Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, I wanted to add a thought for OBW. I think a major difference between Nee and Lee and other Christian teachers who may have emphasized many of the "deeper" things they did (as opposed, for example, to the typical fare of evangelical churches), is that Nee and Lee raised up many churches which they directed to teach and think like they did. Other teachers, Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, etc, were prolific, but did not start a movement of churches. Tozer and Sparks each led one church, but only Nee and Lee dispensed their teachings into many churches which in turn reflected their worldview. This is a rather unique situation with unique consequences. The other teachers did not really discriminate about who they ministered to, Nee and Lee did. Their interest was always in raising up a movement which remained pure to their vision, rather than simply casting their bread upon the water.

Because of this, their teaching had a much more focused impact. Though "inner life" teachings have to a degree meandered their way into mainstream Christianity, their concentration and impact is not as severe as Nee and Lee were on their dedicated audience. This adds to the overstated impression that Nee and Lee had something "unique" to say. But, actually, most things truly "unique" to the Recovery are associated with error.

Originally Posted by awareness

After the local church can we really hook up to any man?

Originally Posted by Igzy

He's one that picked up on our heavenly home actually being the new earth.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The emergent church doesn't interest me much. But I think it is worth observing.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sad. He had a very popular blog. I disagreed with him once on it, and went after him (as you know I am wont to do) and he banned me from his site. lol.

Originally Posted by OBW

The list was off the top of my head and was far from all. But these were either more notable, or more recent.

Charles (Chuck) Swindol ((might be 2 Ls) Frisco Bible Church, current or former
Dallas Theo Chancellor or something like that)

Originally Posted by Igzy

Can you provide the first names of these teachers, too, so I can look them up. Thanks!

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that this is a relatively sound way to put it. And my thoughts about the writers that I prefer to read (although I must admit that my appetite for reading is often diminished between too much eye strain looking at tax laws and returns on a computer all day and allergies) are of the kind that are often preachers at a single church and write. Swindol, Alcorn, Driscoll, Bell (Rob, not Michael), McKnight, Spencer, McLaren, Tickle, Fitch, and others. Some of the readers here probably have no idea who some of those are. I will admit at least two of those are very controversial, and I am very careful as I read them not to get sucked-in to something that could be error — in some ways as bad or worse than Lee. We'll leave it at that.

But while these people influence their readers, those readers generally remain within some group that provides a base and framework within which to assess what they read. It is only when, as you say, the readers become a collection of direct followers that there begin to be real problems (at least potentially) especially when other sources of spiritual diet are removed.

Originally Posted by Ohio

... while life under the direction of TC in Cleveland has become all about "The Work." Quite a reversal from the rhetoric of the past.

Originally Posted by Igzy

BTW, I wanted to add a thought for OBW. I think a major difference between Nee and Lee and other Christian teachers who may have emphasized many of the "deeper" things they did (as opposed, for example, to the typical fare of evangelical churches), is that Nee and Lee raised up many churches which they directed to teach and think like they did. Other teachers, Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, etc, were prolific, but did not start a movement of churches. Tozer and Sparks each led one church, but only Nee and Lee dispensed their teachings into many churches which in turn reflected their worldview. This is a rather unique situation with unique consequences. The other teachers did not really discriminate about who they ministered to, Nee and Lee did. Their interest was always in raising up a movement which remained pure to their vision, rather than simply casting their bread upon the water.

Because of this, their teaching had a much more focused impact. Though "inner life" teachings have to a degree meandered their way into mainstream Christianity, their concentration and impact is not as severe as Nee and Lee were on their dedicated audience. This adds to the overstated impression that Nee and Lee had something "unique" to say. But, actually, most things truly "unique" to the Recovery are associated with error.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They would say that they paid a hefty price to pursue the Lord in the LC's.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ultimately, people have to make up their own minds about the LC and why they choose to remain in it. I'm sure there are many who feel that a good work is being done there. At some point, however, thoughtful Christians have to ask themselves if the priorities of the group are not in conflict wit the stated mission, which is to spread their vision. It is my contention that seeking to preserve false reputations of Nee and Lee, erasing and doctoring history, is counter to that mission in its purest form.

LCers will tell themselves that they are the remnant, the chosen few willing to pay the price. But in fact, they didn't pay the price. Paying the price would have meant being willing to be completely honest about everything and live with the consequences.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Normal people aren't going to buy this MOTA crap, only the Kool-Aid drinkers.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's a combination of the two. And the two support the weakness of each other. When Lee's theology seems compelling and unique, they think, "See? He is clearly special." When the theology seems weak, they think, "Doesn't matter, because he's the MOTA."

It's circular. Why is he the MOTA? Because of his esoteric theology. Why is his theology so special, even to the point you swallow things that make no sense? Because he's the MOTA.

But, as I said, no decent theology requires the imprimatur of a special minister. The theology should stand on its own. Lee's really doesn't. So when it sags they say, "How can you question the MOTA?" I don't think they necessarily do this cynically. It's just the self-perpetuating mindset of these types of groups.

Originally Posted by OBW

But if you do not like that reason. Then the motivation can only be that they really do think that he is/was the MOTA, God's deputy authority, the Oracle of God, the one who writes new scripture (effectively, though never spoken out loud as such).

They really are the personality cult that awareness has been so fond of pointing out . . . . And it might be true.

Originally Posted by Terry

The example I'd like to bring forth is when brother Ron spoke on Mark 11:25 in November 2012.

"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions."

By itself, the verse is a positive verse. yet in the context of the person speaking it I have had this thought, "does that mean Ron had forgiven John Ingalls for John's perceived wrongdoings by which Ron co-wrote A Response to Recent Accusations or had Ron forgiven Steve Isitt for his perceived wrongdoings through which Ron called Steve "a man of death" and the most evil speaker on the internet?"
If there is forgiveness, you would think there would be some form of communication to those brothers indicating forgiveness. Ron could easily visit John at his home in Anaheim. In his visits to the NW, Ron could easily check with the brothers how to get right with Steve. I don't forsee either happening which is why just like Barrack Obama, all I hear is lip service from the man giving the message. For the record, I would dearly love to be proven wrong and for reconciliation between Ron and John and between Ron and Steve.

By comparison when the Living Waters publication existed in which Bill Mallon, Stephen Kaung, John Ingalls, Max Rapoport, Vern DeFromke, and Paul Kerr were contributors. In which of what happened in Anaheim 1977/78, for Max to work with these brothers, I deduced there must have been forgiveness on Max's behalf.

Originally Posted by OBW

Another way to put it is that it is the message, but without the men, the message is suspect or fails. So it also must be the men.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Brother Terry, of course, not all LCers are the same. But I am talking about majority that I see in my locality, especially when young Asian brothers and sisters stand up and prophesy at conferences or on the Lord’s Day. In everyday life, they are different people with different characters. But when they talk about God, discuss Morning Revival, or share what things touched their hearts, most of them do it the same way, with the same words, affection, and intonation, as if someone installed a malware in their brains. They are spiritual clones of each other.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Re In Christ alone no 36

I was speaking with a significant leader in my area within the last two years. He told me of a suggestion of a young brother to speak at some meeting. BP asked him if he thought he would speak what he was told to and my friend replied in the affirmative. I told the event to a friend and he was agreeable. They wouldn't want anything spoken especially to the young people that wasn't
along party lines. There is no hope for the LRC.

With no repentance in fifty years, there can be no repentance. It appears that Darby never repented. It could be WN did. He had that long prison term unknown to us. Apparrently WL didn't. The BBs won't. The die is cast. We had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps.

Lisbon

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago, back when we were litigating the Mindbenders book, we would explain away some of our extreme behaviors by claiming that "some cults had church-like tendencies."

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That's right. But in North Korea, one accord is more impressive.

In North Korea, they have been building a communist utopia. In the LRC, they have been building WL's utopia. Both are striving for unreachable.

Originally Posted by OBW

They really are the personality cult that awareness has been so fond of pointing out . . . . And it might be true.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, this works as a cold-eyed analysis from outside. But it doesn't work as an explanation of how they really think. I mean, do you really believe the LCers, even the leadership, sit around and say, "Well, we know our doctrines are crap, see? So let's keep the focus on Nee and Lee as ministers of the age so the members don't analyze our crappy doctrines too closely."

Really?

You may be explaining how things work, but you still are not explaining fundamental motivations.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They would call this "the one accord."

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Brother Terry, of course, not all LCers are the same. But I am talking about majority that I see in my locality, especially when young Asian brothers and sisters stand up and prophesy at conferences or on the Lord’s Day. In everyday life, they are different people with different characters. But when they talk about God, discuss Morning Revival, or share what things touched their hearts, most of them do it the same way, with the same words, affection, and intonation, as if someone installed a malware in their brains. They are spiritual clones of each other.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

In other words, if their idols and “high-peak truth” heralds, Nee and Lee, made mistakes, then their “high-peak truth” doesn’t look like “high-peak truth.” To keep the organization working, the LRC’s Sun must not have spots, i.e. Nee’s and Lee’s reputation must be indisputable.

It’s a very common thing with sects and certain teachings. Take communism, in the USSR, Lenin was always right. If people knew his mistakes, then the same people would start questioning Lenin’s teaching.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. The difference is that the communists probably cynically knew this and still exploited it.

Do you seriously think the LC leadership cynically manipulates their members? Or you think they really think that Lee was the MOTA and that reverence to him is part of their duty?

I still think it's the latter. I could be wrong, but when I was there people really, really believed this stuff.

Originally Posted by Terry

I cannot color code brothers and sisters in the local churches. While meeting there it's very easy to say objectively so and so is cold or so and so is hot, all the while not having a personal relationship to know what brothers and sisters are going through. Which is why is it's very easy to claim the high peaks ministry all the while being oblivious what is happening at ground level.
While there may be brothers and sisters whose behavior fits InChristAlone's post (showing partiality towards the blending brother's speaking), but that is not indicative of brothers and sisters meeting in the local churches as a whole.
What if I told you a family I've known for nearly 40 years have no problem inviting former leading ones and their spouses into their home.
Another I've known for 20+ echoes the concerns John Ingalls brought forth in Speaking the Truth In Love. Sure you can send your children through FTTA, but that doesn't mean you're 100% one with LSM. I think for many in the local churches, there is not a better alternative for meeting as the church in their respective localities. The problem is not the message, but men who have yet to be humbled.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It’s a very common thing with sects and certain teachings. Take communism, in the USSR, Lenin was always right. If people knew his mistakes, then the same people would start questioning Lenin’s teaching.

Originally Posted by james73

By the way, I never suggested insulting anyone or firing torpedos when I said LC wasn't a church. It's just my opinion. I keep it to this forum (which is supposed to be a safe place etc) - I don't go around telling LC people they are wrong.

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason they need to protect and defend Nee and Lee is that the things they think are truly important in their beliefs are not simply common things that do not required Nee or Lee. It is something that is unique in each thing that is important. It requires that they remain important so that their novel reading of scripture is supportable. If Nee and Lee are not accepted as viable interpreters of the Bible, then their strange misreadings don't just fall under the label of "controversial." They become panned because their credentials as Bible commentators would be revoked.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is, why do LCers think Lee was the MOTA? Rather than try to figure it out, just think back to why you believed it at one time. You believed it, I would think, because:

• Lee was outwardly impressive.
• The teachings were innovative and seemingly powerful.
• Your experience in the LC seemed to confirm that the group was a cut above the rest.
• You were made to fear believing otherwise.

Now the question is, is there a star chamber somewhere where LC leaders cynically try to keep the focus on Lee to maintain their myths? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason they need to protect and defend Nee and Lee is that the things they think are truly important in their beliefs are not simply common things that do not required Nee or Lee. It is something that is unique in each thing that is important. It requires that they remain important so that their novel reading of scripture is supportable. If Nee and Lee are not accepted as viable interpreters of the Bible, then their strange misreadings don't just fall under the label of "controversial." They become panned because their credentials as Bible commentators would be revoked.

And even if the rest of Christianity has problems with Nee and Lee, the LRC must keep seeing things their way.

Originally Posted by OBW

Th
So I return to the idea that the LRC desperately needs to keep Nee and Lee intact, at least as far as the insiders are concerned. They are too dependent on beliefs and practices that could not be supported if you removed the reason for saying James was just a Judaizer (among other things). That keep the entire upper structure of their hierarchy in place despite gross sin being covered up and even allowed to continue. (Remember, they were fighting against John Ingalls before PL was excommunicated. They did not want him removed.)

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I admit that I am biased against the LC and LCers. I have no respect for this organization. I don't like what they have done with my wife, her family, and every saint I know. The cult brainwashed them to such an extent that they lost ability to look at their organization and their believes critically. They turned themselves into sponges that soak up any hogwash the LSM feeds them. They idolize WL, blindly believe every LR doctrine, and get up in arms over any critical remark. I know they are just victims. But it's painful to see them recruiting, deceiving, and brainwashing other people. They do not share the love of Christ with new believers. They just clone each other, turning new believers into slaves of the doctrine. "The blind leading the blind."

It's hard to help LCers see the truth. If they prefer to keep their eyes closed, then no man is capable to show them anything. Especially, when this man is like me, who doesn't have much love in his heart.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Originally Posted by Igzy

I do not believe the rank and file LCers really prefer being unquestioning sheep. They have just been convinced that is God's way. They are wrong. And that's what this thread is trying to help show.

Originally Posted by james73

The problem is, it's not a church...

The whole LSM/local church thing is a scam to support Lee book sales. People pay HK$100 per head to watch a crappy DVD of a conference. They line up to buy the weekly books. Each member must recruit two more members every year and they do it with pride, spiritual pride. LSM's onto a good thing. It even gets tax breaks by calling its sales promotions "missionary work". But don't confuse it with a church, however, just because it calls itself a church and bases its "product" around the bible.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you say more when these "recent messages" were spoken, and who referred to who as heroes.

Originally Posted by Terry

Part of the preservation is minimizing of "brothers who were ran off". In recent messages I have heard them disingenuously referred to as "heroes".

Character of former elders were besmirched in order to preserve reputations of the founders.

Originally Posted by OBW

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The flip side is this: Any party which tries to sell some person as the greatest minister of the age, or the sole authority, or the one we all need to defer to above all others, has an agenda other than God's. They might not think they do, but they do. For all their claims about being for the eternal purpose of God, the LC is really about something else. They just need to wake up to that fact.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here, I think the ministry of W. Nee had been "packaged for consumption," by CLC, CFP, and LSM. Many have been helped by Nee's ministry, and in certain circles, he is still widely respected.

Lee also has been heavily edited and "packaged for consumption," via the radio broadcasts, as just another gifted minister. Apparently the Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking world has been more receptive than us "moo-cow" Americans.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, to my point, the question is, what is the Local Church movement trying to achieve?

If indeed they want to spread their message, it would seem that the way to do so would be to package it for consumption for the audience they wish to reach. To get the message out in reader-friendly and viewer-friendly form, in a way that is as attractive and non-threatening as possible and then let it assimilate into the mainstream as it may. If their message is as good at they seem to think, then it will, eventually, have a definite impact on the Church at large. This cannot, assuming the message is good, be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This, of course, diverges somewhat from your topic at hand, Igzy, but it emphasizes the LC mentality, that if Nee and Lee were perfect, then all their teachings were perfect, and even a caveman could use these teachings to raise up elders in the LC's.

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that I'm out of the local church am I still a living stone in The Building that's God's eternal purpose?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with. I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.

Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.

The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.

Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.

The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee and Lee taught these same things, yet did not practice what they preached. Within their little circle of Christians, they were absolutely preeminent. Their handlers presented them alone as flawless spokesmen for God on earth. Within their local churches, their ministries rose above the word of God. All other ministers were flawed, substandard, and degraded -- and worthy of censure. Theirs alone must be revered as God's speaking in the present day.

Thus they must be perfect, and without failure. It is inconceivable that the morals of these men could be on the same level as their contemporaries. Without being elevated beyond all Christian coevals, lavished with such titles as the MOTA, the acting God, deputy authority, today's Paul, etc., everything they have ministered would be held up to examination, and much of it would collapse like a house of cards.

Originally Posted by OBW

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

Originally Posted by Igzy

In other words, the movement thinks beyond any doubt that many of the spiritual principles they uphold, which they see as neglected in other Christian groups, are absolutely crucial to God achieving what he desires to achieve. Thus they see themselves as stewards of these things.

The problem is, the LC for some reason also feels that the defense of Nee and Lee is essential to carrying out their mission. Probably if pressed they would not want to admit that protecting Nee's and Lee's reputations is part of their mission. Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders.

The question I have is, Why do they feel this way?