[kumbaya]

In an effort to make this shorter, I'm just responding to new points.

You originally argued a point that CoC was justified in being called that bc the local church didn't have a "name" per say- just a description to be used for a Sunday table meeting. Later you agreed that they legally had a name. I was always told in the local church that we had no name, but the "church in BLANK locality" had to be on a sign outside the meeting hall for a "description" of what it was . If you think they have a name now- great. I assumed you were in agreement with most people in the LC that believe the "name" isn't a name like the denominations have- of course not! It's just a DESCRIPTION of who they are- not a name (heaven forbid!). Only fallen Christianity has "names," right? Good for you for standing against that ridiculous thought and agreeing that they do, in fact- have a name.

As far as this topic goes...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting).

This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

You were previously criticizing Evangelicalism for "only building up Evangelicalism" and not the whole Body of Christ. So, I was pointing out that it was interesting that you didn't recognize that the Local church is using CoC to only increase their localities. You stressed this even more by going on to describe how CoC is no substitute for local church meetings/how the connectivity with CoC and the LC is so important/how CoC needs the LC's oversight....

You didn't CLAIM the local church was "building up the whole body of Christ" but you condemned Evangelicalism for not "considering the whole body of Christ" (in your opinion), and just (according to you) building up Evangelicalism. My apologies, I should have asked. I ASSUMED that by your judgements of Evangelicalism falling short of "building up the whole body of Christ" that you believed that the Local churches and CoC WERE building up the whole body of Christ. I guess I don't understand why you're criticizing the Evangelicalism movement for the same behavior you describe as "good" for the local church and CoC. Did you just not realize you were doing that? It's always easy to find criticism looking out, not as fun to critically examine ourselves though. The LC doesn't make a habit of critically examining itself against the concerns of former members, so I guess I can see how that would be hard since you have little guidance in this practice.

On the same note, I'm sorry that you continue to criticize Christian denomination's motives in their decisions to become non-denominational. Maybe some day they'll evolve to the local church's elite model of a proper group that meets in the proper way- by first and foremost "seeing a vision of one-ness" that only the local church currently sees. After all, the Lord's Recovery has already "taken the ground" in so many cities around the earth, in an unquestionably correct and needed attempt to "recover the church." But, should we worry about the peculiar and distinct practices of the LC's with their requirement of full submission to Anaheim and LSM? Would any of those issues be a factor in the prevention of a massive exodus from congregations outside the LC, given the possibility that the non-denominational churches are unable to meet the LC's requirements of being a "proper lampstand??" Are these the only solutions the LC would need to stop criticizing fellow believers and followers of Christ- as falling short, in comparison, to themselves? Being a Christian, we're called to follow the commandment of "loving thy neighbor." So, how much more should we love our brothers and sisters in Christ? Since the Bible tells us that without love- our talents and knowledge are worthless... should I assume that your criticism of Christians (fellow members of the Body) doesn't come without lovingly praying for them? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you dislike this practice of "properly admonishing" other believers and naturally, want it all to end! Ok, fine- I will. But, with your criticism I hope you also have a solution! Will you please share that? What needs to happen for all believers outside the local church to stop being criticized and accepted as your equals in the body of Christ?

Unfortunately, I think we both can recognize that the likelihood of the LC viewing other Christians as "counterparts" instead of "falling short," in comparison to the LC, isn't probable- based on the LC's history of continued criticism towards them. WL's vision of all Christians outside the LC was that they weren't the "expression of Christ" like the LC but fortunately all believers outside the LC- during the tribulation, after the firstfruits (majority being in LC of course) were raptured, that the purpose of the remaining saints in the LC would be to bring all seeking Christians out of "Babylon" (Christianity) and into the local churches to be part of the 2nd rapture (was this one called "the harvest") just in time to make the 1,000 years wedding feast and avoid 1,000 years of outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. For the Christian's who had not been fully perfected into enough of a "God-man" by the time the tribulation was up- 1,000 years in outer darkness was the price to pay.

WL blatantly criticized Christians outside of the LC, and had the audacity to call himself "the minister of the age." Do you really believe he was? Do you believe that EVERYTHING HE SAID AND WROTE IS TRUE?? If he really was the "MOTA-" one would assume his teachings were correct! What's your take on his last message when he (thankfully) apologized to the Body of Christ, admitted to making many mistakes, and challenged the local church to examine their practices in regards to other believers? What's your take on how the Blending Brothers "interpretation" of what WL really meant when saying these words in his last message (it's available on you tube if you'd like to hear what he chose to say to the LC in the last few minutes of his last message ever). Can you consider the possibility that the "ground of one-ness" although an excellent concept, was/still is being exploited as an excuse to look down on other members of the Body of Christ? By teaching the "ground of one-ness" in such an absolute way, ignoring the impractical issues this standard creates, and combining the "ground of one-ness" requirement with real Christian truths, and thought reform tactics, WL has succeeded in a facade of "spiritual eliteness." This is easily proven by YOUR comments, other local church members comments, and most importantly WL's comments about Christianity ("poor, poor, Christianity").

So, the REAL QUESTION IS- what would congregations and Christians outside the LC have to do to stop the LC from being so critical of them? Is it even possible? Now, since most of your "logic" and ideas seem to come from LSM material (which contain contradictions and logical errors- also explaining your indoctrinated logic), you might need to go to ministry.org to find an answer for me- I understand that may take time. Maybe calling an elder to ask would be faster.

There's got to be an answer. When congregations are dropping their denominational ties, ending their practice of doctrinal agreements for potential members to sign, declaring themselves as non-denoninational, yet continuing to fellowship with churches they have in the past, and also- reaching out for fellowship with new congregations.....this is still not good enough for the local church. Why? Because, according to you... they're "not doing it for the right reasons." Do you hear yourself? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction to judge any believers positive actions outside the local church as lowly, falling short, and due to shallow motives? If I could propose a different idea about why the LSM ministry indoctrinates you and other members with these ideas about churches becoming non-denominational.... Could they be doing that because this conversion we're seeing to non-denominational congregations just isn't on the local churches terms? Even though the LC represents such a small portion of the Body of Christ, because they are the only ones "recovering" the church (a duty that no one but the LC recognizes), does that really mean that all other congregations throughout the world are supposed to model the Lord's Recovery in their congregation and submit to the authority of LSM and the Blendes? I wonder if the new non-denominational congregations stopped buying any other reading material with the exception of what LSM publishes, agreed to a standing monthly book order with them, replaced all their Bibles with the Recovery version- if that would be enough to end all the criticism from the LC? What would you suggest they do to live up to the local church standards?

In your previous post (I can find your quote if you'd like me too) you said the local church did have a name, the name of the locality. Your points are getting downright hypocritical here. How can you use the logic below but still claim the LC isn't divisive by having a name?

I said...

"Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't"


Your response was this...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Doesn't make sense because the word "denomination" means "to name".

See this definition:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/denomination

denomination (n.)
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

Logically, if denominations divide, then different names divide as well (because denomination means 'to name').

To make this logical contradiction clearer, let me rephrase your statement according to the definition of the word denomination:

""to name is to divide - I agree. Names however- don't divide."

There is a meaning which is interesting:
"a calling by anything other than the proper name".

According to you, any name is divisive because of ONE definition of the word "denomination" being- "TO NAME." (I'll get to that flawed logic in a sec...) I don't think that's a very accurate definition of the word "denomination" as it relates to church congregations- but you copied and pasted that definition from the internet so I guess it must be accurate! Maybe though, the accuracy has less to do with your using it as what you were trying to prove- but unfortunately failed at. It's also a little ironic that your flawed logic is so incriminating against the LC. According to you, a NAME will automatically label a non-denominational congregation as divisive. The problem with your argument is this places the LC in the same category-oops. Using your logic, how is the local church NOT automatically labeled divisive by having name? Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the LC is divisive- but not because it has a name... IF ONLY that were to blame!!

Your explanation of how you came to this conclusion is really off. You're basically saying that because one definition of "denomination" is "to name," accompanied with a generalized and agreed-upon thought that denominations are divisive- this CLEARLY MEANS that the NAME a denomination has is a factor in making that denomination divisive (yikes). Do you realize that if "A" plus "B" equals "C"...that doesn't mean "A" or "B" equals "C?" Denominations are divisive due to doctrinal differences and practices. With this logic, even though the leaders of CoC are full-timers employed by the LC, and EVERY CoC worker (paid or unpaid) is a LC member recruiting for the LC, under the authority of the elders in the LC- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE because they have two different names and are automatically labeled divisive due to their name difference! I really don't think you should stick to your method of logic, it's not doing you any favors-sorry. You can't combine the divisive characteristics a denomination might have and then combine it with ONE definition of "denomination" meaning "to name," - then, conclude that the name is what makes denominations divisive. I really felt the need to clear that up, for you, and hopefully anyone who read your post that may have taken what you said at face-value.

I agree the 2nd definition you posted is interesting. You've probably noticed by now that I do feel that denominations promote division among Christians. While I think it's fine to meet with people that share similar practices (with Biblical justification), I feel the judgement Christians have for each other isn't what the Lord wants us to have. There are 3 main issues of the faith that are unquestionable and must be accepted by all believers. A very simplified version of that is (bc each encompasses so much) 1) Omnipotent Triune God 2) Jesus work on the cross as a ransom for our sins 3) The Resurrection resulting in the veil being torn, and Holy Spirit available, giving us direct access to God, receive his divine life for our salvation, healing, and transformation into obedient servants of Him, which would be impossible to do on our own accord. I know that's really simplified, sorry about that- this is already very long! My point is, aside from the key issues of the faith... who are we to be so critical of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ- beyond that? I get it, I believed the lie that the Lord NEEDED the Lord's Recovery to "carry out His eternal purpose for His expression on the earth, blah blah blah" and that God had "always had a group of people" and now the Lord's Recovery were His people! How lucky for us, right?! The problem is, THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE! Remember when Jesus said, "It is finished?" Maybe the local church members should pray-read that verse a little more!! The work is done, the veil was broken, this is the Age of Grace! (hope I'm not butchering this too bad- I'm no preacher but I know the basics!) And as far as the idea that God has "always had a called out group of people" goes...yes, he did and he does. Before his resurrection, they were the Jews. But after his death and resurrection, salvation and eternal life became available to everyone- Jews and Gentiles too! His "people" now are just His church- His bride! Not the local church!! It's so ridiculous I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it for so long. Still, the fact that my family- TRUE AND GENUINE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, along with so many others, are being CONTROLLED, MANIPULATED, and EXPLOITED to the fullest extent by this disillusioned, sectarian, divisive group that employs so many cult tactics that have resulted in so much pain and destruction, and brands people I love as being a "Christian cult member," is something that I'm personally not OK with. No Christian who isn't indoctrinated with LSM thought reform should accept it. It's an abuse on the Body of Christ, so- here I am, speaking (or typing) out against it.

In response to your last point, are we just all supposed to take your word on this? It seems you might consider everything LSM publishes as unquestionable truth- just like the Bible. But not everyone agrees (myself included) that LSM publishes accurate teachings so please only use the Bible to justify this statement...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible reveals the "proper name" of the church - the city name."

I really would be interested in what you can come up with to PROVE that the city name is the "proper name" to use in this day and age. I don't remember any teachings in the Bible about how important it is for the original church's names to be modeled in future centuries, regardless of drastic changes to city structure and society in general. Where is it said in the Bible that city boundaries must be the basis for all Christians assembling together for the Lord's table, worship, or fellowship? We have the 10 commandments but it seems that due to the LC's stress of this issue- maybe they believe their version of the "ground of one-ness" and complete submission to LSM should have been an 11th commandment! That would make a lot of sense given their behavior! On the flip side, maybe these requirements aren't spelled out in the Bible because they inevitably lead to RELIGIOUS LEGALISM that limits the power of the Holy Spirit to work out His body, how HE sees fit- not how LSM sees fit (I know, shocking concept). Even WL teaches this is "THE AGE OF GRACE." Grace- pure and simple GRACE! Praise God His grace is sufficient. Especially now, when you are really wearing me out.

Look, I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm in the process of trying to "un-indoctrinate" myself and I actually know where you're coming from. Maybe I made better arguments, but I still spent over 20 (combined) years of my life in the local church. You should read about other perspectives than the one you hold so tightly to and try to consider the criticism Christian scholars and apologetics have about the concept of "recovering the Church." Look at REAL church history (not the laughable excuse of "church history" LSM doles out with their lineage of "MOTA's") and read MULTIPLE personal accounts the people close to WL, who saw first-hand how WL decided to "execute" his "Recovery" and verify each other's testimonies. Read about the scandals followed cover-ups/attacks and listen to the audio between WL and the elder in Boston, where WL admits to mixing his personal business into church affairs and exploiting the saints. Read ELDEN1971's testimony on this site, an elder who literally started a locality after years of being involved in WL and the church's finances, only to be excommunicated bc he couldn't bring himself to tell an elder that confronted him that WL was innocent of illegal acts- even though he still believed in the vision of the local church and had given an enormous amount of grace to WL! Still, he was unable to say that WL was innocent of illegal activity without lying- so he was excommunicated. This is just one of hundreds, if not thousands of stories of abuse in the LC. Their requirement for complete submission to LSM, the BB's and elders, has created a breeding group for spiritual abuse.

Have you prayed for the Lord to reveal to you whether or not the criticism towards the Lord's Recovery is legitimate? What have you heard or read about the movement other than what LSM has provided you? Feel free to message me privately or start a new thread (if you can agree to try to be logical now) and if I feel peace about it-I'll respond (no promises based on your track record), just not on this thread (feel bad for clever sister).

Until then, this comes to mind. It's an excellent overview of the LC written by a former elder. I realize the name will offend you but if you can get past that- you'll actually learn a lot.

www.assemblylife.com