[ZNPaaneah]

Every single Christian group has a "leader". Could be a pastor, or elder, or evangelist, or well known author, etc. It is perfectly scriptural and correct to give that person a level of respect. To create a definition based on "crossing the line" of what is a proper level of respect and an improper level of respect is therefore the question.

I would hope that any useful definition would not just work in hindsight but be useful as a warning to those in a "cult". I do not think that giving honor to those taking the lead is a useful warning.

I was in the movement for 20 years and was never aware that Witness Lee was "dictating to the entire movement who is and who is not an apostle". Therefore whether or not that was taking place is irrelevant to me, that would not have been a useful warning to me and probably to half of those in the US. Perhaps those in Orange county had a different perspective. But again, a warning to the inner circle is hardly a useful warning.

What I did know from the very beginning was that Witness Lee's claim to fame was being the closest coworker of Watchman Nee, and the account of Watchman Nee's excommunication from the church in Shanghai. Anyone whether in the movement or out of the movement could have fellowshipped with me about this, I would have gladly shared word for word the story I had been told. Had they then asked me a few "innocent" questions about what kind of elders could be so foolish I would have been willing to agree that the story did not seem plausible. Had they then told me that the biggest warning sign of a false prophet is that he uses fabricated stories to make merchandise of you that would have been an extremely useful warning to me that I would have thought on.

From that point on I would have been able to see that the ministry and its mission was to make merchandise of the saints. It might have taken six months or a year, but anyone concerned for someone in a "cult" could keep chipping away at that one point -- "what was Daystar?" "How does the standing order work"? "Why are you selling these books in a yard sale instead of returning them to the LSM?" This would have been effective with me. I know because ultimately I came to see that the church was not concerned with people but with "the ministry" which does not mean what you would hope, but rather with preserving a false image of what the ministry is, maximizing book sales even if you are force feeding it down the saints throats, substituting ministry books for the Bible to increase sales, etc.

However you say that we cannot bring forth certain NT verses from the early church to today. By which I understand you to mean the verse in Philemon where Paul says "you owe me even your own life". I doubt that would have been an effective approach for me or for anyone else I knew in the LRC. We gave our lives, paid any price, and saw ourselves as having returned to the pure word and that path of the early church which Christianity had left.

You and I agree that the term "Minister of the age" is a very big warning sign. However, I never heard Witness Lee refer to himself with this term, rather it was Ray Graver who said it repeatedly as though he had made some great discovery. Witness Lee referred to Watchman Nee as "the minister of the age" and to himself as Watchman Nee's closest coworker given the mission to carry on his ministry. It was then left to us to connect the dots.

Now if you wish to dismantle the teaching "Minister of the Age" that would be fine with me. This term is based on OT types which refer to Jesus. There is no NT reference to a minister of the Age and the teaching that uses Peter and then Paul is very weak without the OT. If you want to say that a false prophet is a "false Christ" then that is a very clear NT teaching and I agree with that being used. Let's stop dancing around the issue. To refer to Watchman Nee as "the minister of the age" is to refer to Watchman Nee as a "false Christ". Jesus is the Minister of this age, the age of the church, the age of grace.

Likewise Witness Lee's use of the teaching "Minister of the Age" is designed so that the dim witted will come to the "revelation" that he is the minister of the age. It is based on a fabricated story about Watchman Nee because if you understand the truth of his excommunication then it is obvious he was not "the minister of the age" even to the dim witted. And this story is for a very specific purpose, give Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry a monopoly. You are now enlisted to do everything in your power to "support this ministry". Buy books, go to trainings, support the church's standing order, donate money to the legal defense team, give 18 months of free labor building their conference centers, etc.

So then why not use these three items to identify a cult?

1. Fabricated stories
2. Makes merchandise of the saints
3. False Christ

Simple, straightforward, Biblical, even those in the LRC would agree with this, and all three are evident to every member.

As for "who is calling who a cult" I know for a fact that Christianity calling the LRC a cult based on their definition is not going to be an effective warning to anyone in the LRC. The God Men and The Mindbenders did that. But if you give me the fellowship of the apostles (in this case Jesus and Peter) then I would have certainly received that.