Originally Posted by Trapped

Calling on the Lord is practiced in a few different ways in the LC.... But they also practice at least three other ways that I don't agree with:

1. The repetitive 7th inning stretch type calling: "Let's call on the Lord 5 times" which to me is just like doing jumping jacks. stand up, pump arm, yell out, repeat 5 times. Both are to get people out of their seats, to "get the blood pumping" and to wake people up. I think I would almost consider this an instance of taking His name in vain, because it's not giving it due honor, but simply using it as a tool rather than in recognition there is a Person behind it.

I am not totally sure because I haven't watched the whole thing, but I think this particular practice is also used in instances, say, where LSM holds a kangaroo court, and then gets everyone out of their seat to call on the Lord together, which is simply a form of group control to unify the whole room together in a common action. It produces implied agreement with whatever was just spoken. Bad news all around.

2. They also call on the Lord to shut people up or to express disgust when looking down their noses at someone. This is also using His name in vain, IMO.

3. They also, as the last spate of posts covered, teach people to call on the Lord 3x as an effective form of salvation.

All of these use the exact same three words, but only differ in volume, tone, context, and, well, "heart" to put it one way. Hard to convey those particular nuances over a forum. My calling on the Lord is like the first one, in prayer, but not like the numbered 3.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So I'll ask again. Those of you who still practice "calling on the Lord", could you please tell me how it differs from what is practiced in the Local Church? Please be as practical as you can.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Now maybe you've hit this thing more accurately - that is, the corporate chanting thing! That bothered me some too. There's nothing wrong with the corporate vocalizing of scripture, right? And many preachers will ask for an "amen" which is done corporately. But you're right that this corporate "Oh Lord Jesus" repeated several times was bothering, at least to me - I really only did it cuz everyone else was doing it.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well Sons to Glory! if you're out to lunch, then I'm out to lunch, dinner and a midnight snack to boot Yes, I do remember you posting a really good answer to this question. I think it's on another thread.



Thanks Trapped for bailing us out once again with your sensible post! I guess what my biggest problem with the "calling on the Lord" that is practiced in the Local Church is the "corporate" aspect. One clue that this kind of corporate practice is not scriptural and not of the Lord is the reaction that other genuine Christians have when hearing/experiencing this practice for the first time. In my observation and experience the overwhelming number of brothers and sisters have a negative reaction. The reactions go from "this is kind of weird and uncomfortable" all the way to "this sounds like a kind of Eastern chanting and I want out of here now!" and of course just about everything in between.
-

Originally Posted by Trapped

All of these use the exact same three words, but only differ in volume, tone, context, and, well, "heart" to put it one way. Hard to convey those particular nuances over a forum. My calling on the Lord is like the first one, in prayer, but not like the numbered 3.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I certainly have answered this many times! And I think at one point you even acknowledged my response and affirmed something like, "Okay, now we're getting somewhere!" Did I imagine this or did you forget, or am I out to lunch? (any of the three is a possibility)

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Very good article Raptor! The best one that I've ever seen.

Still looking for the "Oh Lord Jesus" though
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Raptor and Ohio. Take a deep breath. Breath in. Breath out. There ya go!

Now, could you please show me the verse that says that "calling on the Lord" is "oh Lord" or "oh Lord Jesus"?

Oh, and if you don't want to be called a Witness Lee fanatic, then I suggest you don't call others Local Church Discussions fanatics. Understand?
-

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here's an article I'd like everyone's thoughts on, as it seems to encapsulate the argument at least somewhat: Acts 2:21 - Calling on the Lord's Name

And here's the passage of Stephen being stoned - he was crying out to the Lord in an audible voice: "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.'” Acts 7:59-60 I know this isn't regarding initial salvation, but wasn't he calling on His Savior . . . to save & forgive?

And isn't there a verse in Acts that says they found and persecuted Christians by those calling on the Lord? (I can't find this verse now - perhaps somebody can tell us where it is . . . unless I imagined it, then please correct me.)

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think the call 3x teaching is one of those things they should take out of print, and there may be some fanatics inside who will totally espouse this teaching, but in general I don't think most live by it.

I may be wrong though.

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

"Oh Lord Jesus" is still used in practice, but that's not what my blog post was about.

My blog post addresses the O Lord Three Times false gospel. If you read the quote I pulled at the very beginning of the post, Witness Lee never says "Jesus." He just says "O Lord."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So did "Oh Lord Jesus" get shortened to just "Oh Lord" later? When I was around it was "Oh Lord Jesus."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then, as with all things recovery, the 5-word saying got formalized into a mechanized means of salvation. Initially what had begun in faith by the Spirit became vain babbling to be mouthed rather than spoken from the heart. Nearly all things Recovery were such. Pray-reading was also this way -- initially praying Bible verses eventually becoming robotic shouted repetition for a few cheap "amens."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Read the new post. One observation is you say that they ask others to repeat, "Oh Lord." From my experience it was always, "Oh Lord Jesus." Is there a reason you truncated this?

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Just posted about the "O Lord Three Times" false gospel of Witness Lee on thelordsrecovery.org. It's one more heretical doctrine of the Recovery that proves it's a Christian cult.

This false gospel should be easy to repent of as a Christian, but for a member to repent of this false gospel would probably mean that member repenting of Witness Lee being the Minister of the Age. I hope and pray this gets into the right hands and leads members to question what they're doing in the Recovery!

https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/06...f-witness-lee/

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

I believe the Recovery has a third testament of the Bible RM (Recovery Ministry), what Recovees refer to as "the ministry." I encourage readers here to consider my arguments. I've had to repent of RM specifically, and it's very freeing to let the Bible be the lens through which I view my Christian life rather than RM!

https://thelordsrecovery.org/33-the-...f-the-bible-1/

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I assume you will also be touching on the matter of rewards and potential loss for believers, right?

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Hey there, everyone!

Finally got the first blog up for deconstructing the thousand-year discipline (TYD) doctrine (https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/02...ew-812-part-1/).

It digs into a singular, baseless assertion from Witness Lee, with which he uses as evidence for TYD. There's much more to come in this series!

After digging into the Scriptures and combing through commentaries, it's never been more crystal clear to me that TYD is biblically unfounded. There's no special "believers-only" condemnation after this life. I'm excited to deconstruct TYD further.

Have a great afternoon!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm not siding with WL here, but this doesn't appear to be a good argument! That is, there are many things of Christ in us that are not manifested yet (in this current life). That's why we need faith, right? If all the promises were apparent and seen, then there would be no need for faith and hope.

Originally Posted by Curious

If we are becoming 'God in life and nature', then why are those persons still subject to the conditions of the fall... such as ageing, disease and death. These things would be eliminated, surely, alongside the idea that we will shed our sinfulness by being 'constituted' with God's being.

The other curses of the fall should drop away too, should they not? Also the miracle working power that Jesus and the apostles had. Maybe some Shekinah Glory that was evident on the face of Moses and others might be evident on their faces too? Observable to those in their presence?

Anyway, maybe LC has a provision to account for the limitations of 'becoming God in life and nature but not the Godhead' but I haven't heard of them. Or maybe they just haven't developed their theory further enough to wonder about these logical potential outworkings?

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

I've just posted an entry in "Deconstructing False Doctrine" on Minister of the Age doctrine (MOTA). The first entry talks about what Witness Lee taught, how members reacted, and what the Bible actually says (https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/01...corinthians-3/).

Originally Posted by Ohio

As with former President Nixon, it's all about the coverup. Eh?

Everybody is entitled to a bad kid or two, but you don't put him in charge of your ministry. And when he screws your volunteers, you don't go kill the reporters.

Was this really too difficult for the consummate MOTA to understand? I seem to remember that he taught us not to do all the things that he did, because only Christianity behaves like that.

Like Nixon, obsessed with recording everything, he should have turned off the tape recorders.

Originally Posted by aron

We were led by these constant and unfair comparisons to believe that the Recovery at its worst was equal to the best of fallen, compromised, "Babylon Christianity". Now, thanks to posters like Indiana finding out the "hidden history in the Lord's Recovery", the public has become aware of Daystar Motorhomes, Philip Lee as the Office, the "spiritual sisters' rebellion", the "Young Galileans affair" etc etc.

So now the common refrain is, "Hey, nobody's perfect. Every group has their issues. Why pick on us?"

Um, the incessant narrative for years was belittlement and superiority. Now the defense has become, "Everybody does it"? My, how the worm has turned.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I regularly watched WL compare the best of the Recovery to the worst of so-called Christianity.

Why no fair comparisons? Why not compare some newly baptized on-fire believer in Nowhereville to his profligate Office Manager, Philip Lee?

Originally Posted by aron

A point worth noting in the "us vs them" dynamic as often played out: in order to define "them" in this dynamic, the other party becomes a caricature. Here, one's presented with something called "Christianity" which supposedly has all these inferior aspects. But WL hadn't been active in "Christianity" for decades, and as JH notes, he lacked the near-omniscience needed to make such categorical assessments as bases of comparison.

Originally Posted by aron

What WL did was poison the minds of LC members towards their non-LC fellows, with stereotypes and prejudices, to make fellowship (interaction) more difficult.

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

The new explanation regarding repetitive comparison based teaching ("us vs. them") in the Thread is now posted

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of one of my first meetings in the LC, TC takes me up to meet Max Rapoport who said I was an "overcomer," with so much "potential."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

"As I look around me, all I see is untapped potential! You've got potential (oh my . . .) You've got . . . " I couldn't resist!

Originally Posted by Ohio

God promised Israel a land "flowing with milk and honey," and then Lee taught us it represented "natural love" which supposedly was bad.

Somebody needs to do some fact-checking on Lee's teachings.

This one gets 4 Pinocchios.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That in itself is not really true - pure honey doesn't go bad!

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with this. Think about this destructive teaching by Lee that "natural love is honey, which spoils the offering."

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, we are accountable for the lack of love. But the reason for the lack of love was that it was drained away from us through the pesha (see the thread on truth) of Lee. And that pesha came to include others who join with him to carry that draining out, and now take Lee's place as the ones who are breaking trust.

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, we are accountable for the lack of love. But the reason for the lack of love was that it was drained away from us through the pesha (see the thread on truth) of Lee. And that pesha came to include others who join with him to carry that draining out, and now take Lee's place as the ones who are breaking trust.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well good - you took some accountability!

Originally Posted by Ohio

But when he said this, we all were convinced that it was all our fault there was no love.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

At the end of his life, Lee publicly confessed that love was the missing ingredient in The Recovery.

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

The new explanation regarding repetitive comparison based teaching ("us vs. them") in the Thread is now available..

Originally Posted by JJ

Paul was a man of his word:

https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-10.htm

Originally Posted by aron

...at the end of Acts Paul told the opposing ones that after many years he returned to Jerusalem, bringing alms for his people (24:17). And this fits with the Jerusalem church, which was "daily dispensing" (6:1) to the widows and orphans, as Jesus had taught, and the OT commanded the righteous to do. Take care of those who can't care for themselves. Perhaps this is the "God's economy" that Paul alluded to in the epistle to Timothy..

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Thanks for the welcome! Excited to be interfacing on here with the broader, established community.

I've named one blog "Deconstructing False Doctrine," currently with a specific blog series on One City, One Church (OCOC) doctrine. My hope is that OCOC will have several concise yet compelling expositions of clear logical fallacies that help members have "Aha!" moments.

One Ministry would most definitely be a blog series, but I'll make sure to keep each post short, sweet, and meaty.

There will be more blog series within Deconstructing False Doctrine, but OCOC is just the start. And with all of the resources available on here and help from the broader community, I think we're just getting started

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Agreed! Thanks for the suggestions, too. Keep 'em coming! I just put up another blog https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/01...-on-romans-16/, talking about how Witness Lee had no consistent arguments against Romans 16 and "one city, one church" doctrine. Praying and hoping it will help a member, new or fully immersed, to see through the gunk and get to the truth!

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Agreed! Thanks for the suggestions, too. Keep 'em coming!

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Agreed! Thanks for the suggestions, too. Keep 'em coming! I just put up another blog https://thelordsrecovery.org/2020/01...-on-romans-16/, talking about how Witness Lee had no consistent arguments against Romans 16 and "one city, one church" doctrine. Praying and hoping it will help a member, new or fully immersed, to see through the gunk and get to the truth!

Originally Posted by aron

"In many counselors is safety, and success", said Proverbs. Watchman Nee drew on this motif heavily, and his use of multiple sources was celebrated by Lee and other followers. Yet somehow with Nee, this adage was fulfilled and completed, and a new age had dawned? Somehow, after Nee, many counselors would only bring in confusion?

Does this make any sense? It makes no sense to me..

Originally Posted by aron

I completely agree. The more reasoned and distinct voices that are heard, the better for those who are trying to see through the fog. It's a tremendous resource for those who are being recruited and need an objective voice, and for those currently enmeshed in LC-thought and trying to find a way out.

Two suggested topics...

...The strength of the site is also that, like the Casteel Open Letter, it's reasonable and thoughtful. The LC is based on emotional, soul-warping neediness (the proverbial co-dependent and dysfunctional relation of "I need you to do this") and clear thought is both a goal and a way out. Scripture is written, and we all can think about what's written, not just repetitively shout slogans.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's great to have these types of resources available. The LC is able to get away with much of what it teaches because they have made a particular point to silence all opposing viewpoints.

The more content like this that is available on the internet, the greater likelihood that people in the LC will come across it and maybe even begin to question the LC.

Originally Posted by aron

The strength of the site is also that, like the Casteel Open Letter, it's reasonable and thoughtful. The LC is based on emotional, soul-warping neediness (the proverbial co-dependent and dysfunctional relation of "I need you to do this") and clear thought is both a goal and a way out. Scripture is written, and we all can think about what's written, not just repetitively shout slogans.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's great to have these types of resources available. The LC is able to get away with much of what it teaches because they have made a particular point to silence all opposing viewpoints.

The more content like this that is available on the internet, the greater likelihood that people in the LC will come across it and maybe even begin to question the LC.

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

Deconstructing these major and unorthodox doctrines by exposing their obvious logical fallacies can give members a fighting chance at being critical thinkers again, allowing them to look to God for truth rather than the Recovery. That's the aim of this blog series, and my prayer and hope is that it could empower members to leave and be free to serve the Lord alone.

Originally Posted by JacobHoward

One of the major manipulating factors that the Recovery uses to constrain its members into staying is that it offers only one right choice to members, one city being one church in name, the Recovery's genuine ground of oneness argument. This blog series attempts to address and debunk that.

Deconstructing these major and unorthodox doctrines by exposing their obvious logical fallacies can give members a fighting chance at being critical thinkers again, allowing them to look to God for truth rather than the Recovery. That's the aim of this blog series, and my prayer and hope is that it could empower members to leave and be free to serve the Lord alone.

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I lived in a brothers house, there was a list of rules we had to agree to and sign: no secular music, no movie viewing, video games, etc. What was it that made any of these things wrong? I still don't know. But the rules were the rules. And I think in many cases (such as with myself), we were too naive to know any better . . .

Originally Posted by Trapped

New article called "The Lord's Recovery is Elitist" up on the site.

I thoroughly enjoy that he uses ministry quotes......hard to refute Witness Lee's words that are physically in print.

Originally Posted by aron

Good point, here. Ill-defined and arbitrarily-applied terms like "worldly" versus "proper" become levers for control. But no one questions, even if it begins to strain at absurdity, because no one wants to be "negative".

Originally Posted by aron

Good point, here. Ill-defined and arbitrarily-applied terms like "worldly" versus "proper" become levers for control. But no one questions, even if it begins to strain at absurdity, because no one wants to be "negative".

Originally Posted by thelordsrecovery.org

It conditions its members into legalism. For example, a special elder called a “blended brother”, a speaker from the pulpit at a major national conference for the Recovery, says not to wear worldly clothing. That speaker is wearing a tie in a room that requires all men to wear a tie, obviously implying ties are somehow not worldly.