[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's an interesting question you've asked. You are right that I'm treating them as part of the church and thus subject to Biblical principles. I'll just think out loud here, so give me a little grace as I work through it.

I suppose since they themselves are claiming to be a legitimate Christian group, and not only part of the church but THE church itself, then I would "play the game" by holding them up to their own supposed principles. This is kind of the approach Ravi Zacharias and other apologists take sometimes in disproving the materialistic worldview, for example. They would assume the opposing position as true and show how it crumbles by undoing it from the inside. Self-defeating. This way, they LC is undone by their own hand. Hoist on their own petard, as it were. That's just one approach. You take their own stance and dismantle them using their own stand. This appeals to the thinkers in the group, of which there still are some.

Another approach is to begin by taking the position that they are not a legitimate Christian group. If you start out by negating the very thing they think they are, though, you also may lose a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to listen, even if you are right to negate them.

Trapped, what I see is that you’re not just “treating” the Local Churches as part of the church, but like others here, it’s what you personally believe.

I understand you can assume their claims for the sake of argument but that’s not the same as assuming it’s true for yourself. Ravi and other apologists go into debates with the presupposition that their opposition’s premise is false and their worldview is true. Only then do they use their opponents own claims to argue against their position.

In the majority of arguments on the forum I notice a lack of challenge toward the very foundation of the Local Church’s claim but rather there’s more focus on secondary matters. Why is that?

I believe that to accept the possibility that the Lord’s Recovery was never a move of God and that they have always taught a different Jesus and a false gospel has personal implications many are not willing to confront. That’s especially true for those born into the movement and to those that lost decades to it.

It’s best to speak the truth no matter whether it’s accepted or not as it’s the truth that sets people free and not the outward approach. Yet it’s only in love that truth remains truth and so you won’t be able to set others free unless you first are free. Until you see the Lord’s Recovery movement for what it really is, only then can you move forward with an effective approach. To see that, however, you first need to address your own walk and that’s a place where many refuse to go. Being lukewarm toward the Recovery and its doctrines only gets you stuck in the past and so at this point you’re resorted to picking at specks all while the log remains in your own eye.

Originally Posted by Trapped

However, go back to 2 Corinthians 11 and take a look again. Paul says in verse 4:

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Paul is talking about the Corinthians who have received a false gospel, false Jesus, different spirit, and are putting up with it. I think this is an accurate comparison to the local church. He doesn't shun the Corinthians as you seem to be suggesting would need to happen.

It’s important to note that Paul starts off this chapter in hyperbole meaning rather than taking what he is saying as literal there’s an overarching principle that he’s teaching to the church.

“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”

Paul uses the term “may” meaning he’s not speaking to a group that has already been led astray but to one that is being lax and passive toward false doctrine.

The message here is intolerance toward falsities by being bold in the truth.

Where your comparison of the LC’s to the church in Corinth fails is that Corinth was founded on the gospel whereas the Local Churches were founded on an ideology.

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only two options are a legit move of God or led by liars and false apostles, so no, I don't have to choose.

I think God moves in individual people, not in the "this group of people is a move of God" type way.

Either the LC’s are as they claim or they are not. A movement cannot be a partial move of God, can it? If you claim that the LCs were a move of God at one point but were overtaken by so called liars, false prophets, and legalists then you’re questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began. Because of that, not only is it not a false dichotomy, it’s the only dichotomy.

Trapped, you don’t have to choose but you’re lack of resolve will only work to delay the inevitable.

Originally Posted by Trapped

The field of wheat has tares sown among the wheat. There is no field of only wheat and field of only tares, one or the other. This is why leaving the group is such a deep internal struggle for many. It's a mixture of light and darkness.

If we are going to use garden analogies then let’s also include the seeds which fell among the thorns.

In Corinth, the group of believers were putting up with those preaching mistruths but the implication is that there was still a majority adhering to the gospel as Paul taught it. Because of this, Corinth would accurately portray tares among the wheat.

In the LC’s however what I’ve seen were a larger majority adhering to community centered around special revelation along with small minority of baby Christians whom became ensnared by the group for the purpose of furthering that ideology. These kinds of groups represent thorns that choke off the seedlings.

Originally Posted by Trapped

No, there's definitely no thought in me that I'm gaining some kind of moral high ground in anything. The thought in me is much more along the lines of "what is my responsibility here?" and "how, as a Christian, am I called to behave in this situation?"
It’s a good thing to ash such a question

I think it's a pretty good practice for one of the steps to be to ask "does Scripture have anything to say about this?" before doing something like speaking publicly and exposing certain things, whether a genuine church or not. I personally am not a rash person and would hope to have some solid Biblical footing before doing something like that. Even though I would be speaking the truth, the exposing of numerous things in the local churches would have incredibly detrimental and reverberating effects. Some people depend on the local church for their lives and social support, and genuinely have no clue what's going on on the inside, and simply don't have the complex thought processes to see past the controlling teachings. They just love the Lord and love the saints and have simply never had an experience to show them anything otherwise. They are naive, not malicious. None of that excuses the other stuff that's going on in the LC, and none of it means that what is in the darkness shouldn't come to light, but these are all things I would be highly aware of, and simply think it's good to start with the Bible. Considering the repercussions up front can shape your approach.

I agree, it’s a great practice to refer to scripture just as long as you don’t use it solely for rebuking but also use it for personal conviction. Otherwise using the scriptures so one-sidedly you risk misusing them for condemnation rather than for encouragement.

Whether you’re seeking the moral high ground or not, statements like the ones above portray high-mindedness. No one comes to God unless He draws them. It’s only by God’s grace that we know Him and His truth and not through our own “critical thinking abilities” lest we should boast. Even the most brilliant individuals get caught up in these kinds of groups.

With that said, did you know that Mormons also call each other ”brothers” and “saints”? They are after all the “church of latter day saints”. Would you consider them brothers and saints as well?

Please understand that groups use these kinds of terms as unifiers toward a common cause but outside of that specific cause this level of affection is non-existent. That’s a sign that the movement isn’t based on God’s love for His church but a love for group exclusivity.

A hard but necessary question to ask is; do these people really love the Lord or do they value community over the truth? If it's the Lord then do you believe His love would keep them in a "destructive controlling group"? Is it really critical thinking skills that people lack or could it be a lack of love toward God and His truth?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think you are crossing two things here. Yes, Jesus has a higher standard than anyone was used to. Murder and lust, etc, are now heart matters as far as sin is concerned.

But hypocrisy and judging are not spoken of in those terms. Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." In other words, if you judge someone for murder, you will also be judged if you have murdered. It doesn't say "if you judge a physical matter, then your corresponding deep heart matter will be judged in the same way". The example is also of a splinter in the other person's eye and a beam in your own. This means, for example, don't judge someone for their anger (splinter) when you have murdered (beam) yourself. This is a "don't strain someone else's gnat and swallow your own camel" kind of thing. If we were to analyze in the depth you are describing (which is take care of your own gnat before dealing with someone else’s camel), the splinter would be in our own eye and the beam would be in the other persons. But it's not. It's the other way around.

Jesus speaks of two things in judging, “ways” and “measures”. The manner in which you present your argument is that God will judge you for a specific sin only when you judge others for the same sin. That’s not true. God will judge your sins no matter if you’ve judged others for the same. This verse has nothing to do with what sin is being judged but by which manner and measure you are judging by.

So the question is; do you first properly examine your own heart before criticizing others? If the Local Churches teach the same, well good; then do as they say and not as they do. Or will you thrown the baby out along with the bath water?

Originally Posted by Trapped

2 John 1:7-11 speaks specifically of not welcoming people who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. To my knowledge, the LC does acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, therefore, there would not be the need to shun them in the manner you describe.

This is a different thing than the Corinthians receiving a "different Jesus". To me, 2 John 1 is a denial of Jesus Himself, His divinity, His sacrifice. The Corinthians (I am assuming here) received a different Jesus in the sense of He had still come in the flesh, but was then enslaving and oppressing them, rather than freeing them.

It's strange. It’s like they do preach Jesus, but then once saved, they feed the new convert the guiled milk of the word rather than the guileless milk of the word.

John mentions the heresy of Docetism but the main focus of this chapter when viewed in its entire context is “the teaching of Christ”. So what is the teaching of Christ? This cannot be referring to Christ coming in flesh as that was apparent to those which were with Jesus when he walked the earth so Christ did not need to teach he was a real flesh and blood human. Rather John is referring to the two commandments which Christ taught; love God and love you neighbor.

So now ask yourself; do the Local Churches love the Body of Christ or do they only extend their warmth to those within their group? The overwhelming consensus to that is that they do in fact lack love toward the Body of Christ in practice and in speech.

When you disregard one commandment you disregard the other. By this, shunning the Local Church does in fact line up with 2 John 1.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Agreed. Christ set us free so we would be free. That is one of the facets of the gospel that is sorely missing in the local church. It is hard because the local church does preach the gospel, but then immediately negates it by putting handcuffs and shackles on those who were just set free. I think that’s why it’s hard for some people to speak up. Because on some level you know there are some salvations occurring within the group. Many saints, particularly the farther away they get from any proximity to the leadership, whether extra-local or local, simply don’t deal with or even have to swallow the deviated doctrines in their daily life. No MOTA, no deputy authority, no “head in the sand we don’t care about right and wrong”. They are saved Christians who sing hymns and “take the table” on Sundays and who are more free in Christ in their daily lives than many die-hard ministry bots. They are some of the ones who would be collateral damage if the thing is exposed. We are dealing with a lot of human lives.

People aren’t slaves to legalism, they are slaves to sin. Christ sets Christians free from condemnation but not from conscience. You’re still expected to honor the commandments. Legalism is a sign and manifestation of sin within a group collective. The goal isn’t to flee legalism, it’s to do something you were not taught in the Local Churches; that is, to repent and believe in the Jesus of scripture. That applies to abusive authority as well. This is the only way you'll be freed from legalism in good conscience.