View Single Post
Old 02-10-2017, 03:31 AM   #12
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 4,588
Default Re: How many are former members of thr local church

Originally Posted by many blessings View Post
I left a year ago and now I am having trouble starting a new . .
The reason you're having trouble starting anew is because you've been poisoned. They call it being "inoculated" but I daresay it's the opposite. You're constantly told in the LC that Christianity is dead, dormant, lifeless, Christless, satanic etc. That causes you to consider other believers with suspicion, judgment, and fear. You weren't allowed to receive them in Christ Jesus, because they weren't on the ground of oneness. But Jesus taught, Love those who hate you. Give them your other cheek if they slap you. Give them your shirt if they want your cloak. Forgive them their trespasses just as God forgave yours. Visit them in sickness, comfort and encourage them. In other words, oneness is within, reaching out to those who lack. Instead, in the LC you were given an outward oneness, or conformity, or uniformity, in order to "fellowship" with them.

So now you're maybe out of the LC system, but its poison in your own system lingers. You were "inoculated" against love, charity, forbearance, tolerance, magnanimity, receiving one another, functioning among the flock. Instead you passively received the LC "ministry" and now that it is gone you have no way to start anew.

Originally Posted by many blessings View Post
May I ask why you left .
I left because I was tired of the same group of people who sat in a circle and exercised their spirits over the words of ministry, and the select verses which the ministry approved. We met as the church but we despised the church, and only received those who sat in the circle and exercised their spirit over the words of ministry. Plus they had no real way to deal with problems among members, or within the group. Everything was supposed to be "glorious church life" so anything else was denied.

But after leaving I was still positive for the ministry, and tried to share it with others, but gradually I realized the ministry was merely the subjective output of one fallen human being and his very subjective opinions and concepts.

For example when reading the Psalms in the RecV, it notes that Psalm 45 was a type of Christ marrying His bride the church. But why? Isn't Psalm 45 merely the fallen concepts of well meaning, pious humans? That's how most of the rest of the Psalms are treated in the RecV. So likewise in Psalm 45, shouldn't this interpretive rule apply as well? Here, the king is seen marrying a foreign wife, which biblical history shows us caused his heart to turn to foreign idols. Remember Solomon? Remember Ahab with Jezebel (daughter of Tyre [v.12])?

No, Witness Lee said that it was a type of Christ. Okay, fine; but why is this a typological picture of Jesus Christ, when elsewhere, similar statements in psalm were fallen human concepts? Just vanity, empty words of sinful men trying to be good? For an example, why was Psalm 16 a vision of Christ obeying the Father and being given glory (according to Peter and Paul in Acts) yet then Witness Lee said Psalms 17 and 18 were not, but just David being David? Just another sinner talking smack? So, one must ask why one rule interprets scripture in one place, and another elsewhere? Apparently only because the subjectivity of the expositor wanted it this way.The bible text became secondary, and exposition had primacy. Interpretation ruled the text, not vice versa.

And everyone in the audience knew it, or most of them. They knew the ministry said one thing one day, and another thing the next day. But they couldn't leave "the ground", because they were convinced that Christianity was dead. So it is the LC, failures and all, or nothing. And so, as our friend has said, there's no way to start anew. We were "wrecked, ruined"... boy didn't we know it! We'd been poisoned.

Look at any Witness Lee message, and it's full of phrases like "We all must see that..." and then something follows that isn't even true. All these "We must" and "We have to" and "We need to" phrases fill the ministry speaking. I think That Lee was displacing his needs on the church, and we passively accepted it as real. Lee needed us to turn this way or that, so he'd say, "We all need to do thus-and-such" even when the Bible didn't say it. But Lee would say, "Clearly the Bible show us that..."

So I'll similarly offer some alternate "musts" and "need to"s and "have to"s.

We have to receive speaking from more than one minister or ministry. Proverbs says three times that the counsel of many brings safety.

We must listen to the ancients. Not just the up-to-date speaking of this last conference.

We must turn away from any minister who says he hasn't learned anything from anyone else for 45 years. That person is trapped in a self-delusion of ignorance and arrogance.

We must receive all believers, not just those who meet on some arbitrary "ground". Oneness is when you can be one with all, not just a select few who meet your criteria. Look at Jesus - He was one with all sorts of people. He met them where they were. He didn't impose restrictions, except to love and forgive. He met them "Just as they were" and led them to the Father. And He said we should be one, as He was with the Father. We must be open to all, not just a few of "God's best".

We must open to the whole Bible, not just selected passages that can support today's teaching. The NT was founded on the whole scripture, on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. It's called scripture for a reason.

We must use consistent interpretive rules that apply to all scripture, and that are consistent with NT use of scripture (i.e. Psalm 16 interpretive rules should also apply to interpretation of Psalm 17 and Psalm 18).
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote