Originally Posted by Bradley

One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was.

We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain.

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other.

On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really.

But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not.

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Original "church in Toronto" is here. They claim to be "THE church in Toronto." Not sure of their affiliation.

IIRC, "The Church of the Torontonians" was taken back in the early 70's. That church now has the website here. They have become a truly "local" church, a community church, no longer attached to headquarters in either Anaheim or Cleveland. I would consider them one of the healthiest LC spin-offs. Nigel Tomes, who has written a number of articles on this forum, is there.

After the recent division, the LSMers took the name "the local church in Toronto." Note that their website, their sign, and their legal names don't necessarily have to coincide. They are nothing more than an LSM franchise.

Originally Posted by aron

The Church in Sydney, whichever its version (affiliation), is no more a local church than the Parish of the Lady of Our Way in North Sydney or St. Peter's Presbyterian Church. And if you look at the demographic that it appeals to, and fronts, it's perhaps less a reflection of the local populace than they are. So why call it a local church? (Besides that this is its only reason to exist, of course)

Originally Posted by OBW

And they act more like the religious rulers that Jesus spoke against. They really do not care for the flock, but order it around and profit from it.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Then there is the stark reality that Local Church elders really don't function anything like elders described in and modeled by the New Testament. They are actually more like branch managers of a local franchise of the Living Stream Ministry corporation. They are only allowed to serve Lee burgers, Lee fries and Lee shakes, which are all neatly wrapped and supplied by the headquarters in Anaheim. The menu is strictly dictated and sternly enforced by the members of The Board (aka The Blended Brothers).
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Then there is the stark reality that Local Church elders really don't function anything like elders described in and modeled by the New Testament. They are actually more like branch managers of a local franchise of the Living Stream Ministry corporation. They are only allowed to serve Lee burgers, Lee fries and Lee shakes, which are all neatly wrapped and supplied by the headquarters in Anaheim. The menu is strictly dictated and sternly enforced by the members of The Board (aka The Blended Brothers).
-

Originally Posted by Igzy

The only conclusion must be that the city church is like the universal church. Yes, it exists in reality, but we are not required to officially organize it under one official group of elders. All Christians in the city should see their common unity in that city, but smaller organized churches, as the house churches in the New Testament suggest, are allowed for practicality, flexibility, and, not the least in importance, preventing presumptive self-assumed rule by domineering leaders bent on controlling everything and everyone.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Further, it doesn't take much reflection to see how this principle cannot work and even is destructive. Because once a group of elders gets control, there is no way for the Lord to reform them if they go off the reservation. Everyone must continue to submit to them, regardless. The only option is to leave town, which is silly.

Originally Posted by OBW

Or mooing cows. Sound Familiar anyone?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you notice he saw it everywhere in the typology. But there was no black and white teaching in the NT, only an inferential teaching based on two verses that had little or nothing to do with the ground but rather the appointment of elders. They also inferred it from the references to churches being singular or plural.

So yes, it seemed he saw it everywhere but anyone could discern that all of the teachings were inferred or interpreted from typology. So then, even if it were a genuine teaching the apostles kept it secret from most Christians. Why? Also, if the apostles wouldn't say this plainly, why are you, that is to leave the apostle's fellowship.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The quote here was posted on the "Quips and Quotes" block of the forum, and it caught my attention:
Such could be said of the foundational Recovery teaching, the acclaimed "Ground of Oneness." Lee saw it everywhere in scripture, and supposedly there it was, cause he said so. Yet the Bible never actually said it. Thus the Recovery was built upon long lost hidden secrets, kind of like the Da Vinci Code. Then one day W. Nee came along (or Robert Langdon in the movie) and unlocked the mystery of the faith, that which was missed by all men of God for centuries.

Heretics are not dishonest men; they are mistaken men. They have been some of the most sincere men that the Church has ever known. Their trouble was this: they evolved a theory and they were rather pleased with it; then they went back with this theory to the Bible, and they seemed to find it everywhere.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Originally Posted by Freedom

As someone who grew up in the LCM, it didn't take long for me to realize how committed LCers were to the ground of locality teaching. Before I even understood what the teaching entailed, I saw the passion for the teaching and assumed it must be really important.

Maybe that is why I never questioned the fact that we had to commute 30 miles to "meet locally." I was told that all other Christians were wrong for having so many different churches, but here we were, having to travel far and wide to practice a church model that was supposed to be practical.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches. On the one hand, they claim to practice localism organized practically in terms of geography. On the other hand, they will insist upon allegiance with LSM. And that is what serves as evidence they are a movement that is indeed following a man.

Originally Posted by Bradley

Right. That quote they keep saying, how Lee told Nee 'even if you do something different, I will continue to take this path' - it helps everyone say 'oh we are not following Lee, we are following his vision, we would continue to follow it even if he wasn't'.

Except its one thing to say that, its another thing to do it.

Originally Posted by Freedom

...What made the LCM different, and what I think kept LCers oblivious to the hypocrisy was the fact that Lee pointed to the ground to disguise the fact that everyone was following him. This construct of the ground fooled people...

Originally Posted by Freedom

It continues to amaze me that those who defend the LCM will not answer the basic question as to why the LCM only considers churches that follow "the ministry" aka Nee/Lee/LSM/blendeds to be genuine local churches.

Originally Posted by Ohio

As with all self-righteous hypocrites. Paul said they were all inexcusable in Romans 2.1: "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Originally Posted by Bradley

The devil will often condemn others for things that he is fully guilty of himself. Not just hypocrisy, but projection - as if he was getting his ideas and inspiration from within. For some reason, when an authoritative figure or group is teaching you and warning you about a certain issue, that figure or group becomes the last person you would suspect of being the thing they are warning you about.

Originally Posted by Bradley

For some reason, when an authoritative figure or group is teaching you and warning you about a certain issue, that figure or group becomes the last person you would suspect of being the thing they are warning you about. We all read the outline and listened to the message about God's Move™ vs a movement of man and assumed like unthinking sheep that the ones feeding us the message were obviously 'God's Move'.

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, I do agree.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LSM is a movement!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city. It is through the oneness of standing on this ground alone that we are aligned to Jerusalem. LSM is a movement! It is a living stream! The movement moves those standing on the ground off of it. The stream then carries them away. I have no issue with LSM; the Lord has allowed it. It brings understanding of obedience to the commandment to your lay your life down for the brothers AND in continued obedience, for the taking up again of that life in them! Now although I have no issue with LSM, it still presents a problem for the Church. Where the church has not dug down to solid rock through the obedience to lay your life down for the brothers, the force of LSM is greater than what the local church built there can resist. It is the proverbial house built on sand, the sand being a riverbed of the stream. The storm comes and much is lost and carried away, but revelation in the aftermath is great for some.
I am David, standing the ground of the church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State!
Enjoy!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The ground of the church is clearly the city. It is through the oneness of standing on this ground alone that we are aligned to Jerusalem. LSM is a movement! It is a living stream! The movement moves those standing on the ground off of it. The stream then carries them away. I have no issue with LSM; the Lord has allowed it. It brings understanding of obedience to the commandment to your lay your life down for the brothers AND in continued obedience, for the taking up again of that life in them! Now although I have no issue with LSM, it still presents a problem for the Church. Where the church has not dug down to solid rock through the obedience to lay your life down for the brothers, the force of LSM is greater than what the local church built there can resist. It is the proverbial house built on sand, the sand being a riverbed of the stream. The storm comes and much is lost and carried away, but revelation in the aftermath is great for some.
I am David, standing the ground of the church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State!
Enjoy!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by David

a moderator declined to allow my post regarding the ground of the church to appear yesterday. . . Just goes to show that this place is nothing more than an echo chamber.

Originally Posted by David

I am standing on the ground of the Church in Greenback in the Meeting Place State

Originally Posted by Bradley

One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was.

We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain.

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other.

On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really.

But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not.

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.

Originally Posted by Bradley

There are three separate local churches in Shanghai too, where I lived for three years - all of them 'faithful to the ministry', all of them inviting coworkers from overseas to hold conferences, all of them up to date with the morning revival and 7 feasts. All three of them are accepted by the global LSM as legit. But they won't meet with each other, they hardly even know each other. One group is the locals, one group is for foreigners, one group was of 'turtles' i.e. locals who had lived overseas for years (of course, through the gospel, there were locals, foreigners and turtles in every group). I went to meetings at all three: the local group was the most burning and the foreign group was the most dead but thats where the English-speaking districts were so I went out of necessity.

One brother (from the local group) told me he discovered that his next door neighbour was in the LC (a Taiwanese district in the foreign group) and they both hosted table meetings in their homes every sunday morning. He had invited him to join table meetings together for blending and the other brother had refused, as if that would be a terrible sin and he didn't have the authority to do that (though he wouldn't ask anyone who did). They basically had a 'wave at each other and say good morning' -type relationship after that and thats all.

When the local brothers expressed their concern about it to me, I contacted a well-known coworker called Paul Hon. He had already known about it for decades and basically said: "its no big deal, there's nothing you can do, if we can't fix it you can't either so forget about it and ignore it." I had the attitude that a little person can make a small difference, at least to those around him, but his attitude was pretty much "meh who cares, don't even try".

This bothered me no end because I had been taught that the proper ground is the master key to all blessing, and without it, you shouldn't even partake of the bread and wine. Here was a big time coworker telling me to forget about it and carry on like it means nothing, partake anyway. But according to the teachings, in this situation there's no blessing and the work is in vain. He didn't refute that, he just said there's nothing I can do. It was a depressing cloud hanging above my church life while I lived there.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I was unaware that there are actually instances of multiple LSM-affiliated LC's meeting in the same city. The sheer hypocrisy of it is shocking, but then again it makes sense. Affiliate oneself with the LSM and suddenly the standards change.

Originally Posted by Bradley

There are three separate local churches in Shanghai too, where I lived for three years - all of them 'faithful to the ministry', all of them inviting coworkers from overseas to hold conferences, all of them up to date with the morning revival and 7 feasts.

Originally Posted by Bradley

There are three separate local churches in Shanghai too, where I lived for three years - all of them 'faithful to the ministry', all of them inviting coworkers from overseas to hold conferences, all of them up to date with the morning revival and 7 feasts. All three of them are accepted by the global LSM as legit. But they won't meet with each other, they hardly even know each other. One group is the locals, one group is for foreigners, one group was of 'turtles' i.e. locals who had lived overseas for years (of course, through the gospel, there were locals, foreigners and turtles in every group). I went to meetings at all three: the local group was the most burning and the foreign group was the most dead but thats where the English-speaking districts were so I went out of necessity.

This bothered me no end because I had been taught that the proper ground is the master key to all blessing, and without it, you shouldn't even partake of the bread and wine. Here was a big time coworker telling me to forget about it and carry on like it means nothing, partake anyway. But according to the teachings, in this situation there's no blessing and the work is in vain. He didn't refute that, he just said there's nothing I can do. It was a depressing cloud hanging above my church life while I lived there.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is exactly the kind of question that serves to show how ridiculous the ground of locality teaching really is. I remember hearing that there are three "church in Toronto" groups each asserting themselves to be the church in Toronto. According to the LC teaching, it creates a big problem because the teaching doesn't account for the possibility of two or more groups simultaneously calling themselves the same name.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But that is the reason I think this teaching is the most important to talk about. It is the central pillar to the LRC sect. If it falls they fall. Without this pillar WN's claim to MOTA falls. If his claim to MOTA falls WL's claim falls. Without the "Ground of the Church" and without WN and WL as MOTA, what does the LRC have?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Bradley,

It is sad and understandable that it still bothers you.

But Christ did come to earth and die and save you from your sins. It happened.

Not by works, but by grace you have been saved. A gift.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you are adopted as a child of God. Heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.

This is good news!

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The church in your first link is associated with John So.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Little correction here ...

Original "church in Toronto" is here. They claim to be "THE church in Toronto." Not sure of their affiliation.

IIRC, "The Church of the Torontonians" was taken back in the early 70's. That church now has the website here. They have become a truly "local" church, a community church, no longer attached to headquarters in either Anaheim or Cleveland. I would consider them one of the healthiest LC spin-offs. Nigel Tomes, who has written a number of articles on this forum, is there.

After the recent division, the LSMers took the name "the local church in Toronto." Note that their website, their sign, and their legal names don't necessarily have to coincide. They are nothing more than an LSM franchise.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

When "The Church of the Torontonians" stopped following LSM, they then took their current name, "The Local Church in Toronto."

It's hard to keep track...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bradley, your experience has been the same as many others. For example, "the church of the Torontonians" was legitimized by LSM since the preferred name was already taken. During the Midwest quarantines, LSM operatives helped local loyalists to file lawsuits for real estate, assets, and THE NAME.

Originally Posted by Ohio

[B]This is why I don't like to waste time discussing their ground of oneness teaching. They only use it to condemn all others. They never abide by these teachings themselves, but have a long history of breaking the rules.

Originally Posted by Bradley

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocrisy still bothers me.

Originally Posted by Bradley

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Originally Posted by Bradley

One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was.

We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain.

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other.

On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really.

But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not.

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.