[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thanks Nell.

A rational and logical approach to this would be to consider two things.

Firstly, the 6 year CRI study was by a number of people, independent of the local churches, with no vested interest to either malign or promote the local churches. In fact, for the CRI to reverse their position on this was a big thing to do. They moved from a negative position to a positive one, with no doubt some potential damage to their reputation. Can we say the same about the one author of this article?

You're welcome, Evangelical.

Perhaps the CRI research team was independent of the Local Churches, but they were NOT independent of Hank and the CRI...were they? So, there was "one" sister plus 72 Christian leaders cited in the rebuttal article.

Just so you know, JCA's rep with the LC is permanently shot. They won't even talk to her? Why? She wrote a book about her experiences with the Local Church leadership. She told the truth. The truth often "hurts" or is in LC terms "negative". If you want all "positive", stay away from the Bible. It is naive to think that all human experience MUST BE "POSITIVE" as defined by LC leadership.

(Elliot) Miller‘s whole article is a response to an "Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the 'Local Churches‘" (Open Letter by the 74), which contains criticisms of the LC made by 74 Christian scholars and ministry leaders. He responds to the following matters brought into question by the open letter: The LC‘s doctrine of God and doctrine of man (orthodoxy); the LC‘s views on the legitimacy of other churches; and the LC‘s history of filing lawsuits against fellow Christians.

Secondly, the author is seen to be profiting from her experience in the local churches by selling a number of books about it. This indicates she does not have a neutral and unbiased position in this, so can we trust it?

Does the LSM still sell books? I believe the LSM is seen to be profiting from the work of others... . The one book published by JCA (her own story) has been a free PDF download for several years. I haven't seen the P&L statement for this book, but I feel confident the LSM isn't in danger of JCA's sales dwarfing its own---especially since it's available at no cost.

These two pieces of fact weight the evidence towards the CRI study than towards this letter in my opinion. 6 year study by independents, versus 1 long letter with various claims that have not been independently verified and who profits from some books about it. Hmmm.

This is not to say that what she writes is wrong, only that based on the evidence it seems more doubtful than the CRI study.

What evidence? You have presented no "evidence." Your case is that two big publishing companies "win" just because they are ... big. The story of David and Goliath comes to mind.

JCA has 30 years of experiencing the beliefs and practices of the Local Churches/LSM as opposed to the six years of "research" which conveniently leaves out the contra of its research topic which skews the entire "study".

A rational and logical approach would be to answer the question: "Can the Local Church Leadership say "We were wrong?" As of today, 9/9/2016, the answer is still "no".

Referring to the controversy in the LC in the 1980's JCA states:

With an oblique reference to two Bible verses, Miller implies that ongoing sin among believers was responsible for these controversies, and that this is to be expected in any Christian work. In this way, he set aside any other significance these controversies might have. After Miller states that these matters are outside the scope of this issue of the Journal, he and Hanegraaff move ahead to give glowing conclusions and heartfelt recommendations of the LC. Yet, as their footnote shows, they did this without disclosing any particulars of what they found when they looked into these matters, in whatever way they did. (One might reasonably ask why CRI does not use the "biblical doctrine of sin‘s ongoing presence among believers" to dismiss the behavior of those who criticize, question, or label the LC, just as they dismissed these controversies. Then, CRI and the LC could simply drop their whole argument.)

So, the CRI has scripturally "excused" the Local Churches for sins common to all, but fails to extend the same to those of us who dare to speak the truth about the Local Churches. My suggestion is that we level the playing field for all. It's not enough that a "CRI 6-year study" exists. This proves nothing, except that the deck was stacked for the LC from the beginning.

Nell