What have we learned?

[aron]

On the "Bereans" forum, I was interested in the discussion regarding what we had learned, and with that in mind, I was reading another christian forum, "Network Norwich" in England, regarding what some posters were calling "real" (versus "false" or "hypocritical") christianity.

On the one hand, I could understand the points made by the commentators, how "christianity has failed" in so many ways, from the Inquisition to the witch crazes to the destruction of the indigenous peoples in North and South America to the Crusades. Yes, yes, and yes.

But, I was struck by the very "negative tone" of the different essays.

http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Foru...adID=19809#new

Especially the last essay, on "church" versus "ekklesia". I am sympathetic to the idea that "church" is a poor substitute for "ekklesia". But I am wary of the proposed remedy, as well. If you look at the source, "aggressive christianity . net", they don't seem very balanced, to me.

http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/

They don't seem very safe. Who will restrain the madness of the prophet?

Perhaps there are some things I can learn from my time in the Lord's Recovery Church. First, don't base your fellowship on a ministry which bashes or criticizes others. Yes, it is true that "christianity" is poor, degraded; even in many aspects it is arguably Babylonian. But if we base our ministry on how bad christianity is, and the need for some "restoration" or "recovery" church, then we are like the man praying at the temple, saying, "Thank God I am not like that poor, degenerate slob over there". Because we are all poor, degenerate slobs. See the parable in Luke 18:9-14 We should not trust in ourselves, that we are any better than poor degraded christianity. In fact, we are poor degraded christianity. Don't justify yourself by how bad the other guy is. That is poor logic and it won't work in God's eyes.

Second, if you agree with a ministry's plank that you need to "come out of her" and join one of these "purified remnant" groups, set apart from degraded christianity, then who will safeguard the flock when the leaders err, as all leaders occasionally do? You now have convinced yourself that you are "wrecked evermore" from "fallen christianity", and when the shepherds begin to beat the sheep, where can you go? You have already said that you will "Never go back anymore", and now your elder (or apostle or whatever title they claim) gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar (think, "Daystar" or similar situation here), and what do you do?

Anyway, those are some lessons from along the way, I suppose.

[UntoHim]

Thanks aron, good post and lots of food for discussion!

It seems to me a lot of Witness Lee's ministry was a kind of "addition by subtraction" - the old "if your house burns down it makes mine better". He got some of this from Watchman Nee for sure, but Lee took it to a whole new level. No doubt Nee and Lee were not the first at this kind of harsh criticism of their brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are the ones many of us are most familiar with.

In my experience it is the Christians that are the most insular and isolated that become the most critical of others. They hide themselves from others, and over time form their own set of norms and culture, then when others look and act different from them they go on the attack. The worst part is that while they are secluded in their own little world they don't get a chance to see what God is doing among his people.

I have seen that the Lord is doing a marvelous work among Christians in the past 15 to 20 years, and this includes a strong movement of cooperation of many churches within a city. This is not a forced or man-made kind of oneness but a genuine move of the Holy Spirit. I have more to say but have to wait until later.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It seems to me a lot of Witness Lee's ministry was a kind of "addition by subtraction" - the old "if your house burns down it makes mine better".

Unless he decreases, how can you increase?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Unless he decreases, how can you increase?

If there's any take-home message from the gospels, it seems to me, it is that the kingdom of God is not a zero-sum game. Jesus said to treat your neighbor as if he/she were yourself. Give to those who cannot and will not repay you. Be nice to those who don't "deserve" it. Bless those who curse you; pray for those who persecute you.

It is the opposite of our natural concept, that the other has to go down for me to rise.

That's why knocking the pathetic state of "christianity" is not a successful christian strategy in the long run. Because we are all connected. There is no "them". It is all "us". Setting our ministry or group in contradistinction to the wretchedness of others will probably not please the Father.

Another example of this natural thinking is seen in the Lord's Recovery Church push to go on the colleges and universities to get the "good material" for "building up the body". In the gospels, Jesus told us to squander our resources on the "bad material"; the ones who have no means to repay us. Then will our reward be great in heaven.

So looking to knock down others, and build ourselves up, will ultimately be a futile work.

The irony is that Lee was correct in many of his rebukes. The clergy-laity system, for example, does in fact "nullify the function" of the members, at least to some degree. So we'd all nod our heads and think, true, true. But who was Mr. Lee, or any of us, for that matter? All of us are at least partly compromised. The only success story, the only Christ, is Jesus. We christians can only endeavor to associate ourselves with Him, and look to Him for mercy. Castigating the failures of others will not bring His mercy. Ultimately, mercy must triumph over judgment. We should look at ALL of our christian bretheren and sisters and say, "The reproaches of them that reproach you fell on us also."

Mr. Lee used to excuse the problems and shortcomings in the Lord's Recovery Church by likening it to a kitchen. He said that in a kitchen there is a mess while the food is being prepared. However, he lacked mercy on the mess in christianity. Unfortunately, what you do unto others, so it will be done to you. If we base our ministry on the denigration of others, ultimately we will share the same condemnation we dish out.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

If there's any take-home message from the gospels, it seems to me, it is that the kingdom of God is not a zero-sum game. Jesus said to treat your neighbor as if he/she were yourself. Give to those who cannot and will not repay you. Be nice to those who don't "deserve" it. Bless those who curse you; pray for those who persecute you.

It is the opposite of our natural concept, that the other has to go down for me to rise.

In my other studies (outside these discussion boards and not about the LRC) I am learning that even those that the Evangelical and Fundamental sides of Christianity consider fallen or nearly apostate are not really as they have been labeled (well mostly not). While there are some truly apostates out there, in terms of the primary errors, it might be that the more zealous are the worst in that they, as aron has said, are not loving any others even half as much as they love themselves.


Since I was completely "off the grid" for about a week and the Berean site is "down for maintenance," I have no idea where the source of this thread is going. But these are the things that I have learned from these two forums, coupled with my other studies:

• God is greater than all our petty differences.
• Christianity is robust and is not nearly so divided as I was taught in the LRC.
• Language does not enhance truth, although it can help to clarify it.
• Language does not increase the level of worship or improve it except to the extent that it corrects errors in thought.
• "Decisions for Christ," or "line in the sand" conversions are not the only way people come to Christ. Note that at the wedding in Canaan, the disciples began to be impressed. But it was when he stilled the storm that they really began to believe in him. Their conversion was by listening and observing and becoming convinced.
• Based on the above, there are many Catholics that are, as we would term it "saved" even though they cannot decipher the line in the sand. They observe, are taught, begin to follow along, and eventually believe. Mixed in there are many who simply do the motions and the works and never believe.
• The "rapture" and dispensational theology did not exist before JN Darby. I don't necessarily disbelieve it, but I do not center my belief on one day achieving it (if alive) any more than I hope for a mansion on the 14th tee on a golf course, down Mulberry lane, GS (Golden Street) and can just appear anywhere I want without our present modes of transportation. If it actually happens, OK. If not, I am not concerned.

• God has revealed himself in stages. Not in modes. While the NT speaks of the Father, Son and Spirit with intent, the OT speaks of God.
• In the OT, God had the Israelites wipe out certain enemies. Maybe because they had been given enough time to repent but remained hard against God. maybe for other reasons. I do not buy the position of some current writers that suggest it was simply written down that God was behind it but he actually was not.
• The revelation of God in the OT is of the God who creates, provides, protects, judges, etc. While we can find types of Christ in certain men of the OT, they were not called god, God, or Christ. It is only in the look-back from the NT that we can call it a type of Christ. In the OT times, it was merely righteousness expressed in men who sought God.

• God did not order all Jews to return to Jerusalem after the captivity. In fact, one of the books of the OT was written by a servant of the King of Persia who allowed him to go build the wall of Jerusalem and then return to his service.
• Despite some of the problems that the Jews caused the early Gentile churches, it was the presence of Jews all over the Roman empire that aided in the spread of Christianity.
• Those who did not return to Jerusalem were not in captivity. In fact, they spread as free men/women all over the earth. How else was the earth to be blessed through them.
• The synagogue system was not some sinful anomaly. Jesus used it and spoke in it and never said a word against it. Synagogues provided a community gathering focused on God each week. Going to Jerusalem was never more than the feasts.
• Restated, there is no "recovery/restoration" of Jerusalem position for the LRC to hang any kind of "going to Jerusalem is superior to being in Galilee and going to a synagogue" theology.
• Mentioning some churches by reference to the city in which the 12 or so people who were int it were found does not provide a rule about the ground of the church.

I have also learned that Nee and Lee misrepresented the scripture on many occasions. Some of the more notable ones are:

• 1 Timothy does not tell anyone to teach God's economy. It says that God's economy is the result of teaching right things.
• God's economy is not "simply dispensing."
• The Last Adam did not become the Holy Spirit.
• The Father is not the Son, nor the Spirit. (And no others either)
• 1 Corinthians 3, talking about the wood, hay, and stubble, is talking about the builders (Paul, Apollos, Peter, etc.) and not the Corinthians.
• 1 Corinthians 14 does not say that all can prophesy. It says that all of the 2 or three that are designated to speak can prophesy.
• "Nicolaitan" is almost clearly not clergy/laity.

While not about the theology, I learned that Lee was willing to slander righteous men to protect a lecherous son whom he left in charge of his ministry. According to Paul, that made Lee unqualified for ministry.

The list goes on and on. But based on those, I cannot accept the teachings of Nee and Lee as anything more that philosophical musings of, in one case, a well-intentioned Christian, and in the other, a desire for power by yet another Christian.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

[*]Christianity is robust and is not nearly so divided as I was taught in the LRC.

Excellent point. I found christian assemblies with impressive corporate testimony. I found assemblies where the testimony in the children and teen-agers put the LRC to shame.

Originally Posted by OBW

[*]Language does not enhance truth, although it can help to clarify it.[*]Language does not increase the level of worship or improve it except to the extent that it corrects errors in thought.

I appreciate both statements. And as you elsewhere noted about James' epistle, it's not what you say, but what you do that matters most.

When we see the inadequacy of our own communicative efforts, it should serve to humble us from the notion that we can parse God's language down to the truth.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have also learned that Nee and Lee misrepresented the scripture on many occasions. Some of the more notable ones are:[*]1 Corinthians 14 does not say that all can prophesy. It says that all of the 2 or three that are designated to speak can prophesy.

It is amazing that I've gone my whole life believing "all can prophesy" without ever searching the verses to verify, just because I was given outlines after outlines stating that "fact" with verse references at the end purported to bolster the concept....except those references don't even bolster the concept once you actually look at them! Chapter 14 is clear that yes, prophesying is highly desired, but the reality, which is also clear in 1 Corinthians, is not everyone has the gift to do so.

Also loved reading 1 Cor. 14:15 "...I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing also with the mind." There is no "get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" or "don't use your mind". Pray and sing with your spirit and your mind! Woohoo!

Regarding prophesying, I was reading 1 Corinthians 14:22-32 again and have a question.

Verse 22 clearly states that tongues are for a sign to the unbelievers and prophesy is for a sign to the believers. (So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to the unbelievers; but prophesy is for a sign not to the unbelievers but to those who believe.)

So:

-tongues for unbelievers
-prophesy for believers

But then verse 23 turns around and says the tongues will make the unbelievers think you are insane (even though it was just stated that tongues are for the unbelievers). And verse 24 turns around and says prophesy convicts the unbeliever (even though it was just stated that prophesy is for the believer).

What am I missing?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Mr. Lee used to excuse the problems and shortcomings in the Lord's Recovery Church by likening it to a kitchen. He said that in a kitchen there is a mess while the food is being prepared. However, he lacked mercy on the mess in christianity.

What? On one hand Witness Lee is right if you use that analogy. There will be a mess. If I liken problems and shortcomings in the recovery to a messy kitchen, I would clean up the mess. Problems and shortcomings will happen in any Christian environment. Key is how the mess is handled (i.e. problems and shortcomings). Do you rinse and wash the dirty dishes, or do you allow the dirty dishes to pile up?
I have considered myself fortunate to have met with a Christian assembly that doesn't excuse problems and shortcomings.

[zeek]

Idealization is a mental mechanism in which the person attributes exaggeratedly positive qualities to the self or others. When viewing people as all bad, the individual employs devaluation: attributing exaggeratedly negative qualities to the self or others. [source: Wikipedia] An extreme form of devaluation might be called demonization, although, in the present context I am using the word "demon" in a metaphoric sense only.

I was reminded of this problem yesterday when a friend mentioned the human tendency to make heroes of people. That would be an example of idealization. I would like to suggest that we idealized Witness Lee when we were in the church. The problem for us now is how to arrive at an objective [fair and balanced to quote a much abused phrase] view of Mr. Lee without engaging in devaluation/demonizing him. The possibility that we suffered emotional wounds while in the church or upon leaving makes objectivity all the more difficult for us to achieve this.

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

[awareness]

Idolizing Lee needs to be balanced with demonizing him. It may be a an undesirable job, but somebody has to do it. Personally, the idolizing of Lee demands the best weapon, that of, mocking Lee & his idealized systematized theology. Mocking may be ugly, but not as ugly as scamming the saints, conning the saints, and, as Lee put it after ripping off the saints with Daystar, taking their virginity. And mocking is free, and requires no donations

.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Idolizing Lee needs to be balanced with demonizing him. It may be a an undesirable job, but somebody has to do it. Personally, the idolizing of Lee demands the best weapon, that of, mocking Lee & his idealized systematized theology. Mocking may be ugly, but not as ugly as scamming the saints, conning the saints, and, as Lee put it after ripping off the saints with Daystar, taking their virginity. And mocking is free, and requires no donations.

I understand that there is a need to vent feelings and to say things we probably should have been said when we were members. There is a general need to re-evaluate everything. I feel similarly in so far as I have not even talked about this stuff for years. At the same time, I think there is the need for us to take responsibility for the fact that we enabled Witness Lee, Mel Porter and others like them to do what they did by passively [and in some cases actively] going along with the program for as long as we did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Idealization is a mental mechanism in which the person attributes exaggeratedly positive qualities to the self or others. When viewing people as all bad, the individual employs devaluation: attributing exaggeratedly negative qualities to the self or others. [source: Wikipedia] An extreme form of devaluation might be called demonization, although, in the present context I am using the word "demon" in a metaphoric sense only.

I was reminded of this problem yesterday when a friend mentioned the human tendency to make heroes of people. That would be an example of idealization. I would like to suggest that we idealized Witness Lee when we were in the church. The problem for us now is how to arrive at an objective [fair and balanced to quote a much abused phrase] view of Mr. Lee without engaging in devaluation/demonizing him. The possibility that we suffered emotional wounds while in the church or upon leaving makes objectivity all the more difficult for us to achieve this.

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

Great questions, ones I have struggled with for the past decade or so. Yes, some idealized WL. No doubt about it. I like this word because it dodges the word "idolize," a more extreme word, which forces an up/down debate. When I was younger, I'm sure I did this to some degree. In one training in 1978, I actually felt WL was writing new books of the Bible. So I ran my thoughts by a brother I was staying with, and he graciously helped my understanding. Thank the Lord for that. Others may have not had any balancing or correcting words, and their views of WL were encouraged to soar into outer space.

Titus Chu, a regional leader in Cleveland, made an interesting comment back in 1998 saying, "I see WL as a man, but the Blended brothers see him as a god." This brief description says a lot about the difference between the GLA and the rest of the Recovery.

I have always believed that those of us with dysfunctional upbringings, and that's about all of us, were more vulnerable to idealization and its subsequent "side effects." The more dysfunctional, the more potential damage to us, and the greater tendency to demonize WL upon departure. I have attempted to reduce my level of "demonization" by addressing WL's actions, rather than his person. I can't know and judge his heart, but I can know what he did and how people were hurt because of it.

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

[zeek]

Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

Yes, that's what I would like to avoid. But it's a sorting process that might get messy at times. This time around I would like to avoid groupthink; that is, where group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. There was a lot of that in the LC. For example, in the business meetings which were a total sham in the churches I attended.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

I probably have a jaded view of this, but to me it seems as though there aren't that many good things to be taken out of it. But I don't have the same experiences the rest of you have, so I may be wrong.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I probably have a jaded view of this, but to me it seems as though there aren't that many good things to be taken out of it. But I don't have the same experiences the rest of you have, so I may be wrong.

How is your experience different?

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

How is your experience different?

I grew up outside the LR and have never been a part of it.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

1 Corinthians 5:6 "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? "

Sorry brother, but your statement about trying to sift out the leaven from what was good reminds me of a caller Walid Shoebat (a brother who was called out of Islam into Salvation through Christ) took on a radio show. This caller posed Walid this question:

"Isn't there some good in the Koran?"

His answer to her is the same I would give to you:

"Isn't there SOME good in it? Isn't there some good in the Koran? Of course, sure, there's some good in it! But imagine you are thirsty in the desert, and I have here a clean glass of pure, cold water to give to you. Now, before I give it to you, I reach into my pocket and I take out a small flask of a colorless liquid, and unscrew the top. drip-drip-drip, I pour it into the glass and then hand the glass to you. 'Here you are, drink up!' I say.

You would look at it suspiciously, and you would ask 'What did you put in that water?' All I say to you is 'This? It's nothing. That glass is 99.9% pure water, go ahead - drink it!"

Are you sure you want to drink from this cup Ohio? Can you bear to drink the cup?

You don't need Lee or LSM, no one does. This is why I refuse to call it even by thier own acronym "LRC". That very name is an abominable lie. The Lord was not behind that movement, although there were many there within the churches who surely know and love Him.

You have and know Christ Jesus as Lord, Brother. Follow Him and Him alone. If you want to look back on your past then say, "I don't know what I gained there Lord, I don't have any of what I had there left. But I praise You Lord, because You know what I need, even when I don't... and You have a purpose for all things that You do."

Remember; we should be here as Paul, to preach Christ and Christ crucified - not Lee and Lee vilified.

In Christ,


NeitherFirstnorLast

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1 Corinthians 5:6 "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? "

Sorry brother, but your statement about trying to sift out the leaven from what was good ... Are you sure you want to drink from this cup Ohio? Can you bear to drink the cup?

You have and know Christ Jesus as Lord, Brother. Follow Him and Him alone.

Brother NFNL, we are on different wavelengths here.

We have fine folks who have left the LRC, and have discarded Christ their Lord and Savior, their Bible, all their Christian friends, and have thrust head first into alcohol, drugs, witchcraft, atheism, etc.

So when I speak about discerning "the good from the worthless," (as in Hebrews 5.14) we are obviously speaking of different things.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother NFNL, we are on different wavelengths here.


So when I speak about discerning "the good from the worthless," (as in Hebrews 5.14) we are obviously speaking of different things.

I don't think we are, brother.

You had said:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

You did not say, "I need to discern which teachings of Christ, of the Bible, of the Truth had been leavened." - you speak rather of Lee's teachings. You are saying that some of Lee's teachings were good, and that you can somehow separate the good from the bad. That's a difficult if not impossible task, and that's what 1 Corinthians 5:6 tells us.

Imagine the sum of Lee's ministry - his entire set of Life Studies, commentaries, messages, etc. etc. are likened to a loaf of Wonderbread. Now I come and place this loaf of Wonderbread in front of you, and say "Here my brother is food to nourish you. Only beware the leaven of the bread. That will poison you, sicken you, and kill you." Would that loaf be of any use to you at all? HOW do you pick leaven - yeast - out of the loaf to eat the nourishing substance in that loaf? More importantly, do you not see that even if you were able to exactly chemically separate what was left of the yeast from rest of the components of the dough, is it not still true that the presence of yeast in the bread earlier changed it's very composition and nature? No matter what you do, the dough was effected by that yeast, and it can never again be the same.

I began reading this morning from an abridged edition of Jessie Penn-Lewis' "War on the Saints". What touched me immediately was the Forward to this edition - please read this through carefully:

"John Wesley, in dealing with overbalance and fanaticism, uses the word enthusiam, and says: "Enthusiasm is undoubtedly a disorder of the mind; and such disorder as greatly hinders the exercise of reason. Nay, sometimes it wholly sets it aside: it not only dims but shuts the eyes of understanding. It may, therefore, well be accounted a species of madness; of madness rather than folly: seeing a fool is properly one who draws wrong conclusions from right premises; whereas a madman draws right conclusions, but from wrong premises. And so does an enthusiast. Suppose his premises are true, and his conclusions would necessarily follow. But here lies his mistake: his premises are false. He imagines himself to be what he is not, and therefore, setting out wrong, the farther he goes, the more he wanders out of the way."


My God my God! Does this very word not speak to the nature of the LSM system in it's entireity, and to your own quest to discover and remove the leaven specifically? Lee's premises are false - and his ministry was built entirely upon one premise: That the Bible contains MORE THAN ONE GOSPEL - that it has a LOW and a HIGH Gospel... that there was a "different gospel" to be preached, that no one else on Earth was preaching: God's Economy! We are warned very specifically within Scripture to stay away from those who preach a different gospel (Didn't Paul say: " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned." (Galatians 1:6-9) and also "..there shall be false prophets among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." (2nd Peter 2:1-3 excerpted), and did He not praise the Church in Ephesus when He said "you have tried those who say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2. In Lee's case, we ALL ignored Christ's admonition. I am not singling you out brother - far from it: we were ALL decieved. That's indeed a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it we must.

How were we so easily deceived? Because, I think, we were seduced. We were seduced by a man who really was very gifted at writing and constructing clever arguments to make his case. We were deceived because he built a system that gave us something that many Christian groups don't have: a true community of fellow saints. That was sweet, I confess it - but the plan behind that community was most foul: It was a plan that would see us isolated from our brothers and sisters in Christ, the True Body Universal, and would make us more susceptible to the deception within, so that even when we heard troubling news, we immediately discounted it and determined that to even raise questions would be rebellious.

We became the enthusiastic slaves of the system: we helped build a Corporation built on book publishing, funded by our donations, built up by our time spent constructing halls and housing... and all to do what? To reach the lost for Christ? To preach the gospel (even the so-called 'Low gospel') to the unbelieving world? To provide shelter for the poor and food for the hungry? To reach out to those in prison or those in distress? No. None of those things. The money and time we invested in LSM was used to build up it's offices and it's corporate profits and launch lawsuits against fellow believers to protect those assets and that income... and ultimately to raise first one man (Lee) and today a consortium of them up (the so-called 'Blended Brothers') on pedestals where they do not belong. Where no man belongs, in the place we are to reserve for Christ and Christ alone (Ephesians 5:23b "Christ is the head of the Church, His Body, of which He is the Saviour.")

Shame on us all! We were taken in because we did not study enough of the The Word, because we were not able to discern for ourselves what was the truth. Because we failed to test every spirit. We failed to trust our own discernment. We came to imagine we were something that we were not: the only true church, the only overcomers in a world full of perverse 'christians' who didn't know Him as we knew Him. The truth is, we thought we were rich and increased with goods and had need of nothing. We thought we had it all. But we were poor and wretched and miserable and blind and naked. (Rev 3:17-18).


The only defense against false apostles is found in staying in the Word. This is something each of us needs to do daily. And don't just study - obey. That's the part left entirely out of LSM's ministry: The need to obey Christ and the commands of the Father. It's left out because that would put you under the light yoke of Christ, and out from under the heavy and burdensome yoke of LSM.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

Well we have had a lot of discussion on the meaning of leaven in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through all those discussions that WL understanding and teaching of leaven is inaccurate. So I would encourage you to discard that teaching first.

My reasoning is this. The OT said "purge out the old leaven" and this referred to once a year removing all of the leaven from the house for a week. In order to make leavened bread the Israelites would have kept a cup of sour dough by the hearth. Once a year this sour dough would have been thrown away. To make a new batch they would make unleavened bread, remove a lump and put it in the cup. A week later it would be a new batch of sour dough. They would then put this into the dough every time they made bread and before cooking they would remove a lump to go back into the cup for sour dough. God did not tell them to stop making leavened bread, rather his emphasis was on "the old" leaven. After all, if leaven signifies sin then why did Israel eat leavened bread 51 weeks out of the year?

So, if you consider it, the worst thing about the teachings of WN and WL is that the LRC refuses to purge out the old leaven. If instead WN and WL were merely treated as those who baked bread for many years and passed on the art to us, and now the LRC is full of those baking bread, the errors of the teaching would seem minor and easy to correct. The real issue is his teachings are becoming codified. The Lord said to purge out the old leaven, not venerate it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well we have had a lot of discussion on the meaning of leaven in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through all those discussions that WL understanding and teaching of leaven is inaccurate. So I would encourage you to discard that teaching first.

My reasoning is this. The OT said "purge out the old leaven" and this referred to once a year removing all of the leaven from the house for a week. In order to make leavened bread the Israelites would have kept a cup of sour dough by the hearth. Once a year this sour dough would have been thrown away. To make a new batch they would make unleavened bread, remove a lump and put it in the cup. A week later it would be a new batch of sour dough. They would then put this into the dough every time they made bread and before cooking they would remove a lump to go back into the cup for sour dough. God did not tell them to stop making leavened bread, rather his emphasis was on "the old" leaven. After all, if leaven signifies sin then why did Israel eat leavened bread 51 weeks out of the year?

So, if you consider it, the worst thing about the teachings of WN and WL is that the LRC refuses to purge out the old leaven. If instead WN and WL were merely treated as those who baked bread for many years and passed on the art to us, and now the LRC is full of those baking bread, the errors of the teaching would seem minor and easy to correct. The real issue is his teachings are becoming codified. The Lord said to purge out the old leaven, not venerate it.

My use of the phrase "purge out the leaven" has nothing to do with the O.T. practice of the Israelites. My understanding is based on I Cor. 5.6-13, Gal 5.7-9, and Matt. 16.11-12. Here Jesus instructs His disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" referring to their teachings. These teachings had to be removed or purged from the disciples. After the Lord gave them this warning, He took them to Philippi, and asked them, "who do men say that I am? Obviously the leaven of the Pharisees hindered them from knowing who Christ really was.

In Corinth, the church there was "glorying" in evil things. Their thinking and teachings about moral matters was leavened, so Paul warned them to purge out these teachings of malice and wickedness. Paul even went further to instruct the church to separate themselves from those who practice such evil. To the Galatians, Paul reminded them of how well they were running after Christ, but were leavened by the teachings of the Judaizers. They had not been persuaded by Him who had called them, but by leavened teachings which affected the whole lump.

Both Jesus and Paul struggled to expose the teachings, practices, ways, patterns, thoughts, principles, methods, etc. which collectively could be considered as "leaven." These much be purged, so that what remains can be a new lump of fine flour, representing Christ and His pure word. One brother has wisely said, "we got lots of extras" in the LC's. These extras are the leaven which require purging. The Lord never said to throw the "lump" out with the leaven.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My use of the phrase "purge out the leaven" has nothing to do with the O.T. practice of the Israelites. My understanding is based on I Cor. 5.6-13, Gal 5.7-9, and Matt. 16.11-12. Here Jesus instructs His disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" referring to their teachings. These teachings had to be removed or purged from the disciples. After the Lord gave them this warning, He took them to Philippi, and asked them, "who do men say that I am? Obviously the leaven of the Pharisees hindered them from knowing who Christ really was.

In Corinth, the church there was "glorying" in evil things. Their thinking and teachings about moral matters was leavened, so Paul warned them to purge out these teachings of malice and wickedness. Paul even went further to instruct the church to separate themselves from those who practice such evil. To the Galatians, Paul reminded them of how well they were running after Christ, but were leavened by the teachings of the Judaizers. They had not been persuaded by Him who had called them, but by leavened teachings which affected the whole lump.

Both Jesus and Paul struggled to expose the teachings, practices, ways, patterns, thoughts, principles, methods, etc. which collectively could be considered as "leaven." These much be purged, so that what remains can be a new lump of fine flour, representing Christ and His pure word. One brother has wisely said, "we got lots of extras" in the LC's. These extras are the leaven which require purging. The Lord never said to throw the "lump" out with the leaven.

Well, I think regardless of OT or NT, if you use the term "leaven" to refer to teachings you are using an analogy. The metaphor is still the same metaphor. The reason for purging could be that it is old, or that it is evil, or that it is malicious, but whatever the reason, the practice of purging would still be the same.

The quote that I was commenting on said you wanted to figure out "which of WL's teachings were leavened and purge them". My understanding of this analogy is that all teachings are leavened. The leaven isn't the factor that determines it is evil, or malicious, or old. Teachings act similar to leaven by causing the whole lump to be leavened (just like WN teaching that you have one church in one city affected the entire LRC). So Jesus's words were "the bread of life" and the Body of Christ is likened to a loaf of bread "we being many are one lump". WN's teachings spread like leaven and have leavened the whole Body of Christ. The fact that they act like leaven doesn't make them evil, or old, or malicious. So why is the Lord's Body likened to unleavened bread? The NT age was a time to purge out the old teachings, not because they were bad, or evil, but because they were old. Prior to the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ they might have been fine, but after the crucifixion it was time to start anew.

Second, what is truly the most damaging teaching of the LRC or of LSM? My feeling is that they forbid the saints from purging out the old teaching. Say for example that as a result of the Life study messages there were 100 saints that stood up and began to minister. John So, JI, etc. No one stopped them, no one defamed them, no one excommunicated them, no one required that they filter everything through the LSM office. If that were the case any other negative teaching of WL would be irrelevant. It would have been corrected by the Body of Christ, he would have been balanced by others, he would have been rebuked, chastened, etc. The truth would have prevailed and PL would have been properly dealt with. So instead of canonizing his teachings they should have been used for a springboard for many others to go forth and speak. WL often said that he was standing on the shoulders of giants. So why all of a sudden did they forbid anyone else from standing on their shoulders?

Third, I would contend that because they didn't purge out the old leaven but instead took the erroneous concept that WL ministry was the end all and be all, it was the effort to make that so that brought in the malicious and evil teachings. Is the MOTA a spark plug that ignites everyone else or is he a lone burning coal that everyone has to huddle around to stay warm. The second view, to me, is pitiful and pathetic, but that is the one the LSM took, the BB's carry, and the LRC pushes. My point is not to accept the teaching of the MOTA but to point out how pathetic their view is of this MOTA. The Apostle Paul lit a fire that has spread around the world, like leaven, so that there are more than a billion saints worldwide. In contrast the only thing the LSM will raise up with their MOTA teaching is parrots. The LRC is not for everyone, it is only for those willing to parrot WL.

Why did this happen? Because he teaches that leaven signifies sin. If instead you understand that just like gathering manna every day, the labor in the word also must be done daily. You can't live off of yesterday's manna and you can't live off of yesterday's teacher. On the other hand if you understand that you have to regularly purge out your old teaching and start anew, then we would have taken a different path. If you understand that teachings are like bread, then it is easy to understand you can't save 20 or 30 year old bread and feed a church with it. You have to make bread fresh every day, at least every week.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.

Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.
Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

Well said. Amen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.

Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

The "we" questions were intended to query the group to see if anyone had these experiences in common. You don't think those generalizations apply to you. Got it. By piling on, I meant the tendency of groups to promote consensus by attacking out-group members. Stuff like that happens.

[OBW]

Ohio,

I came to the forum this morning after 3 days out of town with no connections. And my typical markers to what had not been read were not accurate, so I had to fish back and try to remember what I last read.

And in this thread I started shortly before your post concerning what Lee taught on several verses, mostly in Revelation, on which he was correct. But showing that Lee did teach some correct things does not answer the question as to whether it is reasonable or wise to hold on to Lee's teachings.

So that is what I responded to. In your case, to simply say Lee taught only junk would be ridiculous. That would leave you with no firm foundation.

As for the comments about people throwing out Christ along with Lee, that is a different problem. But even there, you can't just link the two. It must be differentiated.

My decision to intentionally dismiss what I recall as coming from Lee was not to dump truth and have nothing, but to take the position that what I sense being of Lee/LRC origins (and Nee for that matter) would be intentionally open for debate/discussion. Even if I did not know how to go about it, I would start with the idea that if I was not also finding it in front-and-center, mainstream Christian teaching it would be suspect. I would not speak it as if simply true. Instead, I would intentionally read the relevant passages and alternate sources of commentary with an intent to let it speak as if in a vacuum rather than in need of supporting or opposing Lee.

And, of course, a lot of the Lee differentiators were terminology used just to stir things up. I now find that saying "communion," "Sunday," "recite," "tradition," "religion," etc., without immediately being accosted by Lee's narrow or alternate definitions in my mind is very liberating. I can have "true religion" and can practice according to a "tradition" without looking around to see if some LRC acquaintance is in the vicinity. If there is a problem with any of those words, it is in their court, not mine.

I will not speak as if there is some "ground of oneness" that we have to look for. Or flinch at the idea of being a member of an assembly that is part of a denomination. While there may be a general problem with the top leaders of the various denominations not being more open to discuss their positions in that manner, it is nowhere near as bad as with the leadership of the LRC. (And I pick on the leadership because if we think that we are each individually responsible for doctrine, then there will never be any kind of oneness.) With a few exceptions, the leadership of "poor pathetic Christianity" is more inclined toward oneness than the LRC is within its own denomination.

And for most of us, being the building, and the farm, is much easier (and biblical) than all being the workers. We have some basis for stability. Even if we are included at some level in the discussion of doctrine and teaching, the fact that some are commissioned to study and preach the Word for our benefit is a help to us all. The alternate is a mess in which we all think entirely whatever we want and there is strife at more levels than Paul found in Corinth.

In effect, "let's just all be equal brothers/sisters" is not entirely scriptural. There are to be teachers. Jesus sent out the disciples to preach and teach. He didn't just send them because all the others were fallen and reprobate. He did it because those are the ones he trained and commissioned. It does not excuse us from the exercise of our gift. But everyone is not a teacher, or prophet, or evangelist, or even shepherd. Yet we can all shepherd to some extent. And we do speak. But it is not what Paul was talking about. There are workers, but there is a farm. And for most of us, we are the farm. Our primary task is learning and obeying. Not leadership, but God. And yet to some extent we don't know God without leadership. We just become disgruntled if we think it is all about us and there are no leaders. There are some of those around here at times.

[zeek]

In effect, "let's just all be equal brothers/sisters" is not entirely scriptural.

Remember Witness Lee taught us that if we were all on the same level we would be like a snake that crawls on its belly. Therefore, equality must be evil.

[zeek]

One way toward greater objectivity is to place the object under consideration in a larger context. With that in mind, compare WL and the LC with L Ron Hubbard and Scientology or Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catholic Church or how about David Karesh and the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones and the folks at Jonestown. Does WL and the LC look any better to you?

[UntoHim]

Thanks for the input Zeek.

I guess what I would like to see is people to address what aron wrote in the opening post of the thread. I think it's a good starter for a discussion of what could be gained from our Local Church experience. I am fully aware that there are many out there that think there is nothing to be learned or gained, and maybe this thread is not for them.

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps there are some things I can learn from my time in the Lord's Recovery Church. First, don't base your fellowship on a ministry which bashes or criticizes others. Yes, it is true that "christianity" is poor, degraded; even in many aspects it is arguably Babylonian. But if we base our ministry on how bad christianity is, and the need for some "restoration" or "recovery" church, then we are like the man praying at the temple, saying, "Thank God I am not like that poor, degenerate slob over there". Because we are all poor, degenerate slobs. See the parable in Luke 18:9-14 We should not trust in ourselves, that we are any better than poor degraded christianity. In fact, we are poor degraded christianity. Don't justify yourself by how bad the other guy is. That is poor logic and it won't work in God's eyes.

Second, if you agree with a ministry's plank that you need to "come out of her" and join one of these "purified remnant" groups, set apart from degraded christianity, then who will safeguard the flock when the leaders err, as all leaders occasionally do? You now have convinced yourself that you are "wrecked evermore" from "fallen christianity", and when the shepherds begin to beat the sheep, where can you go? You have already said that you will "Never go back anymore", and now your elder (or apostle or whatever title they claim) gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar (think, "Daystar" or similar situation here), and what do you do?

Anyway, those are some lessons from along the way, I suppose.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for the input Zeek.

I guess what I would like to see is people to address what aron wrote in the opening post of the thread. I think it's a good starter for a discussion of what could be gained from our Local Church experience. I am fully aware that there are many out there that think there is nothing to be learned or gained, and maybe this thread is not for them.

Let's face it UnToHim, many that left or were pushed out of the local church felt that they gave their all to the best Christianity had to offer, and concluded that not only did the recovery let them down, but also Christianity.

My Chinese wife in the LC did this. She let go of all religion. Didn't want any part of any of it. I couldn't blame her. In my confusion back then I was drawing the same conclusion.

It made me question literally everything. And here I am today, still, not trusting in anything those in Christianity have to offer, and the premises and basis for what they believe.

So you are hearing from me. But we will not hear from those that walked away and left it all behind.

Yet, their silence speaks volumes. Where do we go after the LC? Some go completely way.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are hearing from me. But we will not hear from those that walked away and left it all behind.

Well, you're hearing from me, awareness. And you're hearing from 11of101, too.

Oh, wait, we were hearing from 11of101, and then, and then .... and then what? Anyone care to tell us what happened to 11of101?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Well, you're hearing from me, awareness. And you're hearing from 11of101, too.

Oh, wait, we were hearing from 11of101, and then, and then .... and then what? Anyone care to tell us what happened to 11of101?

11of101 is just such an example. He went beyond the parameters of these forums. Which reveals that if we were to hear from those that walked away from it all, we'd boot them off these forums. We only want to hear from Christians, or those that talk the Christian talk.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

11of101 is just such an example. He went beyond the parameters of these forums. Which reveals that if we were to hear from those that walked away from it all, we'd boot them off these forums. We only want to hear from Christians, or those that talk the Christian talk.

Now, now Harold, you feisty loveable contrarian - You are living proof that what you have written here is simply not true. Where does it say that we only want to hear from Christians, or those that talk the Christian talk (whatever that is:rollingeyes2 Over the years, on these forums, we have had lots of interactions with atheists and even a Buddhist. I don't know about the BARM, but nobody has ever been banned from this forum because they are not a Christian, much less those who don't talk the Christian talk. You're just trying to stir the pot

So let me make this clear (as if it wasn't already) - LocalChurchDiscussions.Com is "An online community of former and current members of the Local Churches associated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". As I have noted numerous times, it "takes all kinds" to have an interesting and lively community. Yet at the very same time a community has every right to regulate and police (when necessary) to assure that the community is a safe and sane place for all. Every once in a while certain posters have crossed the boundaries.

Furthermore, I have made it no secret that I would like to see this place be a safe and sane place for CURRENT LC members to come to dialog. Also I would like to see more women/sisters posting. With this in view, I put a very short leash on those posters who would be a deterrence to current LC members or women/sisters participating. It's ok, and reasonable, that there would be disagreement and misunderstandings - but blatant disrespect and vulgar language will not be tolerated.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Oh, wait, we were hearing from 11of101, and then, and then .... and then what? Anyone care to tell us what happened to 11of101?

Hey ray,
11of101 was asked to "tone it down" and he refused. He was posting really bizarre and wondering things, and sometimes really vulgar stuff. Just cause he was in the Local Church does not give him the right to post whatever he wants. There are lots of other internet forums where they may give him the freedom to post such things. LC Discussions is the wrong venue for him.

[OBW]

So localchurchdiscussions.com is not a soapbox in Hyde Park where you can simply say anything about anything or anyone with impunity?

Go figure.

And the sympathies of one or two people do not excuse unacceptable behavior?

Imagine that. There are bounds to this forum.

Thank you for putting bounds on this forum, UH.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey ray,
11of101 was asked to "tone it down" and he refused. He was posting really bizarre and wondering things, and sometimes really vulgar stuff. Just cause he was in the Local Church does not give him the right to post whatever he wants. There are lots of other internet forums where they may give him the freedom to post such things. LC Discussions is the wrong venue for him.

Thank you for setting a standard and keeping it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey ray,
11of101 was asked to "tone it down" and he refused. He was posting really bizarre and wondering things, and sometimes really vulgar stuff. Just cause he was in the Local Church does not give him the right to post whatever he wants. There are lots of other internet forums where they may give him the freedom to post such things. LC Discussions is the wrong venue for him.

I wasn't here when 11of101 posted, so I don't how he carried himself out here.

However, I've communicated with him thru email, and he seems okay in our discussions.

So I'm inclined to think we should have considered that 11of101 was going thru some post local church cognitive dissonance and troubles, and maybe we should have been more long suffering toward him.

Cuz I think 11of101 had some important contributions to the forum, if we could have just let vent some of the pressure built up in him.

Talking the talk is good, but sometimes we need to walk the walk with some of our wayward brothers and sisters, and care for them, especially if their troubles were a result of leaving the local church.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey ray,
11of101 was asked to "tone it down" and he refused. He was posting really bizarre and wondering things, and sometimes really vulgar stuff. Just cause he was in the Local Church does not give him the right to post whatever he wants. There are lots of other internet forums where they may give him the freedom to post such things. LC Discussions is the wrong venue for him.

UntoHim,

Your task of achieving some sort of balance here...is certainly not an easy one.

I would point out, though, that by offering people their own "blogs", there may be an invitation to be a little more, shall we say, candid in one's remarks... Obviously the lines are blurry when it comes to what people expect from communications over the wonderful Internet, but isn't it safe to say that having your own personal running thread, as it were, might be understood to give just a wee bit more license than a running conversation between many posters? Know what I mean?

And even if there was an "offensive post" (or two) outside the blog, I'm not sure that that even changes what I'm saying. Wouldn't it have been possible to just say, Hey, no more blog for you...but go ahead and carry on in the conversations here, just keep it PG-rated, OK?

And hey, maybe you did that. I dunno. Just sayin'.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for the input Zeek.

I guess what I would like to see is people to address what aron wrote in the opening post of the thread. I think it's a good starter for a discussion of what could be gained from our Local Church experience. I am fully aware that there are many out there that think there is nothing to be learned or gained, and maybe this thread is not for them.

Right-- Yes that was a good opening post. I have already cited one teaching, that of "taking Christ as your person" which I find worthwhile. But, I also learned to avoid certain kinds of leaders, groups and group behavior. A few years ago I became interested in Tai Chi and started going to a Tai Chi class. I still think Tai Chi is an excellent form of exercise. The classes were given by the local Tai Chi Society. At every class the teacher gave a pitch for what the society. They were prosletyzing and it had a familar cult-like ring to it. I dropped the course. I think Taoism is great, but I'm not interested in joining a Taoist cult.

It seems like everybody is trying to pitch their thing. I feel that I have already paid my dues in that regard by sitting through too many LC meeting watching WL's talking head on TV. I don't want to follow anybody. I don't think I need to be preached to or at. I don't need to hear another sermon.

I should have known better before I "joined" the local church. I feel like part of me, inside, did know better yet I went though it for 13 years. That was long enough...too long.

By some measures Jesus and his followers were a cult. The pejorative meaning of the term grew to prominance after the Jim Jones tragedy. But in some of the stories Jesus sounds like he was a reluctant savior. That would make him an atypical cult leader. They seem only too happy to be messiahs.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

But in some of the stories Jesus sounds like he was a reluctant savior. That would make him an atypical cult leader. They seem only too happy to be messiahs.

Wow, that's really true, zeek.

But, of course, you have Jesus, and you also have Paul. And Paul comes across as one who would not shy away from his "commission", as he saw it. I don't think I'm criticizing Paul here, but where do we get this impression of ... "and Paul withdrew"?

We don't. And of course, Paul is Witness Lee's template.