While I do understand it, this "twoness" thing is a little silly. The real problem is their definition of oneness.
I am one with people that I do not entirely agree with. Oneness is to be standing solid with someone else. And our oneness is in Christ. It is in the fact that his sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sins and we have accepted that sacrifice as ours. It is in the common indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Our oneness is
not in:
Music style
Hymns
Choruses
Piano and organ (or even a capella)
Band with drums and guitars
A choir
With robes
Manner in which communion/the Lord's table is observed
expository preaching
Reading of prayers together
Use of a "lectionary calendar" or just a lectionary
Seasons of quiet reflection
Seasons of boisterous open prayer
Women in or not in main ministry
Consumption or abstaining from alcohol
How to understand the doctrine of the trinity
Republican or Democrat
Any ministry of man
Candles or no candles
A cross or no cross on the building
But Lee and the LRC define oneness in terms of position on every one of those items. They may be a little lax on a few of them. But they really do care what you think. They especially care whose ministry you read/follow.
Even where scripture makes reference to being of the same mind, it is not a broad statement, but referring to a specific thing. I'm not looking at it at the moment, but I believe it could be simplified down to being obedient and a servant. Reading the wrong Bible translation or disagreeing with Lee on some point is clearly
not what it is talking about.
The whole "oneness" thing is doublespeak in that their position is one of the most not-one positions in the marketplace of Christian thinking. They not only think they are the only way, they condemn everyone else for associating with demons and Satan.
LRC Oneness = isolation, sectarianism, absolute agreement on everything.
Real Oneness = being one despite differences.