Combating LC Arguments

[ToGodAlone]

Long time no talk brothers and sisters

I apologize if it seems like all the topics I talk about are about "converting" LC members, but honestly, that's what's been pulling my heartstrings for awhile now so bear with me.

As you may be aware of, if and when you discuss other churches with current local church members, you'll probably run into many an argument advocating the Recovery over everyone else. Now, this probably comes in all kinds of flavors, but one that I have encountered the most personally is that the local church has more "life" than other churches. Now I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "life" here. I'm guessing that it refers to the sort of "family" that one gets ushered into upon joining any local church.

Now, we all know that there is no more "life" in the local church than there is anywhere else, unless life refers to pray reading, many shouts of "O Lord Jesus!", and extensive use of the the words "saint(s)", "meeting", and "economy". The only question is, how do we prove this to one who has never experienced anything outside of a local church meeting? Of course, it stands to reason that saying that they haven't actually experienced anything else and thus can't pass judgement on this kind of thing accurately would put this to rest, but remember, this is a lifetime of "indoctrination" we're dealing with here. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

There are many other arguments besides this one obviously, so I open the question to you all, how do we address these arguments when they are presented to us?

[ZNPaaneah]

You will know by the fruit. The family, the children, these don't lie. This is why you are to choose an elder based on his ability to lead his family well. If the LC is truly full of life the blessing to the families and children will be obvious, likewise if they are not full of life.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You will know by the fruit. The family, the children, these don't lie. This is why you are to choose an elder based on his ability to lead his family well. If the LC is truly full of life the blessing to the families and children will be obvious, likewise if they are not full of life.

This is a dangerous place to be looking. It might be a way to demonstrate that they are in no better a place than anyone else. That would be because, assuming a large enough assembly to be a reasonable sample, there will be examples of the best and the worst. You/they can point to examples of wayward children. To tyrant fathers. To errors in leadership. But they will also pass errors off as simply about the person, and correct things will be attributed to "the church life."

It's that cognitive dissonance that was mentioned somewhere else.

The truth is that from the inside, we will know by the fruit of the individual. It is true that the church as a whole does have an aspect of fruit that is seen by the world. And they do not notice how uplifting the meetings are. They see the church in terms of what is displayed to the world. Things like despising good works. In the mean time, the fruit of many less lively groups is seen constantly in their service to the poor and needy. Surely those are not the only evidence of spirituality or lack of it. But a lack of such things does point to a lack on the part of the group.

Looking at how a father leads his family is an individual thing. It is not the group. Otherwise, we could assert that a group in which the overwhelming evidence is that fathers lead their families well, then we could pick any from its membership to be an elder — even without observing the trait in that one specifically.

So while showing lack of good families, or a preponderance of them may say something about what is going on in the church, it may also say something about the status along the Christian walk of a predominantly new group of Christians v an older group in another place.

The key to the LRC is not their families. That might be a symptom of something deeper. But unless you think the underlying problems will simply take care of themselves, you don't just treat the symptoms. You treat the root problem. You treat the teachings of unrighteousness and error. And those may exist in a place with a preponderance of healthy families. This is an oversimplification of a very complicated issue. If you can't point to why there are problems in the families, then you are simply asking someone to switch allegiance and possibly bring the root and branch that creates that fruit with them. You have to deal with the source, not just the fruit.

[ZNPaaneah]

I wouldn't be looking and I would be offended by anyone who did. I would merely fellowship in such a way as to remind the member of the LRC that the proof of a meeting full of life will be born out in the family and the children. Let them make their own observations and conclusions. Maybe 6 months or 2 years later you will see this one opening up for more fellowship.

[ToGodAlone]

I suppose another relevant question to the topic would be, how do we show them that certain "truths" they believe in are not in fact truth? How do we back up claims about topics like the local ground, pray reading, and all that?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You will see that the current practice is merely a superficial imitation. You don't have to say this, the LRC member will come to their own conclusion and probably take this message back to their meeting as well.

This assumes, of course, that the member doesn't already realize it is a "superficial imitation", and isn't already content to just watch it continue like it is...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ray Graver wrote a short booklet on pray reading. In that booklet he quoted many spiritual men from church history talking about praying over the word, praying with the word, and speaking the word back to God in prayer.

As far as the truth on the ground of the church I would start by reading from TNCL from WN where he discusses this truth.

As ZNP has posted, Graver's compilation was very well done, and would definitely be suitable for general consumption by the Christian public. This is perhaps one of the greatest anomalies in the Recovery, since Graver went on to become one of the narrowest, most exclusive, WL-only and WL-promoting of all brothers. This shows how dramatically things have changed over the years.

Along these same lines, there is also a booklet called "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches," dated 1978, which basically was written for outsiders. That booklet also exposes how narrow and exclusive things have become. Many old-timers tend to overlook the changes and cling, albeit vainly, to the original ideals of the movement. Those those "ideals" in the booklet may never have actually been practiced in full, the actual situation was at least closer to the original "vision."

Many in the GLA read (actually re-read) the booklet during the pre-quarantine skirmishes between Anaheim and Cleveland back in 2002-2006. Most of the GLA, taking cue from TC, side-stepped much of the deterioration in the Recovery by somehow believing WL was "always faithful to the vision," while the Blended Brothers, however, have misaimed. The facts show otherwise, but it became an easy "sell" for Cleveland leaders.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ray Graver wrote a short booklet on pray reading. In that booklet he quoted many spiritual men from church history talking about praying over the word, praying with the word, and speaking the word back to God in prayer. If you could find that booklet (and I am sure both RG and BP would have copies, probably EM and KR as well) that would be a great place where you could start. I don't think anyone would have an issue with reading that book (either in the LRC or out of it) and once you do it will change your whole perception of what the term "pray reading" really means. You will see that the current practice is merely a superficial imitation. You don't have to say this, the LRC member will come to their own conclusion and probably take this message back to their meeting as well.

As far as the truth on the ground of the church I would start by reading from TNCL from WN where he discusses this truth. What you see is that the basis for the search for "this truth" was a way to overcome the divisiveness in Christianity, rather than lay the foundation for the most divisive group. To me, what makes this teaching harmful is the spirit of exclusivity. When you see that the spirit behind the teaching was to have a spirit that embraces all christians it is much easier to lay that teaching aside when it contradicts the objective.

My "issue" does not lie with why they believe those things, as I think the premise of local ground is not divisive, but how it has been applied is indeed quite divisive. What I have heard is that regarding the local ground that it was how it was back in the days of Paul (when he refers to the church in _______) and that is how it should be today. When I say how that is quite simply logistically impossible today, I have gotten the response that if God wants it to be that way it will be that way. Well then...why hasn't it? Clearly He does not want it that way, no? Alas the people are content to leave it at that and think about it no further. It upsets them. How do I pursue the line of inquiry farther when they are hesitant to listen? It almost seems rude to do so, but also vital to expose what the actual teachings have become and how they are not actually what they intended.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I suppose another relevant question to the topic would be, how do we show them that certain "truths" they believe in are not in fact truth? How do we back up claims about topics like the local ground, pray reading, and all that?

I'm not sure who the "them" is in your question but my own view is that unless a current LC system member is emphatically trying to impose his/her views on you then it is more or less pointless to engage in argument. Why? It can ruin relationships and cause hurt feelings that may never heal in your lifetime.

I don't discuss the LC system with my relatives and friends that are in it not because I can't effectively dismantle their positions but because I love them and value our relationships and respect their right to worship and practice their religion according to what they believe.

[OBW]

Tough topic. They like to think of their sense of "life" as fully objective — something as definitive as observing a rash on their skin. But it is actually quite subjective. It is about their feelings. I don't know if you ever sang the song to the old hymn "Since I Have Been Redeemed" that had lines like

The feelings do not change the fact
Jesus is Lord of all

In that particular case, the statement is true. But in most cases, it is feelings that dictate what they think is going on. One of the most troubling uses of feelings is how they use a "sense of death" as an excuse to ignore any report of unrighteousness or of error.

It is kind of the opposite side of what you are talking about. But it might be a sort of opening.

Ask why a sense of let-down is "death."

Ask why something true can be overlooked just because it does not give you a good feeling.

Point out that the disappointment of dealing with sin in anyone's life, from your children's disobedience, to the person that robbed you at gunpoint, to the spiritual leader discovered to be having an affair does not always have good feelings associated with it even though it is what must be done.

Ask on what basis running to hide behind "life" is the scriptural way to deal with sin or the way to determine correct thinking.

Ask them whether they don't have more than one feeling when they start to make those kind of "life" statements. Aren't they often burying a question that wonders if it is really right/righteous?

And if they use Lee's "a question ends with a snake" (or something like that) ask them where that nonsense came from.

It might be that you can begin to chink away at their lexicon. I once questioned someone on their use of the term "saints." It was said in a general-sounding way, but meant specifically. I asked whether that was meant to include all the Christians in the vicinity or only those in the person's assembly. They reluctantly had to admit that every Christian was a "saint" and that they had used it in a narrower way.

The key is often not a frontal assault, but just the offer of one small thing to consider. One thing to put a very small crack in their armor. Don't necessarily try to do too much at one time.

I've chinked away in small ways over the years with my parents (now only my dad since my mother's death). One time back in 2006 my wife and I spent a lot of time talking with them one evening. We realized that we probably did too much on that one event. But I recently got a question about it from my dad. And the opportunity to take a different approach. I pointed out that I had begun to read the passages that we had been taught certain things about. I wasn't thinking of defeating the LRC, just reading what I was reading. And suddenly something jumped out at me. It didn't say what I/we had been told it said. It actually said something very different. I gave a couple of examples. "1 Cor. 15:45 is not about the Trinity" was one of them. This is where I got an interesting response. I learned that he didn't think much of Lee's mixing up of the Trinity. And was disappointed that there was no place to ask reasonable questions and discuss. I would not suggest this forum. It is too deep and wild for someone not really ready to look outside his comfort zone. He needs to take it slow. And his answer may be to simply know the truth about some things and just continue to meet with the Christian community he has known for over 38 years now.

I worry a little about revealing some of this because there may be some that would try to discover who he is and report on his doubt and in it try to steal what remaining joy he has in the community even if not agreeing on every point of teaching. His thought is not exposing anyone or anything. That alone is mine. If the truth removes his joy then it will not simply be the result of one more unrighteous thing done by LRC thugs. But until them I am content to chink away at the armor.

Hi guys. I'm new to this but not without experience. I was a WWCG member for 17 years. It took another 17 years to turn my life around though, in saying that, there were other issues needing to be addressed.

Could someone recommend a book on combating LC arguments.

[UntoHim]

Hi Unregistered "Too",

By "WWCG" I'm assuming you are referring to "World Wide Church of God", a movement began by Herbert W. Armstrong?

I'm not sure many here have a lot of experience or knowledge of the WWCG or their teachings and practices.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Too

Hi guys. I'm new to this but not without experience. I was a WWCG member for 17 years. It took another 17 years to turn my life around though, in saying that, there were other issues needing to be addressed.

Could someone recommend a book on combating LC arguments.

You're a little too vague but sounds to me like, you grew up in the WWCG, and somehow got involved with the local church, and now are seeking help getting free of that too.

Hey, I'm not as informed about the local church as others out here, but I've never heard of a book written that teaches how to combat LC arguments.

Is there one for the WWCG?

Anyway, I don't want to send you on your way empty handed.

This is not the only local church forum on the web. There's other's. There's even an old forum loaded with hidden LC history ... It's the old www.thebereans.net under "archive."

But any way, the web is probably the best answer to your question.

That said you might consider reading "Speaking the Truth in Love," by John Ingalls -> http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/JohnIngallsBook.pdf

Also, google "spiders" down into these forums, so searching google for LC stuff may also help.

Here's a start :
https://www.google.com/#q=hidden+his...ss+lee&start=0

This might help too:
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Too

Hi guys. I'm new to this but not without experience. I was a WWCG member for 17 years. It took another 17 years to turn my life around though, in saying that, there were other issues needing to be addressed.

Could someone recommend a book on combating LC arguments.

Hello "Unregistered Too": I differ in my interpretation of what you're saying about yourself and what you're asking; I take what you've written to mean that you don't have personal experience with the so-called "LC", but you DO have experience with another cultish group (WWCG), and want to know how to show someone the errors in LC theology that will help them escape it's trap, just as seeing the errors in WWCG theology helped you escape.

If that's right, then the best book I've read that does a good job of that is "The God-Men" by Neal T. Duddy. I quoted heavily from this now-out-of-print book on this forum (see "Apologists Speak Out" sub forum). The author and publisher had the proverbial pants sued off of him for their efforts by Witness Lee and the LSM. The case never made trial, because LSM delayed long enough and had limitlessly deep pockets thanks to the generosity of the "saints", whose donations were used to bankrupt the Christian defendant.

I found my copy on Amazon. There were more out there, and I can't recommend it highly enough. Check out the thread though, if you can't get one handy. The book respectfully lays out the case against LC theology, exposes the hypocrisy, and renders the indefensible exactly that....

....But if you show a current LC member that book, expect them to stuff their ears, screw their eyes tight shut, and run screaming "LORD JESUS!!" from the room as fast as they possibly can. That book, more than any other, has been demonized by LSM and is about as likely to get a cursory read from your average member as, say, the Satanic Bible.

God bless you in your ministry.. and do tell us more about yourself!

Ray

[awareness]

Here's an old thread on Duddy :
Neil T. Duddy Speaks Almost Three Decades After the Litigation
http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=42223

[TLFisher]

How would you combat "God made man to make man god in life and nature, but not in the God-head" ?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

How would you combat "God made man to make man god in life and nature, but not in the God-head" ?

You don't. You laugh at it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

How would you combat "God made man to make man god in life and nature, but not in the God-head" ?

"He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," (Ephesians 1:5)

"For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15)

"so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." (Galatians 4:5)

"And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

Theme of these verses is "adoption of sons". If I was to adopt a son, legally he would be my son, but he would not have my life or my nature. Likewise as adopted sons of God we do not have the divinity of God nor do we have the nature of God. This is quite different from Jesus who is the son of God. Jesus was human, yet divine.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

How would you combat "God made man to make man god in life and nature, but not in the God-head" ?

The Bible never says it, and thus we should consider that very important. The church has never embraced it, which is also significant. Witness Lee has inferred from scripture what the scripture has never said.

The Bible also teaches that we will know by the fruit. Where is the good fruit from those who espouse this teaching? LSM has become the most litigious ministry in the history of the church. We got trainees screaming in the streets, "I am a baby God!" What good fruit ever came out of these "god-men?" They condemn all their brethren outside of their membership, and then quarantine the others who were once members.

And they wonder why the whole of Christianity considers them a "new age cult," except for Hank Hannegraaff and CRI who were, of course, well paid to write otherwise.

They have publicly stated that "returning to the pure word of God is a tactic of the enemy," so how can God even correct them from the scriptures? The ones God raises up to correct them, like John Ingalls et. al., have all been rejected and slandered as the prophets of old.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's an old thread on Duddy :
Neil T. Duddy Speaks Almost Three Decades After the Litigation
http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=42223

Wow, I have never read that interview with Duddy. He is quite candid and gives an overview of what happened in that lawsuit... not bitter, but brutally honest. That's a must-read, folks!

http://www.dialogcentret.dk/index.ph...tent&Itemid=36

"In The God-Men I wrote that we did not attempt to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" Such a question is inappropriate. The nucleus of our book was to ask if the doctrine of Witness Lee and the Local Church present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition and Christian responsibility that is true to the content of biblical revelation. Now, drained of all resources and emotional strength after several years of battle with an uncompromising Local Church ideology, I still suggest that the question of whether Lee is a Christian or not is inappropriate. But I suggest that his own actions and the actions in court encouraged by his professional staff raise legitimate questions about his understanding of the compassion and mercy of God, and the forgiveness of Jesus Christ which is revealed in Scripture. He has avoided every possible avenue of negotiation and reconciliation in order to prove a point. And, he has used resources and experts beyond ordinary means to do so. What is he really protecting? What message is he really trying to speak in the world?" - Neal. T. Duddy, Nov. 27th, 2007.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Wow, I have never read that interview with Duddy. He is quite candid and gives an overview of what happened in that lawsuit... not bitter, but brutally honest. That's a must-read, folks!

http://www.dialogcentret.dk/index.ph...tent&Itemid=36

"In The God-Men I wrote that we did not attempt to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" Such a question is inappropriate. The nucleus of our book was to ask if the doctrine of Witness Lee and the Local Church present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition and Christian responsibility that is true to the content of biblical revelation. Now, drained of all resources and emotional strength after several years of battle with an uncompromising Local Church ideology, I still suggest that the question of whether Lee is a Christian or not is inappropriate. But I suggest that his own actions and the actions in court encouraged by his professional staff raise legitimate questions about his understanding of the compassion and mercy of God, and the forgiveness of Jesus Christ which is revealed in Scripture. He has avoided every possible avenue of negotiation and reconciliation in order to prove a point. And, he has used resources and experts beyond ordinary means to do so. What is he really protecting? What message is he really trying to speak in the world?" - Neal. T. Duddy, Nov. 27th, 2007.

The sentence I have in bold is an indication there was no desire for fellowship, for dialogue. No longing to talk with, but to talk at. This is one of the local church practices I lament of.