[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It's more about the attitude claiming to be the only legitimate churches in the city. Let's take Renton for example. I've met with denominational and non-denominational assemblies. Each professing to be part of the local body of Christ. Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ. Not while I was there. Though it would be heartwarming if they did. I never saw it in Renton, Bellevue, or San Bernardino. Rather a claim to be the sole expression of the church in the respective cities.
Certain personalities just aren't welcome to attend a local church meeting or function.
A few years back I recall a facebook post the son of John Ingalls made. Within the decade prior to his passing, someone had invited John to a lovefeast at the Church in Anaheim. John went, someone recognized him and had John escorted out. Whatever grievance they had, never left.
Same with Steve Isitt in Washington state. Sure he had his writings, but still cherished the local church churchlife culture. However whether it's Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, or Spokane, there's no welcome. I will say for a period Steve was welcome in Spokane. Someone must have recognized him or recognized his name and word got back to Seattle.
Even in Renton, I had asked a "what if" question to brother BS while Bill Freeman was still living. What if Bill wanted to come and visit? I was told the brothers would need to fellowship with Anaheim.

Yeah very good points. I see you're painting a picture of exclusivity and elitism

One of the things I'm realizing as I'm scouring this site and the materials available to links from other members and their testimonies regarding the LC and why they left etc., is that they all seem to have serious problems with the leadership. The issues as far as I can tell are almost exclusive to problems with the leadership and not with the regular members. Which is very interesting and very telling

I would have to say that you make solid points about all that you're saying. In my time there as an adult, not as a church kid, I generally didn't see much if any bad behavior in any blatant way. But when I first moved to Bellevue I started to see things that were odd and off and like I said elsewhere the life level and enjoyment of the Lord was off in that locality. But even if it wasn't it wouldn't give the leaders the right to behave poorly. It just so happens that the poor behavior of the leaders in Bellevue also happened to match the poor level of the experience of life and the spirit in that locality. I'm wondering how much of a correlation is there

I remember once I saw a video of a lord's table meeting at the church in Anaheim I think, or it may have been Irvine, but I think it was Anaheim, and I remember thinking in my young mind "this locality seems pretty stifled." I was young at that time but I could still tell even on video that there was an atmosphere of deadness there. I kind of chalked it up to "well maybe I'm just wrong," at that time. But now I realize I probably wasn't. I think the correlation between bad leadership and the deadness of a locality is real probably to a good extent, depending on how bad the leadership is and what exactly they are doing wrong. It may be that in some localities some leaders are kind of "dormant" in their authority and control for whatever reason; disposition, opportunity, how much the saints in that locality are exercised, etc. But I've been a part of localities here in western Wa were the leaders are very much at the forefront and to me that has stood out as a defining factor in how well and how often the average member's function. It's probably a fine line between leadership and clergy-laity. And I feel like a lot of what I've seen in western Wa is leaders who like to dominate meetings in one way or another and this kills the function of the body. I've heard bro Lee say this, and maybe the speaking brothers as well. But what context? Is it that the leaders shouldn't have control? What is control in this context? What is the difference between leadership and control? I think there's a fine line between these things, and at least in western Washington the leadership has very much ridden that line. In my short time in Spokane I believe the church there was flourishing with life because the leadership was so much NOT in the forefront. But when I came to western Wa I see the leaders very much in the forefront and to me it reeks of ambition for position and reveling in their position, as if they are kings

Here is brother Lee condemning the clergy-laity system and the divisions, which he attributes to satan's tactic to stifle the church- https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...TY-SYSTEM.HTML

I agree with his assessment objectively. But how much has the LC leadership crossed over into power and control and clergy-laity in their own dealings with the church in their localities? This is something that I don't know has been at all audited. Maybe it has maybe it hasn't. But from the testimonies from those on this site and elsewhere it is a huge problem in the LC


Anyway, as far as your points on the localities not mingling with the denominations around them, I think it's a nuanced scenario. You said

Would the Church in Renton also recognize other assemblies in Renton are also meeting as the local body of Christ

I think this is a tough question, and deserves a nuanced answer. On the one hand we all are the body of christ as members of one another (1 Corinthians 12:12), on the other hand Paul also condemns the sectarian behavior (1 Corinthians 3:4, Romans 16:17). So clearly the answer is not straight forward. Now I think you'll have to give me an example of how Bellevue treated Christians who wanted to come and meet with them from other denominations. That too probably is nuanced and dependent on the scenario. If they came and tried to teach different things then maybe I could see precedent for at least not accepting the things they tried to teach depending on what those things were. On the other hand I have heard Bro Lee say we accept Christians who do not practice the same way we do. But it might end at the receiving part. Receiving a brother or a sister is one thing, but allowing them to try to influence the locality with different teachings is another thing. I'm not saying I side with anyone on this, but for objectivity sake I'll post a link to Benson Philips quoting Lee and expounding on this subject- https://afaithfulword.org/articles/ReceivingChurches/

In this link Benson says

We must receive all the believers. But the burden here is that we might receive all the local churches and all the saints in the local churches. They must be received by us, and they must be received according to Romans 14:3 and 15:7. God has received us, Christ has received us; this is one receiving by the Triune God. Since God has received every local church, we must have fellowship, and we must receive one another into the fellowship of the Triune God. Then we must receive all believers. Every church receives every brother and sister. This does not mean that we go along with the denominations or we practice the ways of the denominations. We will never do that

So you kind of have to discern here what the real point is. And it's possible the elders misconstrued this message. I know that Lee had touched on this topic a lot in his ministry. And it's confirmed that he had the wrong type of spirit and this caused a lot of exclusivity. In fact he himself admits to this here-
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/rep...edTheMark4.pdf

He says

"(Concerning the matter of receiving people according to God),…we coworkers in every place all need to learn, the responsible ones in every place
all need to learn, the brothers and sisters in every place all need to learn…,
too many things cause us to learn. We all made mistakes in this matter in the
past, I myself included; I confess that, I had, for this matter and before the
Lord, a very painful repentance. I am really sorry…toward the Body of Christ,
also really sorry, not only toward the brothers and sisters among us, but even
to those in the denominations, also really sorry toward them…(a long pause)
You must bring this message back, read it once, read it twice, and
come together to fellowship with one another. Then you will see that, we, in
the past, were wrong! Of course, denominations are wrong. The sectarianism
is what God condemns the most. However, the Lord still hopes that all His
children… do not have such condemnation. Such an understanding and
analysis will require much effort. I say again, you must, some people, a few
people, come together to read, pray, speak and say…"

So for all the people on this site who repeat "can the LC leadership ever admit they were wrong." Here you have brother Lee clearly and openly admitting that he was wrong in how he treated the brothers and sisters in the denominations

However it's nuanced is it not? Because what if they come and try to change things? What if they come and teach differently? Are we to receive leavened teaching? Idk I'm not a leader in the LC and I'm not trained to be so, but I would venture to say that is a big problem

But I would say also a lot of nuance is in HOW the LC leaders behaved and treated the news ones, how they treated our bros and sisters that visited from the denominations. I think that really matters here. And it's not an easy scenario to navigate. But again, the LC leader's behavior matters greatly. How they treated the congregation that they lead, and whether or not they exercised their flesh and abnormal authority and control over any given situation matters. And I've seen what I believe is fleshly control and abused authority. And combined with all the testimonies on this site and other sites I would conclude that they probably were very wrong in many ways for a very long time. And I would also probably say it stemmed from Nee and Lee's behavior around this. It's probably a top to bottom problem and it's probably very systemic and it probably needs to be gutted and receive a massive overhaul in various ways. And we even see Lee here admitting that he was wrong, and that his behavior towards the denominations was wrong. And that does mean something. But will that behavior continue? Or has it become a habitual practice amongst the leadership? Has other bad practices from them become habitual and dare I say even cultural at this point in time?


As far as not receiving Bill Freeman and brother Isitt and brother Ingalls. This also is nuanced. On the one hand I would agree with a lot of the sentiments with the brothers and sisters here on this site and elsewhere that to quarantine other believers is a grievous situation. Not just for that single member, but for his/her family and the families that are involved. Very serious and sober stuff, that honestly I'd just like to avoid the entire concept altogether as I'm sure most of the average LC members wouldn't want to entertain that scenario either. But it's a burden probably heavy on the shoulders of the LC leadership. Maybe, or they're just closed off to any emotions surrounding things that they view as attacks of the enemy. Which, probably wouldn't be the correct spirit, but rather a spirit of sorrow towards the situation would seem to be more apt

But again, there are verses that say to not entertain factious men (Romans 16:17), to not even accept them for fellowship. Which is very somber. But I am assuming the point behind that is to guard against poison, and to guard against division. This isn't Nee or Lee's words, this is the Bible saying that. So Biblically the LC has precedent to not entertain a man who would come and cause divisions in the body. and to not receive someone who creates a type of poison, and I'm assuming the LC leaders include those who would come from the denominations and cast doubt and confusion as well. Not a fun scenario to try to navigate by any means

Now you also bring up an interesting and truthful point that those in the denominations ARE technically a part of the body. But are they standing on the correct ground in their locality is the real question. So while although they are genuine believers, and our brothers and sisters, and members of the body, which also we are, they just so happen to be in a situation of division with regards to how they meet. I am wholly convinced from the Bible that this matters greatly to God. There is just simply far too much in the old and new testament regarding this that just can't be overlooked. It really really matters to God. It's not something that Nee and Lee concocted on their own, our of their supposed ambition to control or whatever. No, this is biblical. This matters to God.