submit to husbands, kids submit to mothers (sometimes). That's a three-level hierarchy, too. Oh, the evil!

Servers in Texas cities submitted service group leaders, who submitted to elders, who submitted to the lead elder, who submitted to Benson Phillips, who submitted to Lee. That's a SIX-level hierarchy! Babylon!!

The same thing happens in trainings, conferences, the LSM office, Bibles for America, and on and on. It's unavoidable. Yet here you guys are waxing all grave about how hierarchy is threat. "Everything must be done to avoid it" says Drake. Oh, yes, of course, yes, yes, let's get right on that.

Seems to me hierarchy is just another red herring/boogyman that Lee presented so he could criticize works of the scale that he could never muster. Another reason might be that he really wanted to control everything, and even a hierarchy would be a threat to his control. The LCM has never dealt with or managed to not have any hierarchy. The reason being that you can't have any halfway complex collective human effort without it.

The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it. The ironic fact is the only possible way to try to avoid hierarchy is to completely trust individuals to follow the Lord's leading without expecting them to clear everything with leaders, something leaders who read books on spiritual authority by Lee and Nee would never allow.

[Indiana]

The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it. The ironic fact is the only possible way to try to avoid hierarchy is to completely trust individuals to follow the Lord's leading without expecting them to clear everything with leaders, something leaders who read books on spiritual authority by Lee and Nee would never allow.


"The problem isn't hierarchy. The problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way too much caught up in it." This sums it all up.


I am much more comfortable to talk about spiritual authority than hierarchy.

But former leaders could speak to it and did during the late eighties turmoil, which "shows the problem is a warped view of spiritual authority and getting way to caught up in it."


John Ingalls
"In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably.

Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows:

1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) “We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) “Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.

An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows.

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.” A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to Brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, ”No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy.”

When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand.

Many aspects of the training bothered us considerably. Elders who attended the training in Taipei were instructed explicitly to carry out the same training in their localities. Pressure was exerted upon the churches and elders to follow, implement, and conform to everything that came out in Taiwan. Failure to do so created problems. The effect on so much emphasis on ways, methods, and practices – all externals – resulted in a wilted wilderness condition among many of the saints.

Many faithful older saints were rebuked and given the impression that because of their age they were through. All official assertions to the contrary, the full-timers became a special class of people, and the full-time training was exalted above the churches, which were considered to have grown decrepit and were at best “better than nothing” (Andrew Yu, in Voice of the Young Heart). The elders were publicly degraded and blamed for all the ills. And yet the churches with the elders, and especially many of the older saints who were somewhat despised, gave generously and sacrificially to support the training. Their money was gladly accepted. In fact some of the churches were drained financially due to the heavy burden of supporting their full-timers and other projects that were promoted. (Speaking the Truth in Love, J. I. 1990)

[Drake]

PARAGRAPH CHANGE AFTER READING IGZY POST
Yes, I agree with you in the quote, brother Drake, but I basically don't get into hierarchy discussion. I am more comfortable to talk about the misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual authority and its the devastating effects.

The establishing of a universal leader became clearly evident by the writing of a letter to Witness Lee signed by 417 leaders of churches. The movement accelerated with this collective pledge and agreement in the churches to follow Witness Lee absolutely as their leader.
www.twoturmoils.com (http://www.twoturmoils.com)

Brother Indiana,

I understand a difference between hierarchy and spiritual authority. I don't see a substantive difference between a hierarchy and the idea of making someone the head of a hierarchy....a matter of position in the hierarchy.

If someone appoints themselves as "head" that is not spiritual authority, is it? At least I don't understand how the two are compatible.

So is the discussion whether God's arrangement in the Body included Watchman Nee in a position of authority and where? Or is the discussion about whether Watchman Nee grabbed the reins of power in a hierarchy that men formulated?

To me, these are two different starting points.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Drake,

For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad? If you are assuming that by definition a hierarchy is incompatible with true spiritual authority then you really haven't said anything interesting. Just saying a hierarchy works against the Body sounds good, but it isn't necessarily so. It's just one of those vague pronouncements that seem profound only if you don't examine them closely.

What unquestionably works against the Body is abused power. Why you worry about hierarchy and not that is a mystery to me.

Again, if you mean a hierarchy is evidence of false spiritual authority, then all you are really saying is that false spiritual authority is not real spiritual authority. Like I said, not interesting. But actually you are also subtly planting a seed which allows you to dismiss any power arrangement you don't like as a "hierarchy" and thus ignore it. Thus Christianity has "hierarchies" whereas the LCM has "God's arrangement in the Body," even though, as I've shown, the LCM has hierarchies as well.

This kind of equivocation was a common tactic of Lee and it seems you've copied it, perhaps unwittingly?

[Drake]

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"

Igzy,

It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.

Drake

[OBW]

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.
And yet there was always some amount of hierarchy. It was practiced with love and as servants. Well at least mostly. But some of the letters written by John and others dealt with some who wanted to lead in a different way.

There were always leaders. We read the whole Bible. But Jesus didn't speak everything to everyone. Some of it was specifically for the 12 (11) that he was sending out as the top of the heap. And they were viewed as such from the very beginning. But not in a "lord it over anyone" way.

Then in Acts, the layered-in the deacons. Certain apostles worked with certain churches. Not officially, and not exclusively. But it was true. So the apostles were somewhat over the local elders. Even if they didn't force anything on them.

The bit about stifling the function of the body is based upon the whole idea that the entire church is a mouth. It has never been so. The only place that was anywhere near that was a three ring circus that Paul had to put some limits on. Two or three speak in tongues and only if an interpreter. Two or three prophets. (All can prophesy has a context. To declare that it made every one a prophet is to overthrow the entirety of the preceding verses.)

[Cal]

Igzy "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered.


Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion.

If there is a head of children's ministry, and coordinators of certain age groups who report to him or her, and teachers that report to them, that is a hierarchy. How does that annul the functioning of the members of the Body? Whose functioning is annulled? Trust me there are plenty of opportunities to serve in children's ministry all over the place. Volunteers are always needed. No one is being turned away, unless they are completely undesirable.

Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?

[Drake]

OBW) "The bit about stifling the function of the body is based upon the whole idea that the entire church is a mouth."

Not at all. We express our experiences through our mouth but that does not equate to everyone being a mouth.

We may do things in service with our hands but that does not mean everyone is a hand.

[Ohio]

Igzy: "For the sake of everyone observing this conversation can you tell us why a hierarchy is bad?"
Igzy, It annuls the functioning of all the members of the Body except the most gifted. Thereby, the growth of the Body is hindered. Drake

Then why does Paul say, "And He gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ, until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God ..."?

These gifted members obviously help the members of the body to function and grow.

And why were elders and deacons established in churches? In your scheme, elders and deacons are hierarchy.


What unquestionably works against the Body is abused power. Why you worry about hierarchy and not that is a mystery to me.


Jesus and the apostles never condemned hierarchy, neither in Judaism or in the church. They condemned rulers lording it over the elect, ruling as the gentiles. They condemn hypocrisy, unrighteousness, serving your own belly, adulterating and peddling the word of God, etc.

It's just amazing that you establish your own balances in order to judge Christians, balances and standards not accepted by the scriptures.

p.s. I can find numerous verses to provide support for so-called hierarchy, and hundreds of verses about bad leadership, but none that say or even implies that "hierarchy annuls the functioning."

[Drake]

Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion.

That's alright Igzy. Feel free to ignore.

As I read your recent notes I also realized that our assumptions and understandings are so far apart that I couldn't see how we could bridge the gap. And since you tend to characterize posters who disagree with you disparagingly and their posts as less than thought out I think we will just agree to disagree on most things without ever engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Case in point:

" Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it. "

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Then why does Paul say, "And He gave some apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ, until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God ..."?

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much. ;)

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake

[Cal]

Igzy) "Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion."

Drake,

Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it? I'm sure you've heard people do that. The reason I challenged you is because I see you as an intelligent person. Trust me I've seen people come through here who do nothing but quote Nee and Lee. I hoped and thought you were different. So my challenge was actually a compliment.

Trust me, most observers do not understand what you mean when you say a hierarchy nullifies the Body. A hierarchy is only a organized arrangement to get work done. I don't see how your general dismissal of one holds.

Sorry, if I come on strong. I apologize. But I really think the forum deserves an elaboration of your general declaration, whether you think I do or not.

[Drake]

Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it?

No Igzy, I'm not saying that. That probably has happened on both sides.

But you were referencing my post so it mattered more to me. :stunned:

But seriously, I am happy to discuss these topics with you or anyone else. Everyone has different experiences and beliefs shaped by a multitude of variables. If anyone thinks differently from me, in kindness or vehemently, I have no objection. However, I was agreeing with you in that I will ignore posts or assertions when I find them outrageous, too confusing to understand, too complex to unpack, when hostility prevents rationale conversation, etc. We all reserve the right to ignore for whatever reason. So when you said to make my case or else you would ignore my assertion I thought, why should either of us be obligated to such terms and conditions? We are sharing viewpoints here at a round table of equals.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much. ;)

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake

To paraphrase Lee, it goes something like this -

Consider the shoulder and the arm. The shoulder is higher than the arm, the function of the shoulder is to lead or "tell" the arm to move. The arm cannot move without the shoulder. The shoulder is higher (in function) but not more important than the arm. If the shoulder thinks it is more important than the arm, this is hierarchy.

In the church there is no problem with the "shoulder" members telling the "arm" members to move. The problem is if the "shoulders" think they are more important than the "arm" as evidenced by, for example:

special privileges, eg places of honor, etc (Luke 14:8)
ruling over and flaunting authority (Matt 20:25).

The shoulder may think it has the authority over the arm and can rule over it. Actually the shoulder can be considered the arm's servant and vice versa.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?"

Igzy et al,

When I say hierarchy annuls the building of the Body of Christ I mean that because the work of building is performed by the all the members and not just a few gifted members a hierarchy interrupts that functioning. Ohio rightly said that the gifted or stronger members enable the smallest member to function to build the Body, not replace their function.

Specifically, this means that the experiences of Christ provide each member grace to meet their situation and need. That grace is meant not just for that specific member but for other members in the Body. That member must have a way to minister their portion of Christ, as grace, great or small, in order to build the Body of Christ. Grace could be a speaking, song, scripture, enlightenment, an experience, etc. but it is not just for the member that receives it.

Hierarchy gives priority to a few gifted members. Rank controls.

Drake

[Drake]

To paraphrase Lee, it goes something like this -

Consider the shoulder and the arm. The shoulder is higher than the arm, the function of the shoulder is to lead or "tell" the arm to move. The arm cannot move without the shoulder. The shoulder is higher (in function) but not more important than the arm. If the shoulder thinks it is more important than the arm, this is hierarchy.

In the church there is no problem with the "shoulder" members telling the "arm" members to move. The problem is if the "shoulders" think they are more important than the "arm" as evidenced by, for example:

special privileges, eg places of honor, etc (Luke 14:8)
ruling over and flaunting authority (Matt 20:25).

The shoulder may think it has the authority over the arm and can rule over it. Actually the shoulder can be considered the arm's servant and vice versa.

Excellent.

[Evangelical]

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?


There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.

Why churches have to name themselves? I wonder what is wrong with the name Christian. Why a church doesn't just identify itself as Christians? Is Christ not a name? It is because they see themselves as different from the other Christians in their city. Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.

I think you need to define some terms as well. You use the term "community church". What does that even mean? The Lutherans are a community, we, the local church, are a community. Are we not in the same community as the "community church"? So why are you distinguishing between them and us? Why don't you define what is the difference between a community church and a local church? What does the community church have that the local church does not have? What does the community church have that the Lutheran church does not have? The "community church" can be just as divisive as a named denomination. For example, the community church would feel like home for those in the community but outsiders and visitors who are not part of that community may feel excluded. Therefore to name a church as a "community" church is just as divisive as calling it a Lutheran church.

Maybe you can tell me what spirit does the Lutherans have that the Baptist don't? What does the Lutherans add that the Baptist don't already? What can the Lutheran church contribute to the locality that the Baptist cannot? I question why the Lutherans have not joined the Baptist churches since the Baptist churches are more up to date with their revelation. If we address the reasons why the denominations exist and continue to exist, we will find that the root cause is division which Paul spoke against. Denominations are division not merely a group of local Christians calling themselves by a certain name.

[Evangelical]

Igzy) "Are you saying if I have a gift for serving, say, sixth graders, and the church already has a sixth grade teacher then my gift is annulled because I can't just step in when I want to and minister to the sixth graders? What exactly are talking about specifically?"

Igzy et al,

When I say hierarchy annuls the building of the Body of Christ I mean that because the work of building is performed by the all the members and not just a few gifted members a hierarchy interrupts that functioning. Ohio rightly said that the gifted or stronger members enable the smallest member to function to build the Body, not replace their function.

Specifically, this means that the experiences of Christ provide each member grace to meet their situation and need. That grace is meant not just for that specific member but for other members in the Body. That member must have a way to minister their portion of Christ, as grace, great or small, in order to build the Body of Christ. Grace could be a speaking, song, scripture, enlightenment, an experience, etc. but it is not just for the member that receives it.

Hierarchy gives priority to a few gifted members. Rank controls.

Drake

Providing grace or ministering grace is not a concept many understand. Most think that grace is something amazing or something one says before a meal. In a typical denominational church, the only thing people know how to get or minister to others is food and money.

[Ohio]

Ohio,

I agree with most of what you said. Some of it spot on. Other stuff not so much. ;)

However, the elders and deacons are not a hierarchy but a function. Elders and deacons are not a title or a rank though we have elders and deacons in the churches. Hierarchy and rank brings in a struggle for power. If there is a hierarchy in the Body it is only two tiers: Christ and then everybody else. But even at that hierarchy is not really an accurate description because your head and body are not a hierarchy. And certainly strong members of your body do not have rank over smaller members. As you rightly said, the more gifted members are to help the members of the body to function and grow.

Hierarchy, rank, position, title, are all evil things the enemy of God uses to frustrate the building of the Body of Christ by all the members.

Those things are not just outside influences but in us ready to cooperate. That is the danger to the building of the Body.

Drake
Elders are not a "function." Shepherding, marrying, burying, those are functions.

Elders are a recognized position in the church which comes with certain recognized authority.

Hence they are, by definition, at least one half of a two-tiered hierarchy. Once we add in deacons, we now have a three-tiered hierarchy.

Perhaps this is too complicated for you.

[Drake]

Ohio,

I realize I do not have your superior intellect, but bear with me.

A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.

When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.

It's hard to explain you just have to see it but once you see it you never forget it. It's like watching a gymnast whose body is in complete coordination. It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Drake

[Evangelical]

A large proportion of Christians and denominations believe that leadership in the Bible is positional and heirarchial - the church is head together by vertical relationships.

A smaller yet significant proportion of Christians (house church movement, organic church movement etc), believe that leadership is relational.

The early church writings showing early church history prove that functional authority and not positional authority is the correct way of leadership in the church.
Ironically, the heirarchial and positional authority structure comes from following the Bible and the early church fathers. This is despite the claims of some that the Bible is their sole authority. Actually if they hold to a heirarchial authority structure, their authority is also the early church fathers. A very good analysis and explanation can be found here:
http://www.house-church.org/earlychurch_parttwo.htm

[ZNPaaneah]

Igzy) "Sorry, I don't see how this is true. Please be more specific and make your case, because if you don't I'm just going to ignore your assertion."

That's alright Igzy. Feel free to ignore.

As I read your recent notes I also realized that our assumptions and understandings are so far apart that I couldn't see how we could bridge the gap. And since you tend to characterize posters who disagree with you disparagingly and their posts as less than thought out I think we will just agree to disagree on most things without ever engaging in a meaningful dialogue. Case in point:

" Although it sounds profound, it seems to me more like someone just paraphrasing Nee/Lee without really thinking about it. "

Thanks
Drake

I view these issues like a violin. A violin string is pulled between two ends, one is immovable, the other can be tightened or loosened until the string is tuned. I consider your position to be the immovable one and Igzy's position the adjustable one, and Indiana is complaining about when the strings pop and snap and how when that happens you can get stung by that.

We have already all agreed that a church can be composed of hundreds of members with many different ministries and functions, administrations, responsibilities, etc. The term responsibility necessitates authority and hence hierarchy. That authority can certainly and undeniably be abused but on the other hand it is very difficult to imagine a large church with hundreds or even thousands not having some hierarchy. The issue is that it needs to be tuned.

[Ohio]

Ohio,

I realize I do not have your superior intellect, but bear with me.

A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.

When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.

It's hard to explain you just have to see it but once you see it you never forget it. It's like watching a gymnast whose body is in complete coordination. It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Drake

I have witnessed outsiders from headquarters, both Anaheim and Cleveland, coming in to destroy the beautiful coordination of a "gymnast" in a local church. I watched this occur in both lc's I migrated to help start. In both cases the principal ministering brothers (names withheld) were targeted to be "drafted" for some "special operations". Our idea of the "body" (and both brothers too) was vastly different than headquarters self-serving view of the "body."

The brothers suffered, their families suffered, and the churches suffered, but both headquarters (and let me spell this out for you with actual names -- Witness Lee and Titus Chu) had the "right to fight over their rights" because the brothers had both been coerced into full-time service, thus forfeiting their own God-given liberty to serve the Lord according to His leading. That's manipulation, hierarchy, and control of the worst sort, all legitimized by distorted teachings about that para-church doctrinal entity called "the work."

Sorry, brother Drake, I have seen far too many things in the lc's contrary to some beautiful vision you have seen. Perhaps what you saw was a "sweet dream" of olden days.

Perhaps you could talk to outsiders or newcomers about your wonderful dreams and visions of the beautiful "gymnast" in the lc's, but not with former members who have seen thru the facades and hypocrisies.

[Cal]

Igzy) "Are you saying you've never heard someone quote Nee/Lee without thinking about it?"

No Igzy, I'm not saying that. That probably has happened on both sides.

But you were referencing my post so it mattered more to me. :stunned:

But seriously, I am happy to discuss these topics with you or anyone else. Everyone has different experiences and beliefs shaped by a multitude of variables. If anyone thinks differently from me, in kindness or vehemently, I have no objection. However, I was agreeing with you in that I will ignore posts or assertions when I find them outrageous, too confusing to understand, too complex to unpack, when hostility prevents rationale conversation, etc. We all reserve the right to ignore for whatever reason. So when you said to make my case or else you would ignore my assertion I thought, why should either of us be obligated to such terms and conditions? We are sharing viewpoints here at a round table of equals.

Drake

I respect that. My point was that if you couldn't come up with more evidence that a hierarchy hurt the Body then I did not feel obligated to believe it is true. I know from experience that folks in the LC tend to accept WL's teaching without question. My feeling is if they learn to think more critically about what they are taught they might find they disagree with some of those teachings. One way to get them to do that is to ask them to explain their assertions rather than just making them. Because if you can't explain in detail why you believe something then you really don't know why you believe it.

Again to me an organizational hierarchy is just like any other tool, its supposed to help get a job done. I can see where a hierarchy can help and I can also see where it might be a hindrance. But I don't see how they are categorically opposed to the Body. If they are we've got a big problem because to do any complex collective job they are unavoidable.

But you are free not to answer. Just realize that most people need more evidence that something is true than "Brother Lee said..."

[Cal]

Ohio, A human body is the best illustration of the Body of Christ with its function and the relationship between members. There is no hierarchy in the human body.
When you think hierarchical, you rank. When you rank, position comes in. Then struggles follow. Fortunately, all the elders I've known never exhibited a hierarchical mentality. They did exercise authority but not because of positional power. Actually, I experienced spiritual authority most of the time from members who were not elders. That is the way it is when the Body functions. The eyes do the seeing, the ears do the hearing, the hands do the grasping, and so forth. That's the biblical illustration.


I don't understand the difference between submitting to a church elder because he is an elder and saying he has rank over you. Eldership even in the LCM is a position. It's official. That's a rank.

I totally agree that our dynamic moment-to-moment functioning in the Body should be according to the Spirit. Paul said Ephesians 5:21 we all should submit to each other. What did he mean? How can that be? He meant that at any moment the Lord could lead through any member. Yet, at the same time there is a official organization in effect that everyone should recognize. Everything can't be spontaneous all the time. The human body is dynamic, but it is also organized in a particular way. The foot just can't turn into a heart. That doesn't happen. Yet, the human body has the freedom to react in several ways to stimulus. There is some spontaneity. But there is also position. But a seemingly more crucial position does not imply an individual superiority. This is what Paul implied in 1 Cor 12.

Here's an example. The elders are meeting in a room because they are the elders. They know they have that rank. Everyone else knows it too. They meet to decide courses of action. Most of the time they follow the inputs that come from their elder circle. But today a young brother comes to deliver refreshments and says something. The elders realize that God is speaking to them through that young brother. Because they practice the commandment to submit to one another, they hear and recognize the Lord's speaking and obey it.

So there you have it. The spontaneity of the Body operating within the organization of the Body. That's really the way it works. It isn't either/or. It's both/and.

[OBW]

Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.Analogies are interesting. They can demonstrate something that is true. But they cannot make something true because you can find a similarity between something in life and something in the analogy.

Just because there was a place where power was translated from a word from which we get "dynamo" does not make a modern electrical system with the power plant, the wires, and the electricity a good metaphor for what was being spoken of. So such a system is pointless to analogize what was talked about in the Bible because no such thing was contemplated.

And it is truly something "new" to suggest otherwise. And not in the Bible.

The same goes for the effects of marriage on the name of the wife. This is a matter of tradition. And in different cultures, this tradition is not followed in the way that it has been in Western society of recent history.

Besides, "the Church in [City]" is a name and it does not in any place say "Christ" on only say "Christ." So if your analogy is to have any meaning, then it must apply to you as well.

You argue that you don't call yourself (your assembly) the Church in [City]. But you do. You have registered your name with both the federal government and with the State, and probably the city. Under that name you may be exempt from certain taxes, but not all.

You argue that you don't generally call yourself that, but then most of the time the others don't either. They don't say they are going to [fill in the name of an assembly], but to church or to the meeting. (And take a poll. Even those who say "I am going to church" do not presume that the place or the building is church, but the meeting. That superiority of thinking that you only say "I am going to the meeting" is a meaningless gesture.)

But if someone wants to clarify where they are going, they will typically say that they are going to [name], and if that is not clear enough, they will state the address or general location.

When you speak of only meeting as the church in [City] you are interjecting a somewhat false impression in your words. You are not meeting any less specifically within the city than any other assembly of Christians. You do not simply meet as Christians in the city. Your history is full of arriving in a new city to find a group already meeting in that way, though not associated with the group that you come from. They will make an effort to meet with those persons, but always be looking for reasons to be able to declare that they are no proper so that thy can part ways with them and start a separate meeting. Why? Not because you actually have a meeting of Christians with no other defining factors, but because you have very defining factors that those others do not have.

And your defining factors are:


An insistence upon what is an acceptable name.
Adherence to the teachings as provided by Witness Lee. (The fact that he got anything from others is irrelevant because only those things brought by him are acceptable.)
The belief that there is only one minister in any age and that Lee was such a person. (Funny that the rule lasted for just under 2,000 years and then has been abandoned.)

I could go on, but it would be a waste of space.

Go look at the doctrinal statements of most evangelical places and you will not see anything about persons. Individuals are not raised up to such heights of authority. Nothing as extreme as what Authority and Submission would have you follow. No, the doctrinal statements look more like:



We believe in One God, expressed in three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, came to earth, born of a virgin, lived and taught for 33-1/2 years, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
We believe that he is coming again and will judge the living and the dead.

Some will put in statements about how they do baptism. I even saw one that had a statement about angels. Probably none of them say it how I just said it. My intent was not to be theologically perfect, but to get the points out there.

The meeting I attend has piano and organ, and they sing hymns, both old and new. Others attend meetings that have a variety of music styles.

Some pattern their meetings in certain ways with a more strict adherence to format and content. Others have a looser style and at least some sense that it is being "winged." There are good arguments for either. Some use pre-written prayers while others ad lib. Some find a middle ground and rely on both the well founded truth in older prayers, such as in the Book of Common Prayer, and on speaking from the heart as moved.

How any of it is done is not part of the faith.

And it does not make any particular group deficient or reprobate. And yours is no different in this matter. It names itself just like the others. It has doctrinal distinctives that it holds to as opposed to others. And underneath it is a core of belief that we all agree on.

Stop thinking of yourselves more highly than you ought.

[Cal]

There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.



Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."

[Ohio]

I respect that. My point was that if you couldn't come up with more evidence that a hierarchy hurt the Body then I did not feel obligated to believe it is true. I know from experience that folks in the LC tend to accept WL's teaching without question.

Back in the late 70's, there was a "flow" out of Anaheim that we are all members of the body of Christ, there is no hierarchy, we can all function, no one can control, we can all drink the Spirit and speak for the Lord, yada yada. I was fairly young at the time, and it was all pretty exciting. We were drunk on the Spirit. Pretty good, eh?

The ones "who came from Anaheim with Brother Lee's burden" actually came with another agenda, however. Their talk was all about "members functioning, etc." but their goal was to destroy all elderships, as if the elders were the root cause of every religious evil. What they sought was not harmonious functioning but chaotic anarchy. And they nearly succeeded.

Eventually, Titus Chu stood with the elders and spoke up in the midst of the din. He used the example of a family. "If you walk into a home, and you don't know who the parents are, what kind of family is that?"

So you wonder why I don't trust LSM's teachings anymore concerning the "one body" and "all the members functioning."

[Evangelical]

Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."


Ok to the definition of denomination.

The word denomination or de-name-iation means "to give a name to" (see Mirium Webster dictionary) and considering the origins and original meaning of the word shows the clear connection between names and denominations.

A denomination is therefore a group of Christians who have given themselves a name. Paul says:

1 Cor 1:13 ".... were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Since Christians were baptised in the name of Christ, we should not take another name. In fact a common belief in denominations is that when a person is baptised in a certain denomination (e.g. Lutheran) they are "baptised as a Lutheran". They are baptised as something other than just Christian.

Now you know why we focus on names being a problem. Names and denominations go hand in hand.

But a denomination is not just a group with a different name. We have to consider why they decided to do that, and why they exist. One reason was they considered themselves to be different in some way from every other Christian, when the Bible says we are all the same in Christ.

The Lutherans for example decided to name themselves after Luther because they follow his teachings and practices. They wanted to distinguish themselves from Catholics and other protestants.

We both believe in spiritual unity yet we have have different ideas about how that can be accomplished in practice. From a human perspective all of the various attempts at Christian unity are good and it is very good to have denominations. It is better to agree than to disagree. Unfortunately few are willing to go the full step to identify themselves as nothing but just the church.

Denominations have become so much the norm that denominational-free churches must define themselves as "non-denominational" rather than "just the church". The church in the New Testament was not non-denominational it was just the church.

Is a community church a denomination? it depends if it has a name or not. If it is called the "Life Community Church" (for example), this has given itself a name that distinguishes it from all the other Christians in the city. Then it must be a denomination according to the definition of "giving a name to".

[ZNPaaneah]

Since Christians were baptised in the name of Christ, we should not take another name.

I was following you right up to here and then it was as though you just crashed right off the highway and burst into flames.

Reasons why we should have another name:

Identification -- If every boy is named Nick, and every girl is named Mary it becomes very confusing when referring to people. The same would be true when referring to a meeting, etc.

Address, Phone number -- these are ways to identify people, groups, buildings, locations, etc. Imagine that in the phone book everyone had the exact same name? It would be useless.

Just because we have one city doesn't mean we all have the same function and meet in the same meeting. Police have their meeting, Firemen have their meeting, Post men have their meeting, teachers have their meeting, etc. We need names to identify what is what, who is who, where is where.

Your doctrine is so unworkable as to be idiotic. Even the LC knows it. What is the "Elder's meeting"? That's a name. Where is that meeting held, the "elder's room". How about the Book room meeting, the young people's meeting, the training, the conference, etc., etc., etc.

[Ohio]

Identification -- If every boy is named Nick, and every girl is named Mary it becomes very confusing when referring to people. The same would be true when referring to a meeting, etc.



Why should we distinguish male and female? Bible says there is no male or female. According to this teaching, we should all take the same name -- "Christ."

I guess that fits into Lee's teaching that we are all "gods."

[Cal]

1 Cor 1:13 ".... were you baptized in the name of Paul?"



If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

So a better interpretation of 1Cor 1:13-15

There are two aspects of this -- some may require that you get baptized in their church to be saved. I think most Christians have discarded that practice, but I could be wrong. Perhaps Catholics still hold to this. I think we all agree with Evangelical that if a local congregation requires that they baptize you before allowing you to take the Lord's table then that of course would be divisive.

Along those lines many regard infant baptism as baptism, so I think we can also agree that we are referring to baptism as a step of faith, so if you were baptized as an infant that does not qualify and in that case encouraging you to be rebaptized would not be seen as divisive but according to the truth of the gospel.

There is also the aspect of 1Cor 1:15, "Lest any man say they were baptized in my name". It is natural and fleshly to assume that if you were baptized by a "spiritual giant" it holds more weight. This whole divisiveness is closely linked to having respect of persons. Of course the LC doctrine concerning having respect of persons is the doctrine concerning the "Minister of the Age" and the doctrine concerning "delegated authority".

Again, both of these doctrines do have a scriptural basis. Jesus is the minister of the age. When we refer to "respect of persons" we are not referring to having respect of Jesus. Rather we are referring to those who would usurp the Lord's position and take verses that apply to Jesus and apply them to themselves. This is seen in the Lord's word where two or three gather together into His name. When you have a "big name" preacher or evangelist or singer you run the risk of not meeting in the Lord's name but rather into the name of the "apostle of the age".

Likewise, delegated authority does have a scriptural basis, but if Ananias can be delegated by the Lord to lay hands on the Apostle Paul so that he could receive his sight, and if Paul could rebuke the Apostle Peter to whom the keys of the kingdom had been given, then this shows this is a fluid matter. Peter was not the "delegated authority". Rather when he spoke God's word it conveyed God's authority. If the Lord has told you to speak a word He has also delegated you. Hence the NT says that when you reject one of these you reject the Lord who sent them.

But nowhere could we interpret this verse in 1Corinthians to imply that we shouldn't have names. Peter, Paul, Jesus, they all have names. Many of the names were given to these ones directly from Jesus. Simon's name was changed to Peter by Jesus, Saul's name was changed to Paul. There is absolutely nothing in the NT condemning the use of names. This doctrine is idiotic.

[Drake]

Sorry, brother Drake, I have seen far too many things in the lc's contrary to some beautiful vision you have seen. Perhaps what you saw was a "sweet dream" of olden days.

I'm an American. The vision of America and implementation of that vision do not always appear aligned. Nevertheless, our way of life and the basic premise and promise of that vision is real for most Americans. Thats not say there are not problems, issues, and struggles.

The New Testament revelation of the church likewise shows a vision and the issues. Both are present since the beginning and still to this day. I'm not talking about a "sweet dream of olden days". What value is that? But then, what value is there to living in the bad old days and allowing bitterness to settle in and possess us?

I have thought about this Ohio, and I still don't understand why our experiences though being similar, yet the outcome is so different. I think it might be that our expectations were different and when men fail or did not live up to those expectations we reacted differently. It's complicated and will likely never be resolved in this life. The judgement seat of Christ will be the final arbiter.

Drake

[Drake]

But you are free not to answer. Just realize that most people need more evidence that something is true than "Brother Lee said..."

Can't argue with that. Even Brother Lee said "don't say "Brother Lee said...""

Oops!

;)

I don't understand the difference between submitting to a church elder because he is an elder and saying he has rank over you.

That is because you regard elders as possessing a rank and I don't. Perhaps it helps to understand my view with this experience. I knew a brother who was a hard working painter, one of those 16 hours a day kind of folk who had little time for anything else except painting. Often he missed meetings, service, and other church functions. He was not an elder or a deacon, did not teach classes, or anything like that and had no title. However, he was gifted at gospel preaching. Once we were walking down the street and encountered a boisterous group of teens. He crossed the street like a man on a mission and started speaking to them and in about two minutes they were subdued and wanting to hear more about the Lord. What did I do? I would have preferred to stay on our side of the street but I submitted to him in the gospel preaching and when he prompted me I did what he said. When he said go, I followed. When he said speak, I spoke. He had the authority, clearly. He preached the gospel liked that often.

Yet earlier that day, and the reason we were together, was because he sought me out for fellowship on practical matters about jobs, living arrangements, family, etc..I did tell him what to do but he recognized my counsel as more than personal opinion.

We submitted to each other not because we had some sort of rank or position, rather it was based on knowing the Lords spiritual authority. Not hierarchy. I recognized his gift, his talent and he recognized and regarded mine.

A hierarchy creates an artificial structure that annuls the function of all the members and promotes the more gifted or desirable. Sometimes, elders sought me out for fellowship and followed my direction. Or maybe I would initiate a meeting with elders to sort something out. I certainly have no rank. I have been blessed as the elders I've known were real shepherds and I submitted to their authority in their function. The painter had spiritual authority based on his gift and function.

To illustrate further, the rank of elder as a position is assigned to the Mormons who knock on your door. Often they are just kids really. When you talk to them you realize their is no spiritual authority there, just positional. Zealous, committed, faithful to their mission but no spiritual authority. Of course, they are heretical too so this is not the perfect example. Yet, rank and title of elder has no reality.

There is no hierarchy in the Body of Christ just as there is no hierarchy in our physical bodies.

Drake

[Evangelical]

If this is your sole scriptural basis for objecting to names then your argument is on very weak ground. I understand as someone who was once indoctrinated by the LCM that this makes total sense to you. But the fact is the lack of scriptural support for your doctrine of no names for the sake of unity does not justify the antagonism and division that it causes. It collapses under the weight of its implications.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But I find them very unconvincing. When I was young and naive I accepted them wholesale. You know part of the reason why? Because it made me feel like I knew something most others didn't. It made me feel like I was part of God's special cause.

You asked why a group would name itself. I offered that it is not to divide but simply for identification. Now we need to ask why someone would nitpick like you do about something that has such little scriptural support.

As I said, I don't think your approach is going to produce much unity at all.

It is more than just this one verse. No church or assembly in the Bible took a name, and such was the case for hundreds of years in Christianity. God never named the church. Naming the church is a human invention, not found in the "fellowship of the apostles" (using ZP's terminology). I would go so far as to say it is easier to justify homosexual marriage or rock music from the Bible than to justify naming the church, because we can find examples of homosexuality, love and music in the Bible, but we cannot find any examples of naming a church.

A view that names are just for identification is somewhat naive. Names carry meaning. According to the Bible, according to God, names are more than just for identification. The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament shows that God puts importance on names. Examples: God sent angels or prophets to tell people what their name will be or will be changed to (Jesus, John the Baptist, Sarah, Abraham, Jacob, Simon/Peter, Saul/Paul) because the names have meaning.

If "no names" causes disunity, is not because of us who take no names, but of those who insist that we must have a name. Those that insist that those without a denomination be known as "non-denominational". It is these who are the truly divisive ones, not the ones who wish to be free from all of that "name calling". It is the ones who wish to name the church (which is already has its identify in Christ) who are the divisive ones. These people are like strangers insisting that your wife be identified by another man's name, when the fact is she is already identified by your name. If you or your wife agrees with this name calling, it would cause division in the marriage. So similarly, there must be a correlation between name calling and division in the Church.

[OBW]

The word denomination or de-name-iation means "to give a name to" (see Mirium Webster dictionary) and considering the origins and original meaning of the word shows the clear connection between names and denominations.Actually, it is not that simple.

The definition in the online Webster dictionary indicates in definition 3 that it is A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians
This is not the same as being the act of giving a name. It is like all of us being called Christians. People began to call us Christians during the first century. We did not call ourselves that. The RCC called that German offshoot "Lutherans." But as Igzy has noted at least a couple of times, continuing to have the name does not mean that they are intentionally trying to be divided from other Christians. But if you want to avoid conflict over doctrines, you can use that name to find "birds of a feather." That is what you do when you go to another city. you don't just meet with anyone as being church because there is only one church in a city. You meet only with those who agree with your understanding that it is a doctrinally correct thing to do. and you know them because of their name, or the form of their name. They only use city names and the word "church" whereas some others use other names that have locations, communities, the word "Bible" or other things in their names. There is no more or less naming or differentiating in it that there is for your little group.

[Evangelical]

Actually, it is not that simple.

The definition in the online Webster dictionary indicates in definition 3 that it is A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians
This is not the same as being the act of giving a name. It is like all of us being called Christians. People began to call us Christians during the first century. We did not call ourselves that. The RCC called that German offshoot "Lutherans." But as Igzy has noted at least a couple of times, continuing to have the name does not mean that they are intentionally trying to be divided from other Christians. But if you want to avoid conflict over doctrines, you can use that name to find "birds of a feather." That is what you do when you go to another city. you don't just meet with anyone as being church because there is only one church in a city. You meet only with those who agree with your understanding that it is a doctrinally correct thing to do. and you know them because of their name, or the form of their name. They only use city names and the word "church" whereas some others use other names that have locations, communities, the word "Bible" or other things in their names. There is no more or less naming or differentiating in it that there is for your little group.

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations. This Catholic website presents a good analysis of the meaning of denominations, and points out clearly, their sectarian and divisive nature:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership.

With the rise of Protestantism and the consequent disruption of the Christian religion into numerous denominations, the use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians. It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression "sectarian" (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word "in no invidious sense" ("A Study of the Sects", Boston, 1891, p. 4). This extension of the term to all Christian denominations results no doubt, from the tendency of the modern non-Catholic world to consider all the various forms of Christianity as the embodiment of revealed truths and as equally entitled to recognition.

This website is basically saying that Protestants don't see themselves as divisions, as sects, but that is what they are in reality. This is evident by the difficulty they have in defining what is a sect, and a sect according to them is any group which differs significantly from themselves and their view of the truth, rather than from the absolute truth. To those who hold the absolute truth - a sect is any group which departs from this absolute truth. As we know that the absolute truth, the revealed standard in the Bible, is one church in each locality, any who do not hold to this is a cut or division in the Body.

Example: The Lutherans think they are a church but to Catholics they are a cut, a sect. To the state churches, Anglican, Lutheran, etc, any division is considered a sect. Baptists and other English dissenters were considered sect of the Anglicans etc. The Recovery - is it a sect or a denomination? No, because it is not cut from any other denomination. It is a return to "just the church". A denomination is any cut from the "just the church". Any group that cannot say "we are just the church", must be a sect. There was no good reason for baptists to call themselves after baptism (every church baptises, cannot every church be considered 'baptist'?), or for the pentecostal churches to name themselves after the outpouring of the Spirit (don't all churches have the Spirit?), etc. These names in and of themselves are divisive, because the names have meaning.

Example: I knew of people who were offended by pentecostals because Pentecostalism implies that they are the only ones with the experience of Pentecost or the Spirit. Similarly, it may be offensive to a Lutheran to say one is "Baptist" because it implies that Lutheran's don't baptise properly.

You may say -
"Aren't the Catholics being so divisive by insisting the various offshoots and sects of Christianity return to where they came from?" Yet this ignores the fact that the various sects/denominations of Christianity are divisions in and of themselves, regardless of their non-divisive intentions.

You say they are not trying to be divided. I would say they are not trying to be unified. Not trying to be unified is the reason why 500+ year old denominations still exist today, such as the Lutherans, and they have not joined with the updated and improved Baptists.

You are spot on when you say we seek "birds of a feather", to avoid doctrinal conflicts. The thing is, this defines a social church, not a genuine biblical church. Then church becomes more about getting together with your like-minded friends, than assembling together for the Lord's purpose. The doctrinal conflicts are in many cases based upon non-essentials. For example the difference between the Lutheran and Baptist doctrines is trivial - one does infant baptism by sprinkling and the other baptizes by immersion. Both believe in the Trinity, Christ, salvation by faith, etc. So I question why the Lutherans, for example, have not unified yet with the Baptists. Without seeing much evidence of this happening, we should not pretend that there is no division between denominations.

I believe the following statement from the Catholic website rings true (replace Catholic Church with local church):
It is not in the further rejection of truth that the divisions of Christianity can be healed, but in the sincere acceptance of what has been discarded; the remedy lies in the return of all dissenters to the Catholic Church.

The Recovery is in the process of accepting and returning to what has been discarded, not by returning to any human organization but the proper ground of Christ and the locality. This can accomplish genuine practical oneness.

[Cal]

If "no names" causes disunity, is not because of us who take no names, but of those who insist that we must have a name.

This is an example of why it's so hard to have intelligent discussions with some people. No one is insisting that you must have a name. No one said "'no names' causes disunity."

The problem is not names or no names. The problem is pushing non-essential teachings so hard that they become sources of conflict. I don't care whether you take a name or not. I just mind when you start saying other churches are not churches because they have names. The Bible does not give you enough ground to declare that a church is not a real church because it has a name or doesn't "meet on the ground of locality."

One of my weaknesses, which I've been discovering lately in negotiations with my wife, is that I tend to naively give people credit for being reasonable and rational. You represent a very small, obscure and insignificant school of thought. At some point you should have asked yourself if what you believe about oneness is so true and crucial, why have so few Christians seen it? The only answer you could have come up with is that they aren't as pure as you, which, similar to your views, is very unlikely. The LCM is not small, obscure and insignificant because people are not pure enough to accept it, but because believing in it depends on an irrationality that only exists at the fringes of society.

Regardless, you are not really much of a threat overall. But the people you threaten matter to me and I'm in a position to help them. I don't post here to try to convince people like you. I post for the reasonable and rational seekers who are watching (and admittedly because bullies rub me the wrong way). But ultimately the people watching are the ones who matter. And given the way things have been going in these discussions, I'm happy about the impression you've been giving.

So keep making statements like the one I quoted. The people who matter are getting the message.

[Evangelical]

They aren't churches because a church is characterized by oneness of all believers meeting in Christ's name (not Luther and not a mode of baptism or mutual doctrinal understanding) and names distinguish between believers who are already one. As OBW implied, names make people feel like they cannot fellowship at a church that disagrees with their doctrinal belief, when he said "You meet only with those who agree with your understanding". So these churches are grounded on "mutual understanding" not on Christ. A person will seek out a church that has the right "name", for a reason and that reason is that if the church has the right name, they expect it to have the doctrine which they can agree with. And churches have names, to tell people what (non-essential) doctrines they sell. They do not practice a belief that all Christians have the same name, because they go to the church of their preference, rather than just "the church". Having names will contribute to division. Those with names, are sects, or "sub-churches".

Example: Suppose the church is a "drink stand". You put up a sign that you sell lemonade only, then others who prefer Cola will find another drink stand. Automatically you have divided by setting up a name. The church should just call itself the "drink stand", and not name itself after the various types of drinks it sells (Lutheran, baptist, etc).

When I start seeing denominations merging, particularly the oldest ones like Lutherans who have been around for so long, yet unwilling to merge with modern churches, then I will believe you that denominations are not divisions. I mean, not even the oldest denominations have managed to unify with a modern one. That's some unity! Taking 500 years to unify, wow, that's some division.

It is characteristic of someone who has lost an argument to resort to personal attacks. We all do it, just wanted to point out that this is the content of most of your post, rather than any sound argument. And I don't mind, because it shows you care about what you believe. To me it's obvious that denominations are cuts or divides in the body, sects, as the Catholics would put it. You just can't handle that. There are other believers, not part of the Recovery, who unlike you agree wholeheartedly with what I say about denominations, because they like me have seen common sense. So I know you are not speaking for everyone outside of the Recovery when you pretend that denominations are not divisions. You are just one like me, who posts on this small and insignificant discussion forum, and to tell you the truth, despite being in the Recovery for many years, and a frequent Googler, I only discovered this website recently, which shows how insignificant and obscure this forum really is. It's not even coming up in Google searches lol. A funny thing is, if you google "witness lee local church" it won't come up in the top 10 hits. But if you google "I hate Witness Lee", it will come up. And aren't you glad I did find it ? :D

[Cal]

It is characteristic of someone who has lost an argument to resort to personal attacks.

It is a characteristic of someone who hears a point that hits too close to home to call it a personal attack.

There was nothing personal in my post. The indisputable fact is you adhere to a school of thought that is small, obscure and insignificant. That is not personal. It's just a plain fact.

People who adhere to small, obscure and insignificant schools of thought while thinking they have some kind of special revelation are almost always irrational, and often worse. That is not personal. It's also just a fact. The odds say it is highly unlikely that you are actually on to something. That's not personal either. It's just good sense. I believe in playing the odds, and the odds don't favor you.

If you can give an reasonable explanation why your school of thought, which almost no one in history has adhered to and which though it has existed in the US for over 50 years has no caught on and is still only small, obscure and insignificant, then let's hear it. Otherwise, perhaps you should consider that people don't agree with you for good reasons.

But it's a little weird for you to be acting like what you believe should be common sense when clearly good sense has ruled it out.

But please stop hiding behind accusations of being victim to personal attacks.

[Evangelical]

Common sense, says that if the Bible says there is one body of Christ, we should not be able to see multitudes of groups with different names in Christianity.

Common sense asks, why the Lutherans have not yet joined the Baptists after 500 years? What's the hold up? Why is it taking so long? Where is the unity? What's the problem? Are they are not all brothers and sisters in Christ, with the same God and Spirit? You claim they all believe that, yet they still meet separately. A Lutheran will travel to the other side of the city on a Sunday to go to a Lutheran church instead of meeting with the Baptist church next door. They are virtually identical except for their beliefs about baptism.

You cannot answer that, because you know there is no good reason for the division, and it does not help your case to admit that. Anyway, I know the answer, and it's because Lutherans are a division and they are divisive. Did you know that many Lutherans will not take communion in another church?

I think a logical and rational person would be able to see that a denomination is a division and continuing one is divisive. A logical and rational person would also see that to name something which does not need a name, is illogical and irrational. For example, there is no need to name one's wife by someone else's name just because she has a different viewpoint. Yet that is the reason why groups, denominations have different names. They believe that if one has a different viewpoint, it is okay to call themselves by a different name. They do not have the vision or the understanding of the one body of Christ.

A view which says they are somehow in unity and one and the name is just a type of identification is not grounded in reality. It is just as idealogical as some have claimed about the local churches view of one church per city.

[Evangelical]

I think we all agree with Evangelical that if a local congregation requires that they baptize you before allowing you to take the Lord's table then that of course would be divisive.

Not just that. But this - if one is baptized in certain denominations they are considered members of that denomination more than the wider body of Christ. This is evident in their speech when they say "I was baptized as a Lutheran". Saying, " I was baptised as a Lutheran Christian" is something to which Paul would say "were you baptised in the name of Luther?, did Luther die for you?".

The fact that a number of denominations do not practice open communion or recognize baptism from other churches is a clear sign that denominations are divisions and not just groups with different names. Example:

The Lutheran Church has a variety of practices, depending on denominational polity. Some branches of Lutheranism, such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, do not practice open communion; they exclude non-members and require catechetical instructions for all people, even members from other Lutheran churches, before receiving the Eucharist.[27] This generally stems from an understanding that sharing communion is a sign of Christian unity; where that unity is not present, neither should Eucharistic sharing be present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_communion#Position_of_the_Lutheran_Church

[Drake]

If you can give an reasonable explanation why your school of thought, which almost no one in history has adhered to and which though it has existed in the US for over 50 years has no caught on and is still only small, obscure and insignificant, then let's hear it.

Igzy,

This "small" argument you make is not compelling.

Jesus had 120 disciples.

There were few churches stretching from Rome to Jerusalem and they had a small membership comparatively (even including the 1000's saved at and around Pentecost they were dispersed back into their countries).

Size or popularity is not a valid factor for determining the significance of whether something is of God. Actually, God seems to take delight in the few.

If size matters then we would all join the Roman Catholic Church.

Drake

[Drake]

This is an example of why it's so hard to have intelligent discussions with some people.

I tend to naively give people credit for being reasonable and rational.

believing in it depends on an irrationality that only exists at the fringes of society.

I post for the reasonable and rational seekers

bullies rub me the wrong way

It is a characteristic of someone who hears a point that hits too close to home to call it a personal attack.
Igzy,

In a short post you have managed to cast Evangelical as unintelligent, unreasonable, irrational, living on the fringe of society, and a bully. Did I miss anything? Then when called on it you claim Evangelical did it because you were winning the argument. Apparently, he is desperate too.

I don't think so, not on any of those points.

Assuming that you are not personally attacking Evangelical your comments are quintessential ad hominem arguments. When you do that you are directing the force of your argument to the person and not the subject under discussion. You often interleave both subject argument and ad hominem in a single post.

I understand it is easy to fall into that and it is always temptation but it is a logical fallacy argument. Ad hominem attacks become layers or mixtures that obfuscate any valid points that you might have made. In politics they do it to purposely divert from the topic and make it personal about an opponent to win over fence sitters or gain favor with their constituents. That's all they care about.

I'm sure you really care about the subject but you force readers to make decisions about the merits of your posts other than than the argument itself when you add the logical fallacy of ad hominem into the mix. I think it works against you.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Our discussion has become very rancorous over this issue.

There is no doubt that there are valid claims made by both sides of this debate.

What I find fascinating is that Matt 16 begins by Jesus condemning the Pharisees because they are seeking a sign. He calls them an evil and adulterous generation and says that this is the motive in them seeking a sign.

You have to compare that with Matt 24 where the disciples ask Jesus for a sign of His coming and He doesn't rebuke them, doesn't say that is evil or adulterous, but rather spends the entire chapter providing signs of His coming.

So this is where I think this goes off the rails, the issue Jesus is making is not that signs or names are evil. Rather, it is the motive. He contrasts the Pharisees seeking for a sign from God with Him building "MY church". They were seeking to put a sign from God outside of their gathering to prove that God was with them. That is evil and adulterous. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus to shepherd "His church" and therefore needed to know the signs in the same way you might print out the directions before taking a long road trip.

Names have been used to build little kingdoms to various people -- that is evil and adulterous.

On the other hand God has provided signs and wonders as a testimony. The biggest one of course is the sign of Jonah.

Arguing that "this is the correct name that indicates God's presence" that is evil and adulterous. The only name given to us is Jesus. If you are meeting into the name of Jesus there is no other name necessary nor will a name on the meeting hall, or in the phone book going to short circuit that.

Looking again at Post#1, Witness Lee said "No particular name" is the first criteria. Those who have taken issue with Witness Lee argue that the Local Churche's name is the most particular name. They have built an entire doctrine on the name so that you can't meet properly with Jesus unless you have this particular name.

On the other hand Evangelical has taken issue with Denominations for having a particular name.

Therefore I think we can find agreement that claiming that meeting on the proper ground requires you have to have a particular name for your meeting (gathering of the called out ones, hence church) is evil and adulterous.

[Cal]

The early Church was small only at the beginning. The Church grew exponentially in only a few decades, and in an age without the communication, recording, travel and other technologies we have had at our disposal in the last 50 years.

Given the technological advantages the LCM has had, if it really was God's move it should have caught on more. Yet it has gained very little traction, and is still small, obscure and insignificant. What do you think is going to happen to change that? Deux ex machina?

Size doesn't matter at the beginning. But at some point it does, and that point has long since passed for the LCM. Eventually you have to stop rationalizing and ask yourself, What is the problem? All the LCM can ever come up with is that they are more pure than 99.99% of other Christians. Do you really think this is likely?

God delights in whomever pleases him. But to say God prefers a few to many is to fall into the rationalization of remnant theology. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say God wants the "Recovery" to take over the earth and also say that he's happy with a few.

Again the odds are stacked against the likelihood that your message and yourselves are what you believe them to be. This is not an ad hominem attack. This is just getting down to brass tacks.

[Cal]

Assuming that you are not personally attacking Evangelical your comments are quintessential ad hominem arguments.

I disagree. This isn't about Evangelical. It is about an argument so-called that I've heard over and over from many voices. It goes like this:

Our obscure interpretation of oneness is an indispensable truth, but we cannot explain why so few down through Church history have seen it.

It is not ad hominem to examine history and see and point out that people and groups falling into this pattern of thought the LCM embraces are usually quite mistaken. Small, fringe groups claiming to have special revelation that is (1) not clearly corroborated by the Bible and (2) has never been embraced by any significant number of Christians, churches or teachers, do not have a good track record in Church history.

This is a legitimate issue to bring up and discuss. I'm sorry doing so threatens to put you in the category of a mistaken fringe group. But since history tells us that is likely, shouldn't you consider it?

This doesn't mean that overall you aren't well-meaning. It just means you've gone to some extreme. Evangelical can continue to make his argument about why his view of oneness is correct. But it is not going to catch on, not because he has special revelation which other people aren't pure enough to see, but rather because most people see the flaws, contradictions and even hypocrisies in it, as have the vast majority down through history.

I have no problem with pushing for unity. I have a problem with people who push unity in a divisive way. As long as the LCM continues to do that kind of thing it will remain a small fringe group. I don't mind you having your beliefs. I mind you needing to tear everything else down to have them. I don't think that is good for God's people or kingdom.

[Drake]

It is not ad hominem to examine history, see and point out that people and groups falling into this pattern of thought the LCM embraces are usually quite mistaken.

I agree, history can be insightful and helpful to an argument.

I listed what I considered your crossing into ad hominem in a previous post. Your post below was forceful without the level of disparagement.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

I agree, history can be insightful and helpful to an argument.

I listed what I considered your crossing into ad hominem in a previous post. Your post below was forceful without the level of disparagement.

Thanks
Drake

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

[Cal]

You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that? Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

Well, by the same token the vast majority of Christians don't think much of your prescriptions for oneness. When you start insisting that those who don't go along with you are divisive you just have to look at what your reaction would be to a more insistent Ecumenical Movement to understand how they feel.

[Drake]

Igzy) "You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that?"

Would not bother me in the least, Igzy.

Igzy) Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

No, no, and no.

Drake

[UntoHim]

..despite being in the Recovery for many years, and a frequent Googler, I only discovered this website recently, which shows how insignificant and obscure this forum really is. It's not even coming up in Google searches lol. A funny thing is, if you google "witness lee local church" it won't come up in the top 10 hits. But if you google "I hate Witness Lee", it will come up. And aren't you glad I did find it ? :D

The main reason this forum is supposedly insignificant and obscure is the tiny little sect of the Local Church of Witness Lee is insignificant and obscure. There are single location evangelical churches with as many or more attendees than all the Local Churches in America put together. Of course we'll never know this for sure because the Local Church of Witness Lee is extremely secretive about the true number of regular attendees. From all accounts, the growth in the movement here in America is pathetic at best, and the number of regular attendees at most locals is either stagnant or less than 25 years ago. If anyone knows any different please feel free to post publicly available information that shows any different.

Oh, and you're dead wrong about googling "I hate Witness Lee". This forum does not come up. Did you think I wasn't going to check? :rollingeyesfrown:
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Not just that. But this - if one is baptized in certain denominations they are considered members of that denomination more than the wider body of Christ. This is evident in their speech when they say "I was baptized as a Lutheran". Saying, " I was baptised as a Lutheran Christian" is something to which Paul would say "were you baptised in the name of Luther?, did Luther die for you?".

The fact that a number of denominations do not practice open communion or recognize baptism from other churches is a clear sign that denominations are divisions and not just groups with different names. Example:

The Lutheran Church has a variety of practices, depending on denominational polity. Some branches of Lutheranism, such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, do not practice open communion; they exclude non-members and require catechetical instructions for all people, even members from other Lutheran churches, before receiving the Eucharist.[27] This generally stems from an understanding that sharing communion is a sign of Christian unity; where that unity is not present, neither should Eucharistic sharing be present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_communion#Position_of_the_Lutheran_Church

How is this different from your position? You said that you have separated yourself from other Christians as a statement to them. This is what a sect of Lutherans have done. Interestingly Lutherans make up less than 2% of US Christians. Still they represent at least 20 times as many Christians as the Witness Lee sect.

Witness Lee's sect is very clear not to have Eucharistic sharing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Common sense, says that if the Bible says there is one body of Christ, we should not be able to see multitudes of groups with different names in Christianity.

Common sense asks, why the Lutherans have not yet joined the Baptists after 500 years? What's the hold up? Why is it taking so long? Where is the unity? What's the problem? Are they are not all brothers and sisters in Christ, with the same God and Spirit? You claim they all believe that, yet they still meet separately. A Lutheran will travel to the other side of the city on a Sunday to go to a Lutheran church instead of meeting with the Baptist church next door. They are virtually identical except for their beliefs about baptism.

You cannot answer that, because you know there is no good reason for the division, and it does not help your case to admit that. Anyway, I know the answer, and it's because Lutherans are a division and they are divisive. Did you know that many Lutherans will not take communion in another church?

Who are you talking to? Whose case?

I think a logical and rational person would be able to see that a denomination is a division and continuing one is divisive. A logical and rational person would also see that to name something which does not need a name, is illogical and irrational. For example, there is no need to name one's wife by someone else's name just because she has a different viewpoint. Yet that is the reason why groups, denominations have different names. They believe that if one has a different viewpoint, it is okay to call themselves by a different name. They do not have the vision or the understanding of the one body of Christ.

A view which says they are somehow in unity and one and the name is just a type of identification is not grounded in reality. It is just as idealogical as some have claimed about the local churches view of one church per city.

We are well aware of the analogy of a wife's name. This analogy is based on the NT reference to the church as the Bride of Christ. That is fine.

But we are trying to define what the "true local church" is that Witness Lee referred to. How do you identify it? How is it different from "something without the church as a standing"?

I think we all agree that if you divide yourself (what you refer to as "denominate yourself") from other Christians with a particular name and a particular set of beliefs that this is divisive.

But how does this address the question? Have you found a NT definition? Have you found a NT way to identify this "true church"? Have you identified the NT distinction between a gathering of believers and a gathering with "the church as a standing"?

[Evangelical]

How is this different from your position? You said that you have separated yourself from other Christians as a statement to them. This is what a sect of Lutherans have done. Interestingly Lutherans make up less than 2% of US Christians. Still they represent at least 20 times as many Christians as the Witness Lee sect.

Witness Lee's sect is very clear not to have Eucharistic sharing.

It's not different. But it is an example of how denominations are not in unity.

[Evangelical]

You guys don't think much of the Ecumenical Movement, so imagine if those in that movement said things like, "If you don't join the Ecumenical Movement you are divisive!" What would you think of that? Would you think they are really for oneness? Would you find their demands offensive? Even divisive in themselves?

Well, by the same token the vast majority of Christians don't think much of your prescriptions for oneness. When you start insisting that those who don't go along with you are divisive you just have to look at what your reaction would be to a more insistent Ecumenical Movement to understand how they feel.


We don't say it like that "if you don't join us you are divisive".

I don't think much of it not because of its aims for unity but because I think it does not achieve much. I have noticed that the ecumenical movements are something done more by the church leaders than the church members. It is something arranged by the church leaders from an organizational strategic point of view much like competitor companies would come together on common industry issues - rather than a groundswell of congregations demanding or asking that they join with other churches. Most in the denomination I used to attend thought it was stupid. We would say, why bother having a service with the catholics when they still pray to Mary? we canot agree with that. Genuine unity involves compromise. I had to compromise much when i joined the Recovery. I gave up beliefs and ways of doing things i held dear in the denominations. I saw the greater goal as more important than my individual likes and dislikes. I do not see much compromise in ecumenical services. I have never seen an ecumenical baptism or an ecumenical communion for example. It would violate so many "rules", because they have such strong views about the nature of the bread and wine, for example, or the way that baptism should be done. Usually, the ecumenical services I have attended involved some singing songs or hymns and then a church leader from each church would get up and speak a short message.

I have participated in ecumenical services before I even knew about Nee/Lee and then I just thought it was hypocritical for everyone to come together occasionally and pretend to be in unity. Everyone comes together sometimes but the denominational distinctions remain. If the ecumenical movement achieves unity by breaking down the denominational barriers I would think that is great, however I have not seen any evidence of any denominations merging or joining another because of that movement. Plus I have read about the corruptive influences affecting that movement in regards to human sexuality and other religions. Ecumenical easily becomes multi-faith in the sense of muslim, jew and christian and buddhist all worshipping together.

[Evangelical]

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

[Evangelical]

Who are you talking to? Whose case?



We are well aware of the analogy of a wife's name. This analogy is based on the NT reference to the church as the Bride of Christ. That is fine.

But we are trying to define what the "true local church" is that Witness Lee referred to. How do you identify it? How is it different from "something without the church as a standing"?

I think we all agree that if you divide yourself (what you refer to as "denominate yourself") from other Christians with a particular name and a particular set of beliefs that this is divisive.

But how does this address the question? Have you found a NT definition? Have you found a NT way to identify this "true church"? Have you identified the NT distinction between a gathering of believers and a gathering with "the church as a standing"?

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

[Evangelical]

Our discussion has become very rancorous over this issue.

There is no doubt that there are valid claims made by both sides of this debate.

What I find fascinating is that Matt 16 begins by Jesus condemning the Pharisees because they are seeking a sign. He calls them an evil and adulterous generation and says that this is the motive in them seeking a sign.

You have to compare that with Matt 24 where the disciples ask Jesus for a sign of His coming and He doesn't rebuke them, doesn't say that is evil or adulterous, but rather spends the entire chapter providing signs of His coming.

So this is where I think this goes off the rails, the issue Jesus is making is not that signs or names are evil. Rather, it is the motive. He contrasts the Pharisees seeking for a sign from God with Him building "MY church". They were seeking to put a sign from God outside of their gathering to prove that God was with them. That is evil and adulterous. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus to shepherd "His church" and therefore needed to know the signs in the same way you might print out the directions before taking a long road trip.

Names have been used to build little kingdoms to various people -- that is evil and adulterous.

On the other hand God has provided signs and wonders as a testimony. The biggest one of course is the sign of Jonah.

Arguing that "this is the correct name that indicates God's presence" that is evil and adulterous. The only name given to us is Jesus. If you are meeting into the name of Jesus there is no other name necessary nor will a name on the meeting hall, or in the phone book going to short circuit that.

Looking again at Post#1, Witness Lee said "No particular name" is the first criteria. Those who have taken issue with Witness Lee argue that the Local Churche's name is the most particular name. They have built an entire doctrine on the name so that you can't meet properly with Jesus unless you have this particular name.

On the other hand Evangelical has taken issue with Denominations for having a particular name.

Therefore I think we can find agreement that claiming that meeting on the proper ground requires you have to have a particular name for your meeting (gathering of the called out ones, hence church) is evil and adulterous.

Probably you are the least divisive person on here ZP because you try to consider both sides of the argument. Thankyou for that. Many topics in Christian easily revert to a two sided argument. Calvinist vs Arminian, free will versus no free will, saved by grace or saved by works.. etc. Probably this is the case here as well. The solution to a two-sided argument is a third option. That third option is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the only thing (or person rather) that unites two sides of the argument together.

[Evangelical]

I hope you understand that when someone claims a church is divisive because it has a name I find that disparaging as well. I think the logic is weak and the damage is uncalled for. I think it is a form of bullying.

I have clearly offended you (and others too probably). For that I apologise. I don't recall Lee or Nee teaching us to push unity to divide people. You have made me realise I have probably being doing that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

There are several reasons for naming a meeting hall.

1. If you want to put a listing in the phone book you will need a name.
2. If you want a phone for the meeting hall you will need a name.
3. If you incorporate, which is an ideal way to set up based on our tax laws and laws of having a mortgage, or hiring a construction crew to build the hall.
4. If you want tax exempt status so that people who put money into the offering can write it off on their taxes and so that the church doesn't have to pay taxes.

[Cal]

I have clearly offended you (and others too probably). For that I apologise. I don't recall Lee or Nee teaching us to push unity to divide people. You have made me realise I have probably being doing that.

I appreciate that very much, Evangelical. If I've offended you I'm sorry, too.


Not "a church is divisive because it has a name", but "it has a name because it is divisive". Names are just names, right, I get it. But what is the reason for naming the church, when it already has a name (Jesus), and God never really named it anyway. In the Bible, it is just called "the church". Notice it is never called the "something something church". I understand that just because the bible doesn't say that, doesn't mean it is wrong. But I question the motives for why one would want to name the church anyway, if we truly believed that everyone was "one in Christ". I mean, Christians are so fixated naming things, some might call us the "no-name church".

By examining motive you are basically making the same argument I have been making, just in a different way. While I don't think the important thing is the name, I do think the important thing is the attitude of the group toward other groups.

But I think one answer to your question is in the wife name analogy you often cite. The wife takes the surname of her husband, but she also has her own first name, for identification. Even if we went back to the Puritan days where wives were identified even by their husbands as, say, "Mrs. Jones," there is still the uniqueness of the "Mrs." part. Perhaps over time that title would evolve into the affectionate nickname "M.J." Would that be bad? When I was in the LCM I lived with an elder who called his wife "Scooter." I always thought that was sweet.

Names are for identification and convenience. Not only Christians want to name things. Everyone does. Why? Because doing so is convenient and natural. There's nothing insidious about it. A distinction is not a division.

These days, not having some kind of name just confuses people and practicality makes it hard to pull off in any kind of effective way. People are going to call you something. At least when you have a name you can have some control over what you are called. You certainly don't want to be called by neighbors "that strange group that meets in that building without a sign." And calling yourself the "church in New York" for example when you only have 300 members is so presumptuous as to be misleading. Regardless, eventually "The Church in New York" becomes your name, whether you like it or not.

Also, you kind of fudge on the no-name thing by using the term "Lord's Recovery." Isn't that a name? I realize you can probably say that it doesn't refer directly to the church and other unconvincing arguments like that. But if "Lord's Recovery" doesn't refer to the Church what does it refer to? Does God have some other work other than building the Church?

And there is a big exception to your rule that the church is never named. The holy city in the end of the Bible is named "New Jerusalem." One city and one name, admittedly. But the name is not the Lord's name. It's another name. Perhaps the Lord will nickname us "N.J."

Again, I really don't think the Lord has the problem with names that you do. I don't think names are the cause of division, I think attitudes are. Let's face it. We are divided over the issue of whether names divide us. Isn't that ironic?

[Cal]

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

And I'm asking, If this is true then why have so few believed it over the centuries? Why has God not revealed this "crucial truth" to his people?

Do you really think that the vast majority of God's people are so evil and compromised that almost none of them have realized over the years that churches cannot have names and so during the entire church age there have been, relatively speaking, almost no "true churches" on the earth?

That just makes no sense. God's sole purpose in this age is to build the Church but you are saying he has had almost no "true churches" ever? And has very few now? Really? You really believe that?

So if there are no "true churches" doesn't that imply the Church has no true presence on the earth to speak of? So the Church itself has nothing to do with all the salvations, prayers, changed lives, growth, mission works, transformations, sacrifices and even martyrdoms that have taken place? All of this is occurring outside the Church? What entity is doing the work then? And, meanwhile, where is the Church?

Like I said, what you are saying does not add up. It just doesn't make sense.


While I think the central question of this thread is acceptable for discussion, I don't think a clear and precise answer is possible. I don't think the Lord intended us to be judges of what is and isn't a valid church. The parable of the wheat and the weeds* tells us do not presume to judge who is a real Christian or not. It seems to me the same wisdom should be generally applied to churches. There are no instances in the NT where a "false church" is identified. Although we can cite some characteristics of a church, we cannot say we know enough to declare that a church which, say, has a name or doesn't meet on the ground of locality is not a church. And I think presuming to be able to do that is HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE**.

No offense, Evangelical, but I think the idea that little-old-you is wise enough to decide in every instance what is and isn't a church is not reasonable, to say the least. Why should I agree with you when almost no one down through history has? What makes you special?

*Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

** “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
Matthew 13:24-30

[OBW]

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations.First, the fact that the dictionary uses the word sect does not prove that it applies. It is generally said that sects are, like cults, the fringes. Therefore, many groups that have been given various names over the years are not referred to as sects.

In any case, the fact of the giving of a name was not generally that of the group that was named, therefore the presumption of being a sect was not of their own doing. It was of those who determined to set them aside as somehow deficient.

You are caught squarely in an error of forcing your preferred definition onto things without any consideration for whether it actually has any real meaning to the discussion. It merely is useful for you in making your points without reference to whether it has any true merit. Baptists, Bible churches, community churches, Matt 29 churches, Presbyterian churches and so many others are not "sects" with respect to each other. Sects are generally groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who openly separate from others and even declare themselves as the one true church and others to not be.

Sounds a lot like the LRC. You have to force names to be serious offences (and ignore your own names) so that you can exist that the one true expression of the church. It is a gross mishandling of the Word to do what you do and it demonstrates the lack of qualification for your founder(s), teachers, elders, etc. They are not qualified to hold their positions leaving you are sheep without a shepherd wandering in a quagmire of false teachings.

[Cal]

It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations.

You keep making the assertion that names divide, without any proof they actually do. You are just modifying the definition of "division" to accommodate your particular solution to end "division."

It's like the question of what is "provocative" clothing for women. If you approached that question like you do this one you would keep insisting that certain clothing is provocative, and implicitly modify the meaning of "provocative" to match what you want it to mean, so that your opinion of how women should dress would win out.

Ultimately your definition of "division" is whatever is contrary to Lee's prescription to end it (i.e. local ground, no name, etc). It's a kind of circular reasoning, one which starts and ends not with the Bible, but with what Lee and you want to believe.

[Evangelical]

First, the fact that the dictionary uses the word sect does not prove that it applies. It is generally said that sects are, like cults, the fringes. Therefore, many groups that have been given various names over the years are not referred to as sects.

In any case, the fact of the giving of a name was not generally that of the group that was named, therefore the presumption of being a sect was not of their own doing. It was of those who determined to set them aside as somehow deficient.

You are caught squarely in an error of forcing your preferred definition onto things without any consideration for whether it actually has any real meaning to the discussion. It merely is useful for you in making your points without reference to whether it has any true merit. Baptists, Bible churches, community churches, Matt 29 churches, Presbyterian churches and so many others are not "sects" with respect to each other. Sects are generally groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who openly separate from others and even declare themselves as the one true church and others to not be.

Sounds a lot like the LRC. You have to force names to be serious offences (and ignore your own names) so that you can exist that the one true expression of the church. It is a gross mishandling of the Word to do what you do and it demonstrates the lack of qualification for your founder(s), teachers, elders, etc. They are not qualified to hold their positions leaving you are sheep without a shepherd wandering in a quagmire of false teachings.

That is not true that sects are those that declare themselves to be the true church. That is taking the true meaning of the word and spinning it around.

The Catholics and even Orthodox for that matter view the word sect as meaning any Christian group deviating or dividing from the true church. Catholics consider all break away denominations to be sects. I believe this is the true and original meaning of the word.

Over history, the Lutherans consider themselves the true church, then the Church of England etc. These groups considered breakaways from themselves as sects. Each of these groups has redefined what the word sect means, and now I agree with you it does mean a group that does not really hold to Christianity orthodoxy such as the Trinity, but a group which is not bad enough to be considered a cult. However this is not the original and true meaning of the word. Let's call denominations what they are, in reference to the true church - they are sects. There is the Lutheran "cut" and the baptist "cut" and many other "cuts".

[Evangelical]

You keep making the assertion that names divide, without any proof they actually do. You are just modifying the definition of "division" to accommodate your particular solution to end "division."

It's like the question of what is "provocative" clothing for women. If you approached that question like you do this one you would keep insisting that certain clothing is provocative, and implicitly modify the meaning of "provocative" to match what you want it to mean, so that your opinion of how women should dress would win out.

Ultimately your definition of "division" is whatever is contrary to Lee's prescription to end it (i.e. local ground, no name, etc). It's a kind of circular reasoning, one which starts and ends not with the Bible, but with what Lee and you want to believe.

If you want proof that names divide, then why not start calling yourself by a muslim name or a woman's name and see what effect that would have amongst your church, family and friends. See if they will treat you the same as before or if they will treat you differently. If a kid has a weird name at school they will get bullied, that will cause a division due to bullying. It should be obvious that names divide because names have meaning. It is often said in Christianity that words have power, well names are a word so names have power too. In the secular world consider all of the importance put on brand names and trademarks etc. Names are powerful and names have value. It is the same in the church.

[ZNPaaneah]

In relation to the question, I am saying that a "true church" does not take a name for itself.

What does that mean? Is there a modern day example of this that you can show us?

If a person receives Christ today, where do they meet?

[Evangelical]

What does that mean? Is there a modern day example of this that you can show us?

If a person receives Christ today, where do they meet?

They can meet with us of course.:hysterical:

[Cal]

If you want proof that names divide, then why not start calling yourself by a muslim name or a woman's name and see what effect that would have amongst your church, family and friends. See if they will treat you the same as before or if they will treat you differently. If a kid has a weird name at school they will get bullied, that will cause a division due to bullying. It should be obvious that names divide because names have meaning. It is often said in Christianity that words have power, well names are a word so names have power too. In the secular world consider all of the importance put on brand names and trademarks etc. Names are powerful and names have value. It is the same in the church.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? By the way, you offered no explanation of why you and yours are capable of such brilliant insights while almost no one down through church history has agreed with you.

[Evangelical]

By the way, you offered no explanation of why you and yours are capable of such brilliant insights while almost no one down through church history has agreed with you. What do have that they don't?

Perhaps a profound realisation that in the bible no one calls a church anything, anywhere. Some struggle over this question -am I a Lutheran Christian or a Christian Lutheran. Some people struggle over that. Those in denominations have an identity crisis, they don't know to which or what they belong. They cannot clearly articulate "I belong to Christ", without referring to their denominational name. Overcoming culturally accepted norms in society is not something that happens overnight. In our environment we consider many different named churches normal. Sadly that is the thing that will happen in future when children are born into an environment which considers homosexuality as normal.

[Ohio]

They can meet with us of course.:hysterical:

But then I have to close my eyes to the abuses, bullying, deceptions, craftiness, politicking, hypocrisy, and unrighteousness.

But, Evangelical, how do I get past all those hidden things of shame? (II Corinthians 4.2)

(I don't really expect you to answer me, since I have brought up this issue dozens of times already, and you consider these to be merely "divisive" comments from a so-called "opposer.")

[Cal]

Perhaps a profound realisation that in the bible no one calls a church anything, anywhere.

I'm sure many have realized that fact. They were just smart enough not to jump to the conclusions you do.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that it's extremely unlikely that you have some kind of special revelation that's been hidden from so many for centuries. I am convinced that if what you believe is so true and important then more Christians would have embraced it down through the years. The true essentials of the faith have been long known and agreed upon, why has this one remained so obscure? No, a "true church" as defined by the LCM is little more than a rouse to uplift themselves and discredit others. That's my find word on this subject. I'm done with this discussion.

[Evangelical]

But then I have to close my eyes to the abuses, bullying, deceptions, craftiness, politicking, hypocrisy, and unrighteousness.

But, Evangelical, how do I get past all those hidden things of shame? (II Corinthians 4.2)

(I don't really expect you to answer me, since I have brought up this issue dozens of times already, and you consider these to be merely "divisive" comments from a so-called "opposer.")

I can point to numerous churches in the Recovery that have nothing to do with these abuses etc you mentioned. If one attends one of these I am sure they can have a rewarding and fulfilling Christian life without the troubles you mentioned. There are many excellent churches in the denominations too.

[Evangelical]

I'm sure many have realized that fact. They were just smart enough not to jump to the conclusions you do.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that it's extremely unlikely that you have some kind of special revelation that's been hidden from so many for centuries. I am convinced that if what you believe is so true and important then more Christians would have embraced it down through the years. The true essentials of the faith have been long known and agreed upon, why has this one remained so obscure? No, a "true church" as defined by the LCM is little more than a rouse to uplift themselves and discredit others. That's my find word on this subject. I'm done with this discussion.

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

[ZNPaaneah]

They can meet with us of course.:hysterical:

No doubt that is Jezebel who is laughing. But, OK, how do they do that? Do you have a phone number? A street address? Is there a name of someone I can refer them to? (I am not going to go, like Paul I feel they should come and apologize to me, a brother in good standing who served the Lord and the ministry faithfully. I was kicked out without being condemned of any offense, secretly. As a citizen of the kingdom I have a covenant with Jesus that they violated.) But please help me know what to do about this new one. Thanks

[Ohio]

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

Brother Evangelical,

Do you really believe that noone was justified by faith, noone was born of the Spirit, noone was a genuine child of God ... Until Martin Luther, the first MOTA, came along???

Let me recommend a few good church history books for you. First, start with wiping your "hard disk" clean of all church history you have learned from Lee. (Even some "bad" church histories are better than the one you got.)

[Ohio]

I can point to numerous churches in the Recovery that have nothing to do with these abuses etc you mentioned.

I doubt.

Did you forget that I spent several decades in the Recovery?

Didn't they all sign up for that frivolous Heritage House Lawsuit and then pay for LSM to take it to the SCOTUS?

Why do you think that Apostle Paul always exercised to keep a good conscience void of offense? That was essentially needed for him to lay the foundation of Christ in the Gentile lands. For God to honor all of Lee's new and exclusive teachings, don't you think he should be able to make similar claims?

[Cal]

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

It caught on like wildfire during Luther's lifetime. It was such a problem that the RCC used violence to try to stop it, which didn't work. And this was in an age without mass communication and the internet as we have now. In contrast the LCM locality/no name message has been around for over half a century, and much longer if you count the Brethren, with barely a blip of effect. So your analogy is specious.

I don't doubt that the Lord would like to have more generality, fellowship and cooperation among churches. But the fact is that is happening and has been for some time. The Lord is doing it, not you. The LCM model of city churches only with no name (with their ministry in charge of course) is not going to happen through the means they are using. If city churches happen, which I very much doubt will, it will be through cooperation of churches which become more and more open and general, but which never quite completely dissolve. Because as we said someone will always feel the need to branch from the status quo, which is a healthy thing.

But we will NEVER have a situation where one group of elders in association with LSM presumes to be in charge of a whole city and most of the Christians in the city goes along with them. That's NEVER going to happen, IMHO.

Also, you fail to see how city churches with one eldership will likely ossify and become stagnant and perhaps corrupt. The only way the Lord could go on would be to reform the eldership (which we've seen in the history of the LCM doesn't happen) or to allow people to split and branch off. This has always been the way the Lord has gone, and the idea that this will not be needed anymore when we arrive at this magical situation of city churches you dream of is just a fantasy. It will probably be needed even more because entrenched, unchallengable leadership usually leads to degradation.

One church per city is not a legality. It's a reality that is really just a reflection of the universal church. It need not be reflected in everyone knowing each other or meeting together or having the same name. That's the superficial oneness of the RCC, which has been around for a long time and doesn't impress anyone.

[Ohio]

But we will NEVER have a situation where one group of elders in association with LSM presumes to be in charge of a whole city and most of the city goes along with them. That's NEVER going to happen, IMHO.

Also, you fail to see how city churches with one eldership will likely ossify and become stagnant perhaps corrupt. The only way the Lord could go on would be to reform the eldership (which we've seen in the history of the LCM doesn't happen) or to allow people to split and branch off. This has always been the way the Lord has gone, and the idea that this will not be needed anymore when we arrive at this magical situation of city churches you dream of is just a fantasy.


How ironic is it that the only example of this which we have in our lifetime failed. Even Witness lee himself declared it a failure in 1985. Up until then, Taipei had one eldership for almost two dozen meeting halls, and thousands of saints. Overnight, Lee fired them all and appointed 80 new elders. Another failed Lee experiment, and he even called the church in Taipei his "baby."

Prior to that, back in Nee's day, it was Shanghai which was the biggest church with many halls under one eldership. How did that work out? They disciplined Nee for moral impropriety, saying he could not partake of the Table, so he took his marbles home and got into the drug industry. After being reinstated, he demanded that they turn over all their money to him. Apparently Nee "learned" from his "mistake." So much for hand-picked elders, who operate autonomously.

If every time the Recovery version of the "one church -- one city -- one eldership" model was a failure, perhaps we need to examine the teaching itself. Btw, the exclusive Brethren ecclesiastical teachings modeled the same pattern. I recently read about how eventually the large city of London had 24 gatherings that each claimed to be the "true" New Testament Definition of a Church. Did someone say that "if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Go back to the reformation. How many saw the truth of salvation by faith alone? And how long did it take for that to eventuate?

This is a very poor example because the Bible was written in a language that the common man could not read, and was not widely published at the time of Martin Luther. Even so, there were quite a number of priests and monks who did read it and saw the truth and were then branded as heretics.

However, today there are hundreds of millions of Bibles, maybe even billions of Bibles available to people all over the world in their language, yet only 0.0001% of those people have seen this light.

That is not what happened during the reformation. The only people who didn't see the light were those who had a financial incentive in not seeing the truth.

To me there are several different reasons that a person would want a name that says they are the true church.

1. A new believer who doesn't know anything but would like to enter the fellowship of genuine believers rather than some cult, sect, division, etc. The sign that I would give to this person is the sign of Jonah.

2. Jezebel who wants to convince the naive believers that her church is the true church. This is the person that Jesus referred to as being evil and adulterous. He refused to give her such a name, rather saying the only sign given is that of Jonah. If Jezebel will go through the cross of Christ, being crucified and resurrected, then fine, otherwise forget it.

[Cal]

This is a very poor example because the Bible was written in a language that the common man could not read, and was not widely published at the time of Martin Luther. Even so, there were quite a number of priests and monks who did read it and saw the truth and were then branded as heretics.

However, today there are hundreds of millions of Bibles, maybe even billions of Bibles available to people all over the world in their language, yet only 0.0001% of those people have seen this light.


Precisely. When just a drop of the light of justification by faith came out through one man, Martin Luther, the light caught fire because it was the TRUTH and it resonated in the hearts of believers.

Yet now, with bibles available everywhere and millions upon millions of people reading it, studying it and praying over it--trained and untrained, layman and professional, in groups and alone, no one is seeing the "light" that the LCM sees. Nothing is catching fire.

You have to ask why, and the answer is most likely that the LCM doctrine of locality and no name is not the Truth they think it is. You have to conclude if the Lord wants to achieve more unity, he will not take the LCM way.

[UntoHim]

You have to conclude if the Lord wants to achieve more unity, he will not take the LCM way.

What Witness Lee and his followers never seem to get is that it is not the "one city - one church" doctrine that is the problem for most Christians, it is all the other unorthodox non-essentials that are stuffed down your throat along with it. There are too many to list all of them right here, but the few main things would be: The One Publication, God becoming man so that man may become God, The Processed Triune God, and Lee's neo-modalistic teachings regarding the Trinity (The Father becoming the Son, the Son becoming the Spirit).

For some comic relief, check out this Youtube video:
St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw)
-

[Ohio]

It caught on like wildfire during Luther's lifetime. It was such a problem that the RCC used violence to try to stop it, which didn't work.

Contrary to the Recovery story line of history, it was the backing of German nobility which enabled the Bible and justification by faith to "go public." The RCC held all under fear of death in order to maintain their unwavering support of Mary, the Pope, and the lucrative sales of indulgences. It was political and military support which freed Luther to translate the Bible and freed the people to believe its message. John Hus, though he preached the same message as Luther, lacked the military support to protect him from papal thuggery .

The Reformation was not the "re-discovery" of long lost truths, as we were told. Granted, the RCC suppressed the truth at every opportunity, but the common people were only willing to believe the message of the gospel if they were willing to be martyred, and so many were. Also, prior to the Reformation, Christians had little opportunity to school their youth and develop the teachings of scripture. When your life is on the line, one needs little more doctrine than God's love, the cross of Christ, and the indwelling Spirit of God.

Think about how many LC members would be willing to risk their lives for a whole host of esoteric LCM teachings like one eldership per city?

[OBW]

That is not true that sects are those that declare themselves to be the true church. That is taking the true meaning of the word and spinning it around.You are allowing Webster's to force what groups do or do not do. In short, I don't think that you are thinking. Just taking a definition (probably one of several) and running with it as being proof of anything.

The problem is that you are using the word "sect" in situations in which the definition that you are insisting upon is not applicable. In certain circles, a Christian sect is any division for any reason. In others, it is used to mean those who would claim to be Christian but are so marginal or exclusive that they do not abide within the standard orthodoxy in some material way. You are simply going with a more extreme meaning and insisting that if the word is used, that is all that it means.

It is a form of equivocation. Writers and speakers who want to sway their audience are often adept at taking words with multiple meanings and then using them in one way while knowing that their audience is understanding it in a different way. Part of Karl Marx's sales pitch for communism was through equivocation on the word "exploit."

[ZNPaaneah]

It really bothers me that people who are well versed in the Bible, and who have thought long and hard about this topic cannot give a simple definition to the church.

We all agree that the church is a very big topic in the NT. Surely it must be something that we can define.

This is not a vain exercise. You can imagine that every single believer needs to meet with others, so on some level they have decided who to meet with. Surely there must be some very clear guidelines from the Apostles.

Likewise there are cults, false teachers, false prophets, Jezebel, etc. This is not fear mongering. We should be able to identify when a group is clearly not a group to meet with.

[OBW]

Add to it that just because there are two or three Christians, or even 100 doesn't make it a church. There is more to the assembly than mere proximity. I have heard discussions about features that considered (by the speakers) as either very important, somewhat important, or not important in identifying a group as a church.

Some consider it in the context of differentiating between a ministry and a church. Or a mission and a church. All valid considerations.

Something like "an assembly of believers joined for the purpose of living and expressing the corporate aspects of the Christian life." Vague as all get-out. People could drive a truck through it. But something like that might be as close as we get to "defining" the term.

One thing is for certain. The definition is not an assembly of Christians who hold to the premise that all Christians within a geographical area that comprises a city are part of that one assembly, and who are under elders appointed by the leadership in Anaheim that are associated with the LSM . . . yada, yada, yada.

Wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more.

[Evangelical]

It really bothers me that people who are well versed in the Bible, and who have thought long and hard about this topic cannot give a simple definition to the church.

I think it would bother me too. That's why I'm in the Recovery, we know what the church is, thanks to Nee/Lee and others. All believers in each locality, that's the church.

[Evangelical]

You are allowing Webster's to force what groups do or do not do. In short, I don't think that you are thinking. Just taking a definition (probably one of several) and running with it as being proof of anything.

The problem is that you are using the word "sect" in situations in which the definition that you are insisting upon is not applicable. In certain circles, a Christian sect is any division for any reason. In others, it is used to mean those who would claim to be Christian but are so marginal or exclusive that they do not abide within the standard orthodoxy in some material way. You are simply going with a more extreme meaning and insisting that if the word is used, that is all that it means.

It is a form of equivocation. Writers and speakers who want to sway their audience are often adept at taking words with multiple meanings and then using them in one way while knowing that their audience is understanding it in a different way. Part of Karl Marx's sales pitch for communism was through equivocation on the word "exploit."

I am not going with an extreme meaning, I am going with the basic and simple and original meaning. A sect is a cut, division or offshoot. We are not talking about grey areas such as the rapture or predestination. So you cannot take the true meaning of the word and sugar coat it. There is a right and wrong answer about this, black and white, like 2+2 = 4. There is no grey area here on the definition of a sect. Another definition of sect is an offshoot of a larger group. So Lutherans were a sect as an offshoot of Catholic, etc etc. The Catholic website I posted before explains how the meaning of sect has been distorted over the years, by sects. For example, Anglican does not consider itself a sect but to the Catholics they were and probably still are a sect. Anglicans would be considered a sect by the apostle Paul for sure. A denomination whose existence and origins was to fulfill the lusts of the King of England.

[Evangelical]

Brother Evangelical,

Do you really believe that noone was justified by faith, noone was born of the Spirit, noone was a genuine child of God ... Until Martin Luther, the first MOTA, came along???

Let me recommend a few good church history books for you. First, start with wiping your "hard disk" clean of all church history you have learned from Lee. (Even some "bad" church histories are better than the one you got.)

Very few, possibly. Just like very few Gentiles would have been saved during the Old Testament period. Luther was the first to see that justification was not by works but by faith. Today Catholics still deny it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Origin_of_the_term
He became convinced that the church was corrupt in its ways and had lost sight of what he saw as several of the central truths of Christianity, the most important of which, for Luther, was the doctrine of justification—God's act of declaring a sinner righteous—by faith alone through God's grace.

[Ohio]

Very few, possibly. Just like very few Gentiles would have been saved during the Old Testament period.

Luther was the first to see that justification was not by works but by faith.



Nonsense.

Have you never read that Luther took his teachings from John Huss, who took his from Wycliffe?

[Evangelical]

Nonsense.

Have you never read that Luther took his teachings from John Huss, who took his from Wycliffe?

Who did Wycliffe get it from? Just replace Luther with Wycliffe then in my previous posts, my point still stands.

[Evangelical]

When you think about it, really, there were no "local churches". Ever. If they were truly local, why did the Corinthians receive the extra-local letter from Paul? Why should Paul tell the Colossians to read the letter to the Laodiceans (4:16), and vice versa? Why should the Colossians care about something outside their location? Because they weren't local. None of them were. If Paul were local, he'd only care for those in his location. But he didn't, nor did anyone else.

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

[aron]

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Nee and Lee sold localist utopianism, but it vanished into the nothingness from whence it came, and they blamed the victim. Supposedly we hadn't been absolute enough, pure enough, or zealous enough. We needed to re-consecrate ourselves to the extra-local programme, the so-called "vision of the age". I was there, and heard this kind of stuff. We were upbraided for being dull, dormant, stagnant.

There never was a local church. It was an illusion, a conjurer's trick, separating the flock and eventuating mass deception and delusion. All courtesy of the extra-local ministry.

[Ohio]

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church, give them the ministry.

Even Lee made it perfectly clear that local elders could make "crucial" decisions like when to start their prayer meeting.

Ever wonder why so many church meetings got replaced by "training" meetings?

[aron]

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church. .

The extra- local minister was never supposed to promise them the church but he did. And when he couldn't deliver (as he knew) he gave them the ministry and the work. The church belongs to Christ- it is His handiwork, His masterpiece. The church should resolutely focus on Christ. We got localism. That's why I say it was merely an illusion, part of a spell to bring us under someone's control.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it would bother me too. That's why I'm in the Recovery, we know what the church is, thanks to Nee/Lee and others. All believers in each locality, that's the church.

That is an objective definition, not a practical one. I cannot tell a new one to go meet with all believers in a locality if you are defining a locality as a city. There is no meeting hall in NYC that would facilitate that.

On the other hand if you are saying to meet with "all believers" in the sense of any and all, well that is something that you have seemed to condemn up to this point, and it is the point that the rest of us have been making. Perhaps we do agree.

Likewise, if you are saying locality as in the area around which you live, that also would be quite practical. You may not be familiar with NYC but there has to be a really good reason for me to go to Staten Island or the Bronx because those two parts of the city are very far away and hard to get to. But, if by locality you mean my little part of NYC, well that is what I do.

I also like that you do not have any precondition for the name to be "the church in..." nor do you talk about them having taken the ground, or the one eldership, or accepting the one ministry, or recognizing the MOTA, etc.

I think we can all agree that "all the believers in a locality" are the church in that locality.

[micah6v8]

I am not going with an extreme meaning, I am going with the basic and simple and original meaning. A sect is a cut, division or offshoot. We are not talking about grey areas such as the rapture or predestination. So you cannot take the true meaning of the word and sugar coat it. There is a right and wrong answer about this, black and white, like 2+2 = 4. There is no grey area here on the definition of a sect. Another definition of sect is an offshoot of a larger group. So Lutherans were a sect as an offshoot of Catholic, etc etc. The Catholic website I posted before explains how the meaning of sect has been distorted over the years, by sects. For example, Anglican does not consider itself a sect but to the Catholics they were and probably still are a sect. Anglicans would be considered a sect by the apostle Paul for sure. A denomination whose existence and origins was to fulfill the lusts of the King of England.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a neighbour (who isnt from the Lord's Recovery)

He asked about the church I went to, and which denomination it was. After I said non-denominational, he asked how the Sunday service/meeting was like.

After I told him, there was no pastor etc, his response was simply along the lines of "Aah, it's Brethren then".

I had to go to the internet to read more about brethren churches, but to this day, I wouldn't blame anyone who came to the conclusion that the Lord's Recovery is an offshoot of the Plymouth Brethren.

[Cal]

I think we can all agree that "all the believers in a locality" are the church in that locality.

The question is if the church in a city is a abstraction, like the universal church, or is it something that is strictly organized.

The lack of the bible prescribing city churches plus its multiple citings of house churches lends enough reasonable doubt to the city church model to make insisting on it unreasonable. Therefore even if you believe in the city church model you should be tolerant of other interpretations of how church can be practically realized. Calling other manifestations of the church "false" is a reckless position.

Add to this the uncertainty of how the organization of the city church should be maintained. Who picks the elders? What if the entire leadership becomes corrupt? How are members to follow their consciences and split off from bad leadership? Ultimately the LCM model leads to a kind of dictatorship, where Christians have no choice to submit to whomever seems to be in charge. And it gives the leaders total power to condemn whomever they want to.

Even so there is, in a sense, one church in the city. Just like there is one church on earth. But like the universal church this city church can be realized as smaller churches, as the citing of house churches in the Bible implies. The error of the LCM vision of church is equating church with eldership (always theirs). That is, you must follow their eldership to be in the church. But we are all in the church regardless. You cannot leave the church. Being in the church is a reality. Thus the LCM's real beef is with people who don't submit to their eldership. It's a power thing. The "local ground" is just a tool they employ to try to force this. This is proven by the many times they have encountered groups which met as the church without a name, urged them to merge, and when a group said something reasonable like, no thanks, we don't think following leaders who follow Witness Lee is a good idea, the LCM church proceeded to discredit them and presume to be the "true church" in the city.

To the LCM there can only be one king of the hill and that's gotta be them. Thus their take no prisoners attitude.

[Ohio]

Who did Wycliffe get it from? Just replace Luther with Wycliffe then in my previous posts, my point still stands.
The apostles, passed down thru faithful men.

[Cal]

So despite their claim of simply insisting on high biblical principles, the LCM is really about being in control of the church in every city they enter. This has been shown time and time again. The LCM currently does not recognize any group meeting as the church in a city which does not align itself with their movement and their ministry (LSM). There are many examples, but Toronto is a striking one. When the orders came down from headquarters to obey the "one publication" edict churches in the Midwest including Toronto resisted. The result was LSM sent reps to Toronto and set up a new church which claimed to be the "true" church in Toronto, discrediting the existing church.

The point isn't that the existing Toronto group was the "true" one. Neither were in the way the LCM mind works. The point is the hypocrisy, and silliness, of the whole thing.

This is the kind of activity that has gone on almost since the beginning of this movement. The "local ground" does not achieve oneness, it just changes how different groups fight over the spoils. As it exists today, it is mostly just a bragging point for the LCM because hardly anyone else cares about being seen as the "true church" in the city. So they can crow about being right, conveniently ignore competitors, and condemn "Christianity." But if the city church idea caught on you would see in every city many groups without a name each endlessly coming up with reasons why they were the "true church" and the others were "false."

[Cal]

So ultimately the LCM's sense of being right does not extend from the local ground, it extends from the idea that they are following the right apostle and are the right movement. The local ground is just a tool by which they discredit others. But it's really all about Lee and the "Recovery." Thus they have little compunction about bastardizing the local ground as much as needed.

At the end of the day, it's really about nothing more than they are them and no one else is.

[ZNPaaneah]

The question is if the church in a city is a abstraction, like the universal church, or is it something that is strictly organized.

The lack of the bible prescribing city churches plus its multiple citings of house churches lends enough reasonable doubt to the city church model to make insisting on it unreasonable. Therefore even if you believe in the city church model you should be tolerant of other interpretations of how church can be practically realized. Calling other manifestations of the church "false" is a reckless position.

That is definitely something that any reasonable Bible expositor would conclude. The NT does not prescribe it. Their is a mention of functions (overseer, prophets, teachers, evangelists) but there is no prescription of how a church must be organized, administered, meet, etc.

"One city one church" is a reasonable abstraction from the NT, but certainly not a prescription.

Having elders is certainly Biblical, but also not a requirement.

Having a large enough meeting so that verses like "women having their heads covered and men not" along with doing things in order, one speaking at a time, makes sense for a church, but again there are other verses that give full credibility to a meeting of 2 or 3.

It is like "a family dinner". What does that mean? Could it be 2 or 3? Could it be 200? Sure it should be done in good order. There should be elders. But other than that its seems that as long as Jesus is sitting at the table it is a legitimate family gathering.

[Drake]

ZNP) "simple definition to the church."

His Body, the fullness of the One Who fills all in all. (Ephesians)

Though that question is different from the one posed in the topic title.

Drake

[Evangelical]

The apostles, passed down thru faithful men.

So why did no one realize these things until Wycliffe?

[Evangelical]

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Just pointing out that your understanding of the locality doctrine does not match what Lee/Nee taught. It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others. This is more of a Baptist concept. The localities are various expressions of the one church.

Each church was local. But ministry was extra-local like Paul's ministry. In the New Testament, all the churches that Paul established had the same ministry. He gave the same instructions to them all:

1 Cor 7:17 "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP) "simple definition to the church."
His Body, the fullness of the One Who fills all in all. (Ephesians)
Though that question is different from the one posed in the topic title.
Drake

Well, how are we to answer Witness Lee's question in Post #1 "How are we to tell if you are taking the stand of the true church?"

[aron]

It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others.
Local but also not local, not that local. Like, God but not God, not the Godhead God.

Words have an interesting life in the Nee/Lee ministry. They are neither fish nor fowl. One day they seem like a fish, but they're not really a fish, not that fish. Next day they seem to be fowl but not really; not that fowl. They're merely whatever the ministry needs, to satisfy today's agenda.

I prefer plain, 'conventional' usage, and consistent meaning, and repeat that the local churches aren't local; they're ministry marketing outlets, or ministry stations.

[Evangelical]

Yes, not so local that they could not distribute Paul's messages. It's as simple as this - the church is local and the ministry is global. Distribution of Paul's letters among the churches was his global ministry. The same with Lee/Nee. It was not breaking any rule against churches being local. Notice how Paul never said to distribute writings of the local church elders. Suppose an elder in one church wrote letters and distributed them to all the churches with instructions from him for them. That elder would be violating the principle of church locality. Paul however, as an apostle with a ministry to the churches but outside the churches, did not violate anything.

[Ohio]

So why did no one realize these things until Wycliffe?

It was Lee's false historical narrative that made you believe this.

Like I said, read some good church history!