The Unique Move of God

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

LSM and the local churches will decide for themselves. As do Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and every other group that stands for a certain set of beliefs. Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing.

I totally get your point and have made it myself here in the past. What you are missing is that the LCM goes a step further (to say the least) and claims to be "THE unique move of God" in exclusion of all others, and claims all other moves are just "movements of men." Leaving aside for a moment that that they have no possible way of knowing such a thing for sure, in this day and age every group should have by now realized from history and conscience that such claims are arrogant, short-sighted and ultimately divisive.

The LCM doesn't just say "if you want to be part of us you'll do things our way," That much is reasonable. No, they go on to say "and if you don't do that you are outside of God's unique move." That is utterly unreasonable. And that goes for any subset of the Church that says that.

That is the part that makes all their insistence on conformity a damaging travesty. Sure, if I go to work for a company I need to conform to its way of doing things. But if that company claims to be the only place to work and tries to impart the fear of leaving then there is something very rotten at its core. That's the problem with the LCM.

The LCM is not the only group to embrace this error. But to my view no group embraces it as tightly and willingly and to greater damage than the LCM does.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee ministered Christ, taught God's economy, God's purpose, the Church, the churches, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, and all the basics of the Christian faith, salvation, redemption, the precious blood of Christ, the Spirit of Life, growth in life, consecration, transformation, glorification, the judgements, and the consumation of God in man and man in God as the New Jerusalem the universal divine human expression for eternity.

He also taught that if you weren't in his movement you were outside of God's move. He taught that if you left his ministry you could not go on with God.

That alone puts the rest of his stuff in a very bad light.

If you don't understand that you don't understand me, or many others here.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He also taught that if you weren't in his movement you were outside of God's move. He taught that if you left his ministry you could not go on with God.

That alone puts the rest of his stuff in a very bad light.

If you don't understand that you don't understand me, or many others here.

Drake,

I have a question: Why didn't you honestly respond to this? Why did you just ignore it?

You know that I personally heard Lee talk about how T. Austin-Sparks (!) said that he "lost the flow of life" when he told Nee that the local ground wasn't for him, and how Sparks said he "could never get it back." Do you really believe that happened?

Do you know I heard this stuff from Lee regularly. About how he knew of no one that became "a prevailing Christian" after leaving his movement. About how everyone who left the movement fell by the wayside and became useless. He said this kind of thing regularly. I'm speaking from firsthand experience. I am not lying.

This is what he taught. It wasn't just about the LCM having the right to maintain order within its ranks. I was about how Lee declared all-out war on all rivals. How he put the fear of leaving his ministry into everyone he could. How he damaged many people in his care by doing so.

You've always seemed like fairly smart guy, unlike some others around here who shall remain unnamed. How does that stuff sit with you?

What say you? I'm counting on you to be righteous. Let's hear it, brother.

[Drake]

Igzy,

Sometimes I don't respond because I have no peace and the Lord prevents me. Or in some cases it is a more serious reason.

However, none of those are reasons for not responding to your post. With your post I heard the same things you did but I considered them differently or interpreted in a different way. So I simply chose not to debate your view because I understood how you might see it that way. In other words, though I don't have the same view as you do, I understand your view as plausible to you and that I probably could not offer anything to persuade you to my view.I don't differ in this case with the events you described, just your conclusion.

For instance, yes I believe the events surrounding T Austin Sparks because I have experienced a similar loss of flow of life. To me, it is not only possible, it is a certainty. Brother Lee brought this up not as self-serving as is often alleged, but as a lesson and a warning. At least, to me it is instruction and I take it from the Lord that way.

Or the usefulness before the Lord if one departs from the vision He has entrusted to him will diminish as regards to that vision. Could a person who has enjoyed the deep things of God related to, for instance, the Church and the churches leave and have a successful ministry or pastorship in the denominations? No doubt, I have seen it. Yet, are they useful to the vision that once guided and controlled them? I have not seen that at all.

Thanks for asking.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Sometimes I don't respond because I have no peace and the Lord prevents me. Or in some cases it is a more serious reason.

However, none of those are reasons for not responding to your post. With your post I heard the same things you did but I considered them differently or interpreted in a different way. So I simply chose not to debate your view because I understood how you might see it that way. In other words, though I don't have the same view as you do, I understand your view as plausible to you and that I probably could not offer anything to persuade you to my view.I don't differ in this case with the events you described, just your conclusion.

For instance, yes I believe the events surrounding T Austin Sparks because I have experienced a similar loss of flow of life. To me, it is not only possible, it is a certainty. Brother Lee brought this up not as self-serving as is often alleged, but as a lesson and a warning. At least, to me it is instruction and I take it from the Lord that way.

Or the usefulness before the Lord if one departs from the vision He has entrusted to him will diminish as regards to that vision. Could a person who has enjoyed the deep things of God related to, for instance, the Church and the churches leave and have a successful ministry or pastorship in the denominations? No doubt, I have seen it. Yet, are they useful to the vision that once guided and controlled them? I have not seen that at all.

Thanks for asking.

Drake

Drake,

Lee wasn't talking about being useful to the vision of the LCM. He was talking about something else.

He was saying if you left the LCM you were in rebellion against God, by definition. No exceptions. I was there. I heard it myself. Benson taught it. The elders taught it.

Benson once said there was "nothing" in Christianity that can help you. Do you believe that? That is what he taught.

No offense, but it seems you must do some pretty heavy rationalizing to reconcile yourself to these kind of things. I understand you are committed to the LCM. But there has to be some place in your conscience that has a problem with this stuff.


Anyway, that is this gist of the problem with me. And that is what messed me up for so many years. As I said, if you don't understand that you don't understand why I post here. The LCM attempts to hold people there and is intolerant to any alternatives to their way. I believe that is extremely damaging. You can talk all you want to being faithful to a "vision." But why that "vision?" Is really because it is so plainly what God wants or is it because that's what you've been convinced of through fear and manipulation?

The problem with the LCM is a person cannot honestly even consider that question, because to them reconsideration is the beginning of rebellion and so is suspect in itself. It's the same mindset that prevented the callback of the bombers in the book "Fail-Safe." The pilots were so trained to carry out orders past a certain point in their flights that they ignored the pleas of their own wives to turn back, and so mistakenly obliterated Moscow.

It reaches the point where the psychological mechanisms necessary for healthy correction cannot even function because the person has been trained to be suspicious of them. That's when things get very dangerous. That's when you can be controlled and yet be convinced you are making your own decisions.

The psychological pressure for members to conform pushes them to agree with things they might otherwise disagree with. This causes them to think and argue in unreasonable and irrational ways. You see it all the time here. I know people don't necessarily agree with some of the tenets of the LCM in their hearts. But they convince themselves they do because they feel they have no choice, because they fear judgment, both from men and God for not doing so. And that expresses itself in irrational ways. Even you seem to manifest this sometimes, sorry to say.

I don't think the Lord operates that way. Certainly truth is objective. But God doesn't use peer pressure or the fear of ostracization from community to convince us (except in very extreme cases). He hand is gentle and fair. The LCM's is anything but that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Perhaps you could provide UntoHim with the post # of those you consider to be relevant to your discussion.

Nell

Okay, UntoHim, could you please move posts 218, 219, 221, 222 and 223 to a new thread for Drake and I. Thanks you very much.

Thanks, Nell. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Evangelical]

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God. It is a misconception that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about our own ministry efforts. We are not. It is possible for us not to be in the unique move of God. We devote time, prayer and attention to the matter of getting "in the flow" or "staying in the flow". Why would we do that if we thought we are automatically "in the unique move of God"?

Put simply, "the unique move of God is the ministry that God does, not ourselves". Witness Lee would probably not say it that way but that is my best understanding. In Christianity most don't have this concept - they define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does.

Let us be clear that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about the move of God, not the move of ourselves. The unique move of God is not of ourselves, but of God. He is the initiator and we "go with the flow". It is our aim, desire, intention and goal to get in flow with "the unique move of God".

The unique move of God is evident in this verse:
Acts 2:47 "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

It is the Lord who is moving to add to their number. This is a clear example of the unique move of God. It is something of God not ourselves, although we must cooperate with Him in it.

Contrast this statement to that of most gospel ministries which might say "And we added to our number through our gospel outreach program". This is a move of man.

Most Christians today think that God moves in a haphazard and random way. But the history of the church and the book of Acts reveals that God moves in a purposeful and intentional way. "God is a God of order". God as an intelligent Creator brings order to the chaos of the world. God does not move in a chaotic way to spread the gospel.

A side effect of denominationalism was to bring about a view in Christianity that there are multiple ministries all started by God and doing His will. This is in contrast with the bible which presents to us only one unique ministry - the ministry "of Paul", which is to minister Christ.

In addition to the "unique move" we talk about the "unique ministry" which is related to the "one Lord", "one Christ" and "one Spirit".

The sobering thought is that very few of these gospel ministries may actually be God's move, but rather, the attempts of men to please the Lord apart from the flow of the Spirit, and not in oneness with Christ. Some may say that is arrogant, but actually I'm just paraphrasing Matt 7:21 "many will say to me... Lord did I not do this.. or that".

Really when we think about it how can multiple ministries be possible if God is a God of order? On the one hand God starts a ministry that brings about baptism by full immersion, and starts another ministry that baptizes by sprinkling. One ministry that furthers the cause of the Pope and another which brings about tongue speaking and rolling on the floor in "holy laughter". How can God be the author of such contradiction and confusion? Did God raise up an apostle for the tongue speakers, and an apostle for the baptizers, and an apostle for the Papists and give each their own heavenly vision experience? Of course not.

The bible is fairly clear that there is only one unique move of God:

Acts 26:19 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to THE heavenly vision.

Paul does not say "I was not disobedient to "a" or "my" heavenly vision".
Paul does not tell others "well I've had my heavenly vision on the road to Damascus.. have you had yours yet?"

Paul says THE heavenly vision. Paul knew that what he experienced was not just for his personal spirituality or edification, or even for his personal salvation. This vision he experienced guided his whole life and ministry from that point forward. It even touches us today - when we read the New Testament written by Paul, we are touching the one heavenly vision that Paul had.

Paul nowhere entertains the thought that others may have a different heavenly vision. He goes so far as to say "my gospel" in Romans 16:25 and other places, as if his gospel and "the gospel" are one and the same. When he says "my gospel" he does not mean there are different gospels. There is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-8). Similarly, when we say "my ministry" we should be speaking of the one unique ministry of God. This concept of one ministry is not understood by those in denominations.
When they read the bible they do not see the one ministry of God, but they see each practical aspect of the one ministry as distinct and different ministries. E.g. a "teaching ministry", "evangelism ministry", "children's ministry". They define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does (Acts 2:47).

Gill's commentary on this verse helps explain:
I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision; to Christ himself, who appeared from heaven in so much light and glory, and spoke unto him, and appointed him what he should be, and do, and declared what use he should be of: he did not disbelieve what Christ said, nor was he disobedient to the orders he gave, but immediately set about the work he called him to, without consulting flesh and blood; see Galatians 1:16.

We cannot be in the flow of God, in the "unique move of God" if we are merely carrying out the wishes of a man-made organization according to our job description or organizations "vision statement".

It is the difference between "being set apart for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:1-4) and "working for the Lord because I or my denomination thinks its a good thing to do". To be in the unique move of God requires the Lord's leading and our willingness and cooperation to be led.

[OBW]

To place the word "unique" into the discussion is to imply that there is something special and focused and that is not found in the whole of the moving of God on the earth. It implies that it could be only found in a certain kind of outreach to the unsaved and not in other kinds.

But the accounts given by Paul would make a lie of that kind of thinking. He took every way that he could find to his benefit. He went to some places and just made tents and preached a little as he did. In others he made more robust speeches to the people in general. In one place he found a shrine to an unknown god and made hay out of it.

And when he discovered that some were even preaching the gospel in regions that would potentially cause his present captors to possibly give him a worse time in his imprisonment, he still commended them as preaching the gospel. Even if they did it to give him problems, it was the preaching of the gospel. There was no hint that any who were converted as a result of such preaching were deficient Christians that were not truly part of the body of Christ.

The truth is that the only "unique" in God's move is that it is God that is moving, not someone else. You use the terms as a pejorative to denigrate what others are dong because you think it is not "God's move" because it is not what you are doing. That suggests that God only speaks to, and moves in an infinitesimally small part of his body to the exclusion of all others.

But Christ/God moves in his people. We are all his people. He moves in more than some singular "move of God" as if it is only door knocking and baptizing people in their bath tubs at one point in time, and going to the campuses at another. And based on current LRC rhetoric, it is currently looking only for "good material' by ignoring the highways and byways and instead seeking only university students.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

To place the word "unique" into the discussion is to imply that there is something special and focused and that is not found in the whole of the moving of God on the earth. It implies that it could be only found in a certain kind of outreach to the unsaved and not in other kinds.

The only thing truly "unique" about Lee and TLR is their pride.

This arrogant pride is manifested in their teachings and practices. Jesus Himself identified these attitudes in Revelation 3.14-22.

In this regard their attitude is no different than the Jews' attitude, which Paul aptly addressed in certain sections of scripture like in Romans chapter 2.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is fairly clear that there is only one unique move of God:

Acts 26:19 Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to THE heavenly vision.

You make much more out of the article "the" than a normal person would. The heavenly vision of Paul would seem to be found initially in the vision of God telling him that he would be apostle to the Gentiles. That did not limit the breadth of how that was to occur. But it did focus Paul on a mission. His vision was of his calling. It was not of the limitation of the move of God overall, but the specific declaration of God's moving through him.

There is nothing in this verse that limits God's move to what Paul was doing. Rather it put a limit on what Paul was doing. No limit on what Peter was doing. Or John, James (either), Barnabas (and Paul refers to him positively after their parting), Mark, Timothy, or so many others.

You have a calling. It may be to preach to aborigines in some far land. Or it may be to live the righteousness of Christ in the sight of those around you in urban America. And lots of places in between. But for you or me, it is not likely both. At least not at the same time. So for yourself, you might be ablt to say that God has called you to a specific (and therefore unique from your own perspective) work. But that does not make it God's unique work.

Your whole argument in this post is based on the same kind of logic that got you the doctrine of dirt. Paul said "the heavenly vision" so you declare that there is only one such vision rather than recognize that it was Paul who saw that vision while Peter saw a different one. Yet they all work in God's move. You make universal declarations out of contextually discreet statements that do not make any kind of universal statement. It is among the core errors of both Nee and Lee. And once you make those errors and teach them, the foundation for the next teaching is flawed and therefore subject to taking you someone you shouldn't go. Like declaring that Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You make much more out of the article "the" than a normal person would. The heavenly vision of Paul would seem to be found initially in the vision of God telling him that he would be apostle to the Gentiles. That did not limit the breadth of how that was to occur. But it did focus Paul on a mission. His vision was of his calling. It was not of the limitation of the move of God overall, but the specific declaration of God's moving through him.

There is nothing in this verse that limits God's move to what Paul was doing. Rather it put a limit on what Paul was doing. No limit on what Peter was doing. Or John, James (either), Barnabas (and Paul refers to him positively after their parting), Mark, Timothy, or so many others.

You have a calling. It may be to preach to aborigines in some far land. Or it may be to live the righteousness of Christ in the sight of those around you in urban America. And lots of places in between. But for you or me, it is not likely both. At least not at the same time. So for yourself, you might be ablt to say that God has called you to a specific (and therefore unique from your own perspective) work. But that does not make it God's unique work.

Your whole argument in this post is based on the same kind of logic that got you the doctrine of dirt. Paul said "the heavenly vision" so you declare that there is only one such vision rather than recognize that it was Paul who saw that vision while Peter saw a different one. Yet they all work in God's move. You make universal declarations out of contextually discreet statements that do not make any kind of universal statement. It is among the core errors of both Nee and Lee. And once you make those errors and teach them, the foundation for the next teaching is flawed and therefore subject to taking you someone you shouldn't go. Like declaring that Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.

Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.

If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.

I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.

The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.

Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.

But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.

Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.

THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:

Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.

Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:

The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.

Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.

If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.

I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.

The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.

Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.

But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.

Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.

THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:

Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.

Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:

The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.

You complain about my lack of verses as if your verses actually say anything (at least that you think they say). And this particular post has only one verse/passage that also does not answer the question as to whether Paul had a vison that was unique relative to God for all persons at that time, or simply to himself and his part in the overall ministry of God. His references to that actions of others would indicate that he did not consider their preaching to be at odds with his.

But the most important point about all of this is that Paul, nor any other part of the scripture, causes either of these to clearly mean some overriding vision that controlled how God was working in everyone at that time. But it was clearly what Paul was acting according to. And since Jesus had sent the disciples into "all the world" and they did not consult with Paul before any particular one of them did whatever they did, it would be odd to think that what Paul was taught in the desert was part of some unique move of God that excluded all others, including that of the spreading of others to other places without ever seeing or hearing from Paul after the time of such teaching.

In short, Lee sought to make something he couldn't even properly define into some nebulous "Unique move of God" that precluded any Christian "move" as actually being from God unless it was aligned with Lee's. There is no construct of words, sentences, etc., found in the scripture that either declares it as so or specifically denies it (as if they were expecting the stupidity of Lee, so they commented on it negatively almost 2,000 years in advance).

In another thread you want to discuss logic yet fail miserably at understanding the meaning of simple words. When you start with a system of logic that reads like someone saying 3x > 5, therefore x =1, you establish that either you are pretty poor at logic, or you are reading from someone else that is poor at logic but presuming they are good at it without checking them out. I actually think it is at least partly the latter. You have been duped into thinking that if Lee said it, then it has to be true and you will not dare check it out because you are afraid of how wrong he might be and what that would do to you.

If you are lucky, one day you will be man enough to stand up to your fears and check Lee out without relying on what he said as the proof that he is right. I am pretty confident that if you do it that way, the walls will begin to crumble.

I don't need verses to declare that something that is not there is not there. You need to do more than refer to a vision that someone had and say it is universal and excludes anyone else from having any kind of vision that differs. You need to show how the scripture you are relying on actually creates an exclusionary aspect to Paul's vision.

And saying that Paul had a vision and it is God's unique move on the earth without finding where scripture actually says that is not proof. And just because you are not forbidden by scripture from saying such an unsubstantiated thing does not put the burden on me to prove you wrong. It is as if you are declaring that because the scripture does not say that grass cannot be purple that only purple grass will be allowed. And then declare that no one is proving from scripture that grass cannot be purple.

It doesn't prove your point. It makes you a fool. One with no ability to handle logic or scripture.

[Evangelical]

Re: But the most important point about all of this is that Paul, nor any other part of the scripture, causes either of these to clearly mean some overriding vision that controlled how God was working in everyone at that time.


What your view implies is that the vision given to us by the New Testament is not enough - There is OBW's vision and Evangelical's vision etc. The New Testament is written by three people - Luke, Paul and John. We are controlled by Paul's vision every time we come to the New Testament. To "follow the bible" means to be controlled by Paul, Luke, or John's vision, which is one and the same. Everything that Paul wrote in there is coming from his heavenly vision and the gospel which God gave Him by revelation.

This gospel of Paul's we understand to be the same gospel that John and Luke and all the other disciples had.

If you don't understand that there is only one true gospel from one vision from God that controlled all of the disciples then you cannot seriously call yourself a Christian because they were all controlled by God's voice and followed Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God...

Witness Lee refers to:

unique oneness
unique body of christ
unique fellowship
unique spirit
unique flow
Unique move of the unique God for the unique accomplishment
unique blending
unique testimony

Concerning the "unique oneness" he says:

“When we say that the unique oneness of the church is expressed in the place where the saints are, we need to define what we mean by place. What is the limit of this place? The limit is not a house or a street. In the New Testament there are no street churches or avenue churches. Today, however, so-called churches are designated by a street or an avenue. Some might say, “In the Bible there are no street churches, but there are house churches.” Concerning house churches or home churches we need to be careful. Yes, the New Testament does mention the church in the house of certain saints (Rom. 16:5a; Col. 4:15-16). If we read the New Testament carefully, we will see that in these cases the church in the house was the same in limit as the church in the city. In other words, the limit of the house church was equal to the city.” Witness Lee, The Heavenly Vision, Chapter 2, Section 2)

Witness Lee's definition of the unique oneness is all about a physical place. I reject that definition. I would say the NT teaches that the unique oneness of the believers is due to the Lord's redemptive work on the cross in breaking down all the walls of partition so that the Body could be one.

If you read WL's definition it is clearly designed to build a partition. He points out that his oneness is different from the denominations, different from the Pentecostals, different from street churches and even "house" churches. Never once does he deny that all of these other groups are redeemed Christians who are standing on the Lord's redemption, yet his oneness is unique from theirs. I agree, it is unique from theirs.

I prefer the oneness from the Lord's redeeming work to the "unique oneness" of Witness Lee's partition teaching.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hopefully I can clarify what is meant by the unique move of God. It is a misconception that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about our own ministry efforts. We are not. It is possible for us not to be in the unique move of God. We devote time, prayer and attention to the matter of getting "in the flow" or "staying in the flow". Why would we do that if we thought we are automatically "in the unique move of God"?

Put simply, "the unique move of God is the ministry that God does, not ourselves". Witness Lee would probably not say it that way but that is my best understanding. In Christianity most don't have this concept - they define ministry by what they do, and not by what God does.

Let us be clear that when we say "the unique move of God" we are talking about the move of God, not the move of ourselves. The unique move of God is not of ourselves, but of God. He is the initiator and we "go with the flow". It is our aim, desire, intention and goal to get in flow with "the unique move of God".

The unique move of God is evident in this verse:
Acts 2:47 "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

It is the Lord who is moving to add to their number. This is a clear example of the unique move of God. It is something of God not ourselves, although we must cooperate with Him in it.

Contrast this statement to that of most gospel ministries which might say "And we added to our number through our gospel outreach program". This is a move of man.

Most Christians today think that God moves in a haphazard and random way. But the history of the church and the book of Acts reveals that God moves in a purposeful and intentional way. "God is a God of order". God as an intelligent Creator brings order to the chaos of the world. God does not move in a chaotic way to spread the gospel.

As usual, you are speaking in half-truths. Yes, God's move is of him alone--yet he uses and limits himself to imperfect people. Yes, God is not random and chaotic--yet he uses seeming random and chaotic events as opportunities to bring people to himself. Yes, there is one flow from the throne--yet that does not express itself as "one ministry" on earth--Paul said clearly there were "many ministries" (1 Cor 12:5). Yes, Paul's ministry was very important to the New Testament--yet he and the Bible never say nor imply that his ministry nor his visions supersede or even encompass all other teachings.

Evangelical, you consistently speak in half-truths, as Lee did.

And, of course, there is your reliable old saw, "most gospel ministries" and "most Christians" set up as straw men so you can knock them down, when it's plainly clear you have no idea what most Christians and ministries believe, think or do.

Christians these days are very aware that the work of God is God's work. Those in the church I meet with and the leadership there are constantly praying for God's guidance and leading. And guess what? We get it. I've never been in situation where I was so much in touch with God's practical leading of a church as I am now.

Yes, when I was in the LCM we told ourselves we were smack dab in the middle of "God's move." But why did we think that? Not so much because we sought or felt his leading, but because we thought we had all the right beliefs about everything in place--about the Christian experience, the church experience, the end times, God's economy, etc--so we must be in the right place. But in spite of that, nothing we did led to much. We just did church life year-in and year-out and bounced from thing to thing and went around in circles. There was no sense of progress. Basically we just got excited about the "revelation" from the latest Lee training for a few weeks, and then waited for the next one. From what I can tell not much has changed. It's as if the movement is stuck in a time loop, not much change, progress, growth or increase. How is that God's move?

Contrast that to my experience in the last ten years. I can definitely see the results of the Lord's guidance and leading in the church I meet with. More and more our focus has become others-centered and serving-oriented. We have branched out in our outreach. Several new churches have been planted. I myself have definitely grown and changed. Ten years ago all I had was knowledge, most of it from the LCM. Now I think I at least have a little bit of real growth and knowledge of the Lord.

It's very discouraging to hear people talking about "God's move" and instead of them talking about all the wonderful things God is doing to bring people to himself they are really just talking about how they are right and everyone else is wrong. It's sad.

LCMers talk in high-sounding phraseology, but in a very self-serving way. Take, for example, oneness. If the LCM were really as much for oneness as they claim to be there is no way they would go around with the attitudes they do about other Christians, ministries and churches. I'm sorry, but your attitude and behavior are testimonies against what you claim to have and believe. If you were really rich you'd be generously giving it away, instead of talking about how rich you are. Those who are truly rich don't talk about how stupid the poor are, they just do everything they can to help them in a spirit of support and acceptance.

Simply put, you don't do that, not the LCM in general and certainly not you here. So I'm not sure what you are more fooled about: your status or that you are fooling anyone else about it.

I can go around saying I'm a great golfer, but if I can't play the game it's just talk. The LCM can talk all they want about being for oneness and God's move. The evidence speaks otherwise.

[Cal]

This is the attitude we all, especially you-know-who, would have if we were really "rich" and really in "God's unique move."

Romans 15-1-9 verse and devotional

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM doesn't just say "if you want to be part of us you'll do things our way," That much is reasonable. No, they go on to say "and if you don't do that you are outside of God's unique move." That is utterly unreasonable. And that goes for any subset of the Church that says that.

No wonder there's confusion when there's speaking both ways.
One leader is reputed to have said "If you're not for brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here."
Another, it's best you meet with another church.
And yet another leader, "the recovery is not for everyone".
On the other hand implying if not saying:
The recovery is God's move on earth.
If you leave the recovery, you'll be spiritually bankrupt.
Which is it because you can't have it both ways.
Brothers who truly feel the recovery is God's move on earth would say the recovery is for everyone. If a leading brother can say the recovery is not for everyone, to me that's conceding local churches are really ministry churches.

[Evangelical]

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. The word "sect" is more appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" or preference. It is an assembly that looks like an arm or a leg rather than the whole body. (Insert Spurgeon quote here)

A genuine church plant is starting a church where no church has existed before. In the Bible the apostles traveled to new areas and established the new believers in churches. And the term church is a group of believers meeting together on the basis of their unity in Christ, not in any other person or thing.

Most of what people call "church plants" are plants of assemblies of a different flavor to the rest. For example Pentecostal churches like to start "church plants". If there are no tongue-speaking churches in a place a pentecostal church will start a "church plant" for those who like to speak in tongues. So there is a different "sect plant" for every type of sect that cater for different people's needs.

However we do not find this situation in the bible at all even though the early church had good reason enough to do so.

If this was how it was meant to be then we would find Paul establishing different churches for the gentiles and churches for the Jews.

Instead, he writes:
Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

We could continue Paul's line of thought and say

"There is neither tongue speaker nor non-tongue speaker..." you are all one in Christ.

Of course, Paul is not saying these differences do not exist. Of course we are still in our bodies, male and female, and we are either Jew or Gentile, and some of us like to speak in tongues and others do not like to speak in tongues. He is asking people to forget the differences and "clothe themselves with Christ" Galatians 3:27-29.

If everyone clothes themselves with the same clothing, which is Christ, then they all look the same. Paul also affirms that they are "baptized into Christ".

If every believer is baptized into Christ, then there is really no basis for different "sect plants" catering for different people's "needs", based upon the desire to establish a form of worship service or practice such as tongue speaking.

Regardless of our experience and how we feel, establishment of a sect plant is no more "God's unique move" than the construction of a new LGBT, JW, or Mormon church in a particular location.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. T

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible. So the reason to question the validity of LGBT churches has nothing to do with their being one of many, but that they are seated in gross sin, and so fellowship with them must be withheld. In this case "fellowship" does not mean that we can never talk to them, but that we do not confer to them the "right hand of fellowship," meaning full receiving of them.

So your argument fails that if there can be many churches that we must accept all who claim to be churches. We don't have to do that if there are aspects of the group (namely gross sin) which the Bible plainly tells us not to receive.

You seem to think that there must be a some cut-and-dried standard of what is a "church" and what isn't. But the Bible does not plainly give us that information. Nee and Lee decided that it should have and so invented standards for which the biblical argument is tenuous to say the least.

Ironically, expecting others to agree with such tenuous arguments is in DIRECT violation of the Bible's mandate to not judge matters that plainly rely on each of us to be "fully persuaded in our own mind." The local ground, the view of the LCM about God's "unique move" and other sectarian LCM beliefs are not supported enough in the Bible to permit the LCM to expect others to believe them.

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

Yes, in extreme cases the church can decide to cease fellowship with individuals and groups. But plainly it is not the Lord's desire to give us a blank check to reject all those who do not measure up to our proprietary "oneness" standards which cannot be plainly and clearly understood and accepted by most Christians.

A sect is not just a distinctive group. It is a group which in general feels it should separate itself from other groups because of that distinction. In laymans's terms it is a group that in general thinks it is too good for others. And THAT is the distinction that matters. By that definition the LCM is definitely a sect, while many of the groups it considers sects are not.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

As Christians we should be able to be one based on the Word of God alone.
When we start basing our oneness on affiliations through ministers and ministries we fall into the trap Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.
In more recent history it's clear divisions were produced through the Brethren movement or currently with the TLR movement by lifting up men. "I of Darby" or "I of Lee".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means.

Looking at I Corinthians closely regarding oneness, Apostle Paul addresses member attitudes first and primarily. To Paul, oneness and divisiveness is directly related to how we treat the members all around us. Read about all the examples he uses.

Nee and Lee have twisted this all around, making the STANDARD of oneness how each member and each congregation is related to a minister at headquarters. That would be like Paul demanding that the Corinthians, Ephesians, Bereans, etc. all have the right relationship with James in Jerusalem. Sound a little ridiculous? Then just think for a moment what the Blendeds today demand of LC's and their members.

The Corinthians, in their loveless ways, pitted their allegiances to notable ministers against one another. Hence, "I am of" was a way to disagree with the other member he didn't agree with in the first place. The Corinthians also used attitudes towards food, finances, personal liberties, etc. to also combat one another. How sad it was! Paul's solution was to bring all the believers back to the cross of Christ and the love of God. There, and only there, are we truly one. Leave the cross and leave God's love, and no two members can get along any more. Forget about the "one city one church" nonsense. Have we not seen enough divisions there? Enough quarantines, back-stabbing, public slanders, and worse?

Back in 1977 as a young believer and college student in the church in Cleveland, I migrated to "take the ground" and start the so-called "church in Columbus" on the OSU campus according to W. Lee's fellowship. Today Columbus has 3 so-called LC's -- one of (Blended) Lee, one of Chu, and one (apparently) of Christ. So much for the ideals of oneness -- one church one city -- that "heavenly vision" which governed my earlier life.

Nee and Lee's oc/oc model does not produce its expected fruit because it is not of the Spirit, and not according to the scripture. Instead of oneness, it produces the exact same problems it was intended to solve in the first place. Only thru ministry deception, extensive litigation teams, and strict control of the press did the system of error continue as long as it did.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible. So the reason to question the validity of LGBT churches has nothing to do with their being one of many, but that they are seated in gross sin, and so fellowship with them must be withheld. In this case "fellowship" does not mean that we can never talk to them, but that we do not confer to them the "right hand of fellowship," meaning full receiving of them.

I used the extreme example to make a point. But that "LGBT church" could as well be a tongue-speaking pentecostal church which the Presbyterians might reject because they speak in tongues. In other words the acceptance for fellowship becomes very subjective based upon doctrinal matters. The basis for fellowship is not something necessarily sinful. This is why the basis for spiritual fellowship should only be Christ and the basis for practical fellowship is both Christ and the locality.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So your argument fails that if there can be many churches that we must accept all who claim to be churches. We don't have to do that if there are aspects of the group (namely gross sin) which the Bible plainly tells us not to receive.

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You seem to think that there must be a some cut-and-dried standard of what is a "church" and what isn't. But the Bible does not plainly give us that information. Nee and Lee decided that it should have and so invented standards for which the biblical argument is tenuous to say the least.

The bible does not precisely define what a "born again Christian" is either. Yet the evangelical protestant community has concocted a rather precise and dogmatic definition or standard for what it means based upon a very short dialogue between Jesus and one man Nicodemus. There are various takes on "born again" in Christianity as a whole - e.g. to be born again means the resurrection (after death), it means a process over ones lifetime, or it is instantaneous as soon as one believes in Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ironically, expecting others to agree with such tenuous arguments is in DIRECT violation of the Bible's mandate to not judge matters that plainly rely on each of us to be "fully persuaded in our own mind." The local ground, the view of the LCM about God's "unique move" and other sectarian LCM beliefs are not supported enough in the Bible to permit the LCM to expect others to believe them.

1 Corinthians 5:12 says we can judge those in the church. In particular Romans 16:17 says to mark those which cause divisions. Marking those which cause divisions can include those who plant new sects.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

The bible defines what being "one" means in Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:21. The "ones" in Ephesians 4:4-6 are the basis for practical oneness. Even without those precise definitions, one would think it should look something like Christ and the 12 disciples, and not like the conglomeration of denominations we see today.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, in extreme cases the church can decide to cease fellowship with individuals and groups. But plainly it is not the Lord's desire to give us a blank check to reject all those who do not measure up to our proprietary "oneness" standards which cannot be plainly and clearly understood and accepted by most Christians.

A sect is not just a distinctive group. It is a group which in general feels it should separate itself from other groups because of that distinction. In laymans's terms it is a group that in general thinks it is too good for others. And THAT is the distinction that matters. By that definition the LCM is definitely a sect, while many of the groups it considers sects are not.

Can't your definition apply to all denominations? Did not Luther separate from the Catholics because the Catholics were not good enough? By this definition the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are sects also because they reject protestant churches that do not measure up to their standards of what is a genuine church. If we want to define church versus sect, we have to find a definition which works for all cases.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I used the extreme example to make a point. But that "LGBT church" could as well be a tongue-speaking pentecostal church which the Presbyterians might reject because they speak in tongues. In other words the acceptance for fellowship becomes very subjective based upon doctrinal matters. The basis for fellowship is not something necessarily sinful. This is why the basis for spiritual fellowship should only be Christ and the basis for practical fellowship is both Christ and the locality.

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

Evangelical, instead of blaming everyone else for what they do or may not do, why don't the LC's stop rejecting other Christians and start opening their hearts to others? There are great numbers of Christians who serve in old denominations, yet the Lord is touching their hearts to reach out in love. You condemn others for what you are not doing yourselves. The LSM/LC leadership ought to start pray-reading verses like Romans 2.1-8 for themselves.

Therefore, you have no excuse—every one who judges. For when you judge others, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, practice the exact same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who act like this is based on truth. So when you pass judgment on those who practice these things and then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

Or are you unaware of his rich kindness, forbearance, and patience, that it is God's kindness that is leading you to repent? But because of your stubborn and unrepentant heart you are reserving wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing good; but wrath and anger to the factious and disobedient to the truth, obeying unrighteousness.

For example, the church closest to me, which I have visited, is PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), yet they don't go by that name anymore, but instead call themselves the Blankville Community Church. They have made far more progress in the oneness of the faith than you have. At least they are moving forward, while you are moving backwards.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What many call "church plants" are more correctly "sect plants". Without making this distinction then those who believe in "many churches" in an area, must by default accept LGBT churches as being a genuine church. The word "sect" is more appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" or preference. It is an assembly that looks like an arm or a leg rather than the whole body. (Insert Spurgeon quote here)

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship. It's essentially a "closed" assembly/assemblies. Not open to fellowship apart from their preference. That's what makes this system sectarian.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship. It's essentially a "closed" assembly/assemblies. Not open to fellowship apart from their preference. That's what makes this system sectarian.

I believe in Paul's day if anyone came along and started a house assembly for Jews only or Gentiles only right next door to his planted house assembly, he would condemn it as being sectarian and divisive. Today churches are planted for far less trivial reasons than being Jewish or Gentile.