[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Friedel

I have ambivalent feelings about the interesting and wide-ranging statistics provided by Nigel Tomes, not that I question them; in fact, I would like to see it compared to other criteria, as well. I am just not convinced that they necessarily prove a decline in membership or interest in Nee, Lee and/or the Local Church. Fact is, current membership only consume and digest the sanitized fare of Nee/Lee, nothing else. Why would they then have a need to do internet searches?

Was Tomes suggesting a decline in LRC membership, or was he trying to identify trends in interest in the LRC -- primarily among those outside the group?

In other words, assuming that heavy recruiting on college campuses, or handing out lots of Recovery Version Bibles in Wal-Mart parking lots, would generate interest/curiosity, and spur people to go online to research.

Mr Tomes, care to clarify?

Originally Posted by Friedel

("Sanitized fare" means Paul Kerr's famous questions have been deleted as well as possibly the names and contributions of other "rebels". This is LSM's "spiritual" version of the paleo diet.)

For instance, I left fifteen years ago so I have no frame of reference to the turmoil of 2004–2006; I know very little about that but I assume that was the cutting off of Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu.

I just believe you cannot confidently compare searches for Watchman Nee or Witness Lee with those of modern-day preachers who use the internet extensively to further their ministries and come to a conclusion whether the membership of the Local Church is shrinking or not; LSM does not use the internet extensively to promote the Local Churches. Sure, they maintain an internet presence but that is mainly as a library reference.

LSM has attempted to flood the internet with positive websites to make it less likely for potential new recruits to become "poisoned" by other sources. This has been their policy for roughly 15 years.

Originally Posted by Friedel

And the Local Church has changed: it has become more structured than fifteen or twenty years ago. It now has several permanent full-time training centers globally so the lecturers travel from Anaheim or wherever to the different training centers. They spend two weeks completing their own curriculum before leaving again. They do this every semester. I suppose many of the trainees have never even been to La Palma in Anaheim or Taipei but they would possibly be more familiar with London, Hamilton or Pretoria.

We could actually describe it as a decentralization of staff and assets. This could possibly be classified as effective measures, yet not reflect in statistics.

This may be true. I think for many overseas trainees, making a trip to Anaheim for a biannual training is considered as a kind of pilgrimage.

Originally Posted by Friedel

What would really interest me is numbers. How many are members of the Local Church in the US, in Europe, in Africa, in Australasia as well as countries in the Far East. How does today's statistics compare with that of 1985?

Perhaps Nigel can provide some input on that.

I would interested in that too. How to get (accurate) numbers?