[Trapped]

Jo S,

I think you have very valuable contribution so don’t leave, and interesting perspectives that force me to read and re-read Scripture and question my own assumptions about it, but your delivery can sometimes be unnecessarily accusatory.

It’s possible you are making statements and questions that you intend to apply generally to people, but it comes across as you yanking one of my eyeballs open while trying to accusatorily shine a surgical light directly into it, forgetting that the topic is not my eyeball but what color to paint the room, and it would be more helpful to just have a pleasant lamp shining from overhead. And no, it’s not because I’m trying to run from any light or avoid confronting hard truths. It’s just discussion decorum is all.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Well, my viewpoint is that we can’t look at any group as a whole as part of the church or not. Of course there will be some exceptions, but by and large within every group that claims to be Christian there are some who are genuine believers and some who are not. I don’t think we can make statements like “xyz church is part of the church” because within any xyz church there will be some true believers and some false. It’s the individual believers that are part of the church (or ARE the church), not xyz church that is or isn’t.

Am I assured that within the local churches there are at least some believers who are genuine, regenerated according to the gospel you espouse, children of God? Most definitely. Which means, for their sake, I need to at least start from the assumption that I’m dealing with a group that contains part of the church. I’d rather start from a position of respect and be shown I can go down from there, than start from a position of negation and have to repent. Like it or not, comments about the impersonal group are always translated as comments about the people in that group, so I’ve got to consider the individuals first.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Well of course. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would argue against a position within the LC while not believing my own argument. I believe you are talking specifically about the legitimacy of the LC as a genuine church, while I am talking about specific doctrines they espouse.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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 don’t know of anyone who goes about knocking down a building by starting with the foundation. They start with other “secondary” areas (roofs, walls, supports, etc), which causes the whole thing to crumble upon its foundation. Would you try to knock down the Sydney Opera House by hacking away at its foundation? It makes no sense. I realize I’m speaking of a physical building, but I think the comparison is strong enough that I don’t need to elaborate.

The other side is, you may be able to convince people that its foundation was bad, but they will just throw the “recovery” word at you and say initial beginnings or bad foundations don’t mean that God can’t come in to recover a bad start. It just won’t go anywhere. You have to show that the structure itself is bad too.

It’s also been around in the US for 60+ years or whatever. Many people within it now had nothing to do with its initial beginnings and that part is therefore mostly meaningless to them as a factor to leave. America had some sordid beginnings in its treatment and takeover of the Native Americans and their land, but does anyone de-legitimize America for that now?

I think knowing that the foundation was bad is one more ax-blow to knocking the tree down, but it seems to me that in itself is it not sufficient to affect people without the other stuff.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I believe that to admit to oneself 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.

You are speaking vaguely here. Are the “personal implications many are not willing to confront” that they may not actually be saved? That they had a false conversion? Or that they have wasted their life? Concrete examples would help here. If that’s what you mean, I don’t disagree with you on the implications side of things. I personally did pray to receive the Lord again as an adult after I realized more of how the LC brought up their young people, so I would be assured that I was really saved and not deceived by a false conversion.

I cannot comment on “TLR was never a move of God”. I’m not God and I don’t know the ways He moves. I’m not sure whether categorizing them as a move or God or not helps anyone. At least it doesn’t do anything for me. Because either way, there are some genuine believers within it.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Well…..angry truth is still truth. That’s why there is the phrase “truth in love”. It implies there can be “truth not in love”, which I think human life witnesses to each of us that there can be both.

Your first two sentences contradict each other. You say that it’s the truth that sets people free and not the outward approach. But then say it’s only in love that truth remains truth. “in love” is a heart matter but is expressed outwardly, no doubt. So outward approach (sourced inwardly) absolutely is critical. You say only then does truth remain truth, but I would rephrase that to say that only then does truth “land”. Does truth “hit its target”. I don’t like to point to negative examples, but the Texas Street Preacher comes to mind here. He can speak truths about the LC, he may claim it’s in love, but it can’t land very many places because of the caustic outward approach he takes.

I can assure you I am not lukewarm towards the Recovery’s doctrines. The Recovery is replete with false doctrines, false interpretations of scripture, and falsely controlling teachings. There’s probably over 30 of them that permeate the ministry.

Preceded by the gospel.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

The Corinthians were already accepting false apostles, their teachings, and showing them deference. That’s why Paul is talking about not asking for money for what he’s doing, because the false teachers already were doing that. The chapter is not a hypothetical or theoretical.

I’m not going to get into whether we can call a group part the church or not. The church is not the group itself but the real believers in any group.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Can you be more specific about what you are saying the LC’s claim?

What comes to my mind is that they claim to be THE CHURCH, to the exclusion of everyone else. This is not true.

As I said in a previous post, I think God moves in individual people, not in a “move” in a “group”. Humans have been given free will to do any and all things they can dream up on this earth. God can move in anything. Is the Holocaust a “move of God”? Nope. But was God moving during and in the midst of the Holocaust? Yep. He’s always moving in individuals because He desires that no man perish.

It makes no sense to say that if the LC started out under God’s hand but then was taken over by false prophets that I’m questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began. To be honest that conclusion sounds exactly like the kind the co-workers make in their posts on shepherdingwords.com. The “If you question us you are questioning God’s deputy authority!!!!!” type.

So of course, no, I’m not questioning God’s ability. Because look at Adam and Eve, man. The creation of Adam and Eve was most definitely, undeniably, unequivocally a “move of God”, but things went south. No one, however, is questioning God’s ability to follow through and finish what He began in that regard. It seems you are taking the short view of things. God finishes what He begins, bro.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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

I don’t have a lack of resolve, and you are vague on what “the inevitable” is.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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. This group represents the thorns that choke out the seedlings.

Yeah, while the thorn verses are said to represent the cares of the world and deceitfulness of riches, I don’t have a problem with what you’re saying here, necessarily. The LC’s do choke the word.

I can’t speak to the maturity of the set of believers in any group. I also can’t speak to at what point the false vs genuine ratio within any given group determines its legitimacy or not. At what point does the saturation level of real believers in a group render that group “genuine”? Only God knows.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Agreed. The nature of the topic of this thread just lends itself a little more to the rebuking side of things.

Can you use some scripture to encourage me please? I could use it, sorely.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Whether you’re seeking the moral high ground or not, statements like the ones above portray high-mindedness.

Well, that’s very kind of you to say, Jo S.

But it’s not true. It’s not high-mindedness at all. I can say that because I myself am part of the very category you think I was condemning. I’m naïve myself. I spent many years in the local church thinking that the problem was me. Wondering why God hated me. I trusted what I had been told for my whole life. I didn’t know anything different. I was just naïve.

It was just a statement that there are simply different types of people on this earth. Some are born in the clouds. Some are born with both feet on the ground. Some are born doubting and critical. Some are born trusting and naïve. We all know this.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Agreed. One of Cal’s latest videos – I think the one showing Steve Hassan’s interview – noted this fact and it’s one that confounded me for some time. How are there brilliant, driven, intelligent, whip-smart people in the local churches? Well, because mind control is effective, and there are numerous controlling doctrines in the group that ensnare the gamut of people in them. It is truly by God’s grace that anyone can see through them and get out from their snare.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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?

I don’t know enough about Mormons or JWs or many other similar groups to be able to make any informed statements.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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?

Great questions.

To be honest, some of what people lack is simply information. If you don’t know what thought-control is, you don’t even know to look for it. If you don’t know what spiritual manipulation is, you probably won’t know when you are being spiritually manipulated.

It is a hard question to ask. Your question actually touches slightly upon the problem of suffering or the problem of evil. Do I believe His love would keep them in a destructive controlling group? This kind of thing can keep me up at night. God can allow many things, even in love. One brother said to me that God might allow things to happen to us, even painful things, to show us that nothing else matters but His voice. We are looking at things at a snapshot in time, and I don’t know what plans the Lord has. God kept me in a destructive controlling group for a time, even one that made me hate Him for years. And at a certain point in time He ramped things up and ejected me outta there.

I think there is a valuing of community over truth, undeniably. I think they love the Lord within parameters, which isn’t a full love of the Lord, I guess. Don’t hold me over the fire on my answers on this one…..this is a question which I don’t have answers to. I have so many conflicting experiences in this regard from years in the church, I am still in the process of sorting it out.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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 your brother? If the Local Churches teach the same, well good; then do as they say and not as they do. Or will you throw the baby out along with the bath water?

Well, that’s the manner you read into my argument, but it’s not what I meant. It’s just the nature of written forums is all. Obviously I don’t mean that God will only judge a sin when we judge others for the same sin. Of course God will judge each and every one of our own sins even if we never judge a single sin of another person. That seems too obvious to state but I guess I need to state it. One Bible commentary says this, which encapsulates what I meant to say but better than I managed to say it:

“…the severity which we have unjustly meted out to others, becomes, by a retributive law, the measure of that which is justly dealt out to us.”

Yes, examination of our own hearts is the point of those verses. Otherwise we are judging hypocritically.

I do think we are in agreement on this point but somehow managing to speak past each other.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

I can see where you are coming from on this one, and to be honest, it’s a fair point I’ve never considered. The implications are significant and I need to spend some time thinking about it as it applies to my own life. As a whole, resoundingly no, the local churches do not love the BofX or extend their warmth to those not within their group. On the individual level, there are some who do, but as a group, they are cold to those outside it. And what you do to others you do to God, so yes, the implications are weighty.

And if I bring in your angle of personally examining before taking action, this is a very hard one to do. I admit I don’t love everyone myself, and yet I would be judging the LC’s for doing the same.

Maybe that’s why I prefer to deal with their doctrines because I am not the hypocrite when going after their doctrines, but I am when going after their lack of love.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Of course people are slaves to legalism, but that does not preclude being a slave to sin too. Legalism produces a false guilt within people where their conscience is actually silent, and I can tell you from experience that it is an absolute enslavement. Wherever it is in the Bible Jesus is given grief about not washing his hands or requiring others to do so is an example of that. Hand-washing isn’t sin. It’s a commandment of men. It’s legalism. You can absolutely be a slave to it. Although I supposed in that case, legalistic hand-washing becomes a sin because it denies the truth that Christ came to set us free?

Christ came to set us free from the condemnation of sin and death, but also from oppression, and not just the oppression of sin and/or death. All kinds of oppression. He proclaimed release to the captives, sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom for those who are oppressed. This is the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom with His mouth, and then turned around and demonstrated it with His actions in healing people and releasing them. I understand all these oppressions are the result of the fall. But these oppressions are not sins in themselves. In other words, Jesus came to release people from their sins and condemnation eternally, but also from their afflictions and oppressions temporally.

While THE goal may not be to flee legalism, it’s a pretty good sub-goal. Jesus rebuked and was harshly critical of it in the Bible.

Don’t leave the forum or this thread. Just use pronouns like “we” rather than “you” sometimes. Or “my perspective is” rather than “your perspective must be”. Or when speaking of others, say, “it seems like” rather that “it is a fact”. That’s all. Your input is valuable.