Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Bradley · 01-10-2018, 04:41 PM

One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was.

We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain.

You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists.

There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground.

Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name?

Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other.

On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really.

But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not.

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.

01-10-2018, 04:41 PM	#1
Bradley Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 65	'Ground of the Church' One thing I was very passionate about when I was in the LC was the ground of the church. We were taught that it was the source of all blessing and had to be perfect. We were taught that the ground of locality was everything, the name was everything. Brother Lee was not the ground of the church but the ground was. We were taught that there could be all sorts of problems in the church but as long as the ground was right, it would be okay. There could be all sorts of things going well but as long as the ground was wrong, God has forgotten you and your work is in vain. You can imagine my surprise then when I went blending in Singapore and found myself not in 'the church in Singapore' but 'the church of God in Singapore'. Subtle difference, but I had spent two years in the training being taught how bad this is. You just can't do that, you might as well call yourselves the southern Baptists. There was another group that was 'the church in Singapore' and they had broken off. They got to keep the name, so this group I was blending with was forced to take another name. The other group was apparently not on the 'true ground', but the 'church of God in Singapore' was. Why was that? I couldn't understand. They had the right name, so they should have the ground. Nobody could answer my question: what is it about 'the church of God in Singapore' that gives it the proper ground despite having the wrong name, and what is it about 'the church in Singapore' that puts it off the correct ground, despite the fact that they have the right name? Apparently, the true requirements for the ground of the church is not what the ministry teaches, i.e. having the right name, it is what the ministry specifically said was not important, i.e. loyalty to the Living Stream Ministry and the blending brothers. They teach one thing but do the other. On that note, a full-timer brother I knew was secretly going out and fellowshipping with them, maintaining a friendship with them even though they broke off twenty or so years ago. He had to keep it a secret because they were demonised as bad guys from pretty much everyone, even though they all used to be friends in the past. Pretty sad really. But my point is this: the people (in Anaheim) who decide which church groups are on the right ground and which are not, do not read their own books to tell them how to decide. They go with whoever invites them to come speak at conferences, and reject those who do not. My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocricy still bothers me.