The Local Church Lexicon — Common Phrases

[OBW]

There are a number of phrases that are thrown around by the LRC, and to a great extent continue to be by those who have left the LRC, even many years back. There is probably something worthy in many of them. But I wonder if what we think when we hear them is really what they could or should mean.

The two I have read most recently were in the “Christ versus Religion 50 Years Later!” thread. In this case, Igzy was the source of both statements, so I need to make it clear that this is not to or about Igzy.

When I read them, I was immediately struck by two things, 1) an impression that this was something concise and meaningful, and 2) I’m not sure what it really means.


The two phrases are:

• Genuine service to God
• The simplicity that is in Christ

My concern is not do debunk them, but to give them meaning that is more than some kind of “simply” or “just” whatever. Since there are many requirements upon us, then “simplicity in Christ” cannot be in opposition to those requirements. It needs to be understood in a manner that is not inconsistent with the words used (e.g., “simplicity”) and yet still does not negate what is truly required of us.

I am not trying to negate simplicity, but understand it. Give it a context.

For starters, when I recall 2 Corinthians 11:3 being used, the phrase “the simplicity that is in Christ” was generally put in contrast to everything that was different from the LRC way. No works. No need to concern yourself with righteousness. Just keep turning to your spirit. And so on. But the context is not about just Christ v things that even Christ commanded. It is Christ v things that are contrary to Christ. And Christ's commands are not contrary to Christ.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

So, what do these very scriptural terms really mean? How do we, or should we understand them?

And what other terms/phrases do we encounter, and even use, that do not mean what we have tended to think of them as meaning in the LRC context? We have bantered “religion” around some, but it would probably be best to leave that one alone for now since it has been discussed recently.

[Nell]

Good topic, OBW.

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Good topic, OBW.

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

There are still churches in the Reformation Movement of the 16th century.

There are still churches in the Restoration Movement of the 19th century.

There are still churches in the Recovery Movement of the 20th century.

I guess it is common for Christian leaders to make their congregations and their history more special than the next congregation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".

Nell

I'm bothered more on what's implied. That implication being God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication. Once a church decides to stop taking this ministry as the one publication, God is no longer moving there. I bothered by the notion man can place boundaries where God is moving. Do you actually think God's moving is reduced to a Christian publisher and the churches that receive their publications? All the while being closed to saints divisive for being politically incorrect. I'm sure in his time Elijah and Jeremiah were considered divisive for the things they spoke. In relation to their kings, these prophets were politically incorrect.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm bothered more on what's implied. That implication being God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication. Once a church decides to stop taking this ministry as the one publication, God is no longer moving there. I bothered by the notion man can place boundaries where God is moving. Do you actually think God's moving is reduced to a Christian publisher and the churches that receive their publications? All the while being closed to saints divisive for being politically incorrect. I'm sure in his time Elijah and Jeremiah were considered divisive for the things they spoke. In relation to their kings, these prophets were politically incorrect.

"The recovery" is a good common phrase from the LC, Nell!

This reminds me of a time a sister and I in Houston many years ago spoke with a friend of mine from work. We had been asked about our “church,” and we began speaking about the “Lord’s recovery.” This friend immediately said, “Oh, I didn’t know the church was sick.” That took us aback, but not for long. We just kept on talking because we had been convinced by the LC that “God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry as the one publication.”
I agree, Terry, no one can place boundaries on where God is moving.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by bookworm

"The recovery" is a good common phrase from the LC, Nell!

Hi Bookworm,

Maybe my post wasn't clear. I know "the Recovery" is an LC phrase. My point was that it bothers me. I don't like it. I don't think there is anything "good" about it...sorry. I'll quote myself with my original post:

Re: The LRC Lexicon — Common Phrases
Good topic, OBW.
Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".
Nell

Adding to Terry's comments, when you look at the devastation this place has wreaked in the lives of Christian believers...just the ones you know, to continue to call it "the recovery" seems absurd. I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

Nell

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Bookworm,

Maybe my post wasn't clear. I know "the Recovery" is an LC phrase. My point was that it bothers me. I don't like it. I don't think there is anything "good" about it...sorry. I'll quote myself with my original post:

Re: The LRC Lexicon — Common Phrases
Good topic, OBW.
Here's one that bothers me: "the Recovery".
Nell

Adding to Terry's comments, when you look at the devastation this place has wreaked in the lives of Christian believers...just the ones you know, to continue to call it "the recovery" seems absurd. I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

Nell

I certainly agree, Nell. I did not mean to say "the Recovery" was a good phrase but meant to say it was a good example of a common phrase used by the LC. Surely there was nothing good about it and it bothers me also and I agree it is presumptuous to say God is only moving in the churches that are taking Witness Lee's ministry.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

I think its full of hypocrisy and presumptuousness.

I am sure there are many who may disagree with your words. Maybe, but your statement is confirmed by "the ministry" when compared against practices. I used "the ministry" as a starting point, because "the ministry" is given more weight than the Bible.

[Cal]

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase.

It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

My experiences tells me that when I'm in close fellowship with the Lord, being a Christian is simple. Yes, I do all sorts of things (Pray, serve, teach, preach, etc) but they all naturally flow from my relationship with Christ.

On the other hand, if I focus on the things I'm supposed to do (pray, serve, teach, preach, etc) and do not take care of my intimate fellowship with the Lord, then being a Christian becomes very complicated. Should I pray now, or preach? Should I become a missionary to Africa or a YMCA coach? Should I embark on producing a new translation of the NT or should I distribute food to the needy?

OBW, I think you overwork this concern about the LRC disdaining obedience and preferring "dispensing." I never felt the LRC taught me that I didn't have to obey the Word, just that my obedience had to be in the context of abiding in Christ, otherwise I'd just be "obeying" according to my own understanding of the word apart from the Lord's enlightenment.

Granted, the abiding camp can go too far, but so can the obedience camp. The point is we cannot really obey without abiding, and obedience is evidence of abiding. But simply doing nominally Christian works outside of abiding and claiming to be obedient doesn't cut it. Suppose for example I "obey" by becoming a street preacher, when in fact if I had sought the Lord he was leading me to become something entirely different. I was obedient to the word, but not in the context of a relationship with God. Possibly not the worst thing I could do, but certainly a bit out of whack.

[Cal]

Jesus said, "Abide in me and I in you for apart from me you can do nothing." This implies that the things we do for God apart from abiding may amount to nothing. So in order for our obedience to amount to something, it must be done in context of abiding.

When the LRC talks about being in the dispensing, they are talking (I think) about abiding. Yes, their arrogance about their proprietary rhetoric is annoying, but that doesn't mean there is not some valid point there.

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

But make no mistake. The LRC believes in works. Any group which tells people to avoid missing meetings and to go to all the conferences and trainings is concerned about works.

[ToGodAlone]

One that I never understood was this thing called a God-man. Also overcomer sins or something to that effect...seem to be LRC specific terms. I also see a lot of indwelling spirit of Christ thrown around a lot, but that's less...strange sounding.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

When I read the Bible, I see a lot of outreach, mission, relational with respect to others. The "Great Commandment" was a combined two: Love God and love your neighbor. And the example given of who is a neighbor makes everyone we meet on the list.

So what are church-building works? How many of those were commanded relative to others. How much of the "sermon on the mount" was about religious gatherings and the development of religious groups? How much was about your interaction with others — both your brother and your neighbor? How much was about your personal righteousness?

So does anyone think that the "works" that "traditional Christianity" emphasized are worthy of disdain? What works that Christian groups do fall outside of the commands for loving your neighbor? Providing "justice" (care) to the widow, orphan, alien, homeless, unemployed, etc? I'm sure that some will try to compare the amount of LRC-style meeting exuberance those places have in their meetings. But since when is exuberance in meetings a criteria for meetings? Since when is the sober celebration of Christ and his sacrifice evidence of a poor state of spiritual being?

So what do we mean when we say "works"? So we mean something contraindicated by Christ. Or by Paul? If so, then what part of the "works" of those other Christian groups is actually contraindicated?

And if it is a matter of a perceived lack of "abiding," then what do we think abiding is that we are so sure that they are not doing it? If we learned to disdain the works of traditional Christianity, and still do it, then I would suggest that we have a serious problem with works, and therefore with obedience. It seems hard to have it both ways.

And I think the biggest problem is that we still have some kind of chip on our shoulders about at least some portion of Christianity that we think just isn't doing it right. It isn't enough like what we were taught and think. So they still must be poor. Just not quite mooing cows.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When the LRC talks about being in the dispensing, they are talking (I think) about abiding. Yes, their arrogance about their proprietary rhetoric is annoying, but that doesn't mean there is not some valid point there.

I mostly understood the matter of dispensing to be God's activity in us during trials. Via fervent prayer and clinging to the Lord, He does dispense Himself into us, even when our environment did not seem to improve, nor when He did not seem to answer our prayer. I view this to be very similar to the thought of many Christians when they say "wait on the Lord."

If one complains that technically the Lord does "not dispense Himself," but rather "He gives grace," or "He encourages us," then I say what's the difference? Inwardly there is none. The real problem occurs when God's children pray without results, and then withdraw from the Lord in discouragement. Thus little dispensing may occur, and God may be considered as only a Santa Claus, who gives me what I want.

But ... to be considerate of some posters' concerns, LSM's teaching of dispensing is indeed vain, if all our intention is misfocused on leaders and their programs, and our obedience misplaced in men and their mandates.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC didn't really disdain works, they just disdained the works traditional Christianity emphasized and focused on different works. Traditional mainstream Christianity emphasizes outreach/mission related works. The LRC emphasizes church-building/movement-building works.

But make no mistake. The LRC believes in works. Any group which tells people to avoid missing meetings and to go to all the conferences and trainings is concerned about works.

You have a good point here.

We have to ask which and what kinds of works did the LRC promote? The first and foremost was the works promoted by LSM. LSM also tended to only endorse those works which they could personally supervise. In this regard they were as much about the control of the works, as the works themselves. WL was all about controlling the works of others. He would belittle anyone's works if they appeared at conflict with his own, regardless of whether the Lord had initiated them or was blessing them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase.

It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

"It implies that there is something simple . . ."

Yes, there must be. But I note that there is a context for the verse. This verse is in the midst of a discussion that includes the "another Jesus" thought. The idea here seems to be that the real gospel is clean and straightforward. A gospel with other baggage, with other requirements, isn't as simple and suggests a Christ with different capabilities.

The point isn't that "everything is Christ so just focus on Him" or something like that. It is that what Christ demands, what he provides, and what he has done — the whole package — is straightforward and needs no alteration into something else. Our faith is in him. Our direction is from him. Our requirements are those he gave.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Granted, the abiding camp can go too far, but so can the obedience camp. The point is we cannot really obey without abiding, and obedience is evidence of abiding. But simply doing nominally Christian works outside of abiding and claiming to be obedient doesn't cut it.

And while I did not bring this one up, it has been on my radar for a while.

How does a branch abide? By just sitting there and allowing stuff to flow in at the connection to the trunk? No. It is busy doing as it takes in the nutrients. Just basking in the glow of the connection leaves you with a bunch of sap barely across the line of connection. (And as with any metaphor, there are problems, so someone will try to bring up the example of winter. Well, in winter, there is no sap flowing into the branch, so it is probably not part of the metaphor.)

During the growing season, sap flows in and it is put to use. Immediately. There is no "wait for more sap" mentality. The branch begins to use what it gets immediately. And it is getting it because it is connected. Not because it was sitting and soaking up something while waiting until enough is received to do some task.

So when we read that we have to abide before we can do anything, do we think that it means we must be connected for a while, realizing that stuff is flowing in while we do nothing? Then one day it will be time to start working? No. In the case of a vine, "abiding" would seem to be little more than "connected." And that makes plenty of sense. If I am connected, then I will be doing "according to" what is coming in. This would appear to be one way that Jesus said "walk according to the Spirit." Paul did not say something entirely unique. Just said it differently.

And James came along and pointed to the evidence that we weren't abiding. It shows in our lack of love for the brothers. In our lack of obedience.

Oh, I'm sure that there are probably more aspects to "abiding" than this, but I'm becoming more and more clear that metaphors were entirely over-applied in our history with the LRC. Or misapplied.

No, you are probably right that we were never directly told not to do anything. But the implication in these was that there was some kind of need to spend time soaking something up before acting.

Or that so many things were "simply Christ" that we figured that it would just work itself out. Those with a desire to be righteous will eventually do something. But when someone was having a hard time with something, somehow more meetings was claimed to be good enough. As if abiding is about meetings. As if simplicity in Christ is found in turning to your spirit, or calling on the Lord over and over. That's all you need.

And then comes the show stopper. What is "God's economy"? What is 1 Timothy talking about? What is it suggesting needs to be taught? This is an important phrase or term — at least in the LRC. It was used as the reason that many verses were rewritten to mean something different than what they said. Any ideas on this one?

[Cal]

So what are church-building works? How many of those were commanded relative to others. How much of the "sermon on the mount" was about religious gatherings and the development of religious groups? How much was about your interaction with others — both your brother and your neighbor? How much was about your personal righteousness?

I never said the LRC was correct to focus mainly on church-building works. Just that that's what they did. My point is they labor, albeit in a somewhat misguided fashion. Ironically for all their belief that they are clearer on the word than most, they are actually quite mistaken on its emphasis. The word does not emphasize church building, it emphasizes being an example of Christ to all. And it says we cannot be proper examples apart from abiding.

Or that so many things were "simply Christ" that we figured that it would just work itself out. Those with a desire to be righteous will eventually do something. But when someone was having a hard time with something, somehow more meetings was claimed to be good enough. As if abiding is about meetings. As if simplicity in Christ is found in turning to your spirit, or calling on the Lord over and over. That's all you need.

I have to be honest that it seems to me in reaction to the LRC you have lost a little baby with the bathwater. The fact is, God is all you need. God's salvation cannot be disconnected from God himself. God's blessing cannot be disconnected from God himself, and God's commission cannot be carried out, let alone understood, apart from God himself. And being connected with God himself requires abiding.

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well. The solution is to "serve the living God." Key phrase: "living." How to do that? The answer must be to abide in the Vine while laboring in vineyard. And many Christians don't abide in the vine even while laboring in the vineyard. That's just a fact.

On the flip side, abiding without the issue being laboring for the Lord is an oxymoron. Jesus' prescription for abiding contained the thought that our subsequent doing would not amount to nothing. James says true faith manifests works. So anyone who says "we don't need" works does not understand that true abiding issues in good works, whatever they may be.

So anyone who thinks he is abiding, but is not also serving is deceiving himself. But service takes on all kinds of forms, but it will always be there with true abiding.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have to be honest that it seems to me in reaction to the LRC you have lost a little baby with the bathwater. The fact is, God is all you need. God's salvation cannot be disconnected from God himself. God's blessing cannot be disconnected from God himself, and God's commission cannot be carried out, let alone understood, apart from God himself. And being connected with God himself requires abiding.

I'll start at the end. Being connected with God is abiding. That is what I realized for myself was the disconnect. I was looking for something more than being connected and thereby receiving what the connection provided. And I'm not just talking about being saved = being connected. We keep looking for something that is more than being actively connected that must be done before we can assert that we are abiding and then start doing something. We are over-thinking abiding. We make it into its own activity that must be accomplished before anything else can go on. That is not what the metaphor I see would suggest.

I am not throwing anything out. I agree that God is all we need. But even in saying that, do you suggest that we should just stop eating because we don't need that? Even saying "God is all you need" is a statement that is not absolutely, literally just that. Unless you are simply ready to die and move on to the next life. In fact, where does it say that God is all you need? What is the context? Is it in juxtaposition to your actual needs to remain physically alive? There is great meaning to the phrase. But it is not just 5 words that mean literally exactly that to the exclusion of everything else. It has a specific meaning that is not to the exclusion of many other needs.

I am suggesting that in the LRC we added much activity, importance, and time to what we thought was abiding. We needed to establish some kind of history of abiding. Then we might not be dead. But (as I keep coming back to) Paul did not say to do a lot of stuff and when you think you have done enough then you will fulfill the righteousness of the law. He said to set your mind and walk. No big formula. I would suggest that this is not much different than saying "abide and do."

But we are so focused on the abiding. What is it? How do we do it? How can we be sure we have really been abiding? Constantly worrying about whether at this moment we are abiding? Taking note that while we were "doing" we didn't constantly think about Jesus and therefore were not abiding?

You think I have gone too far to the obedience and doing side of the equation. I doubt I have gone far enough. And probably few of us have if we are too concerned about whether we are abiding. Do your reading. Your meditation. Take a little time through the day to refocus (however you do that — reading, prayer. . .). Accept that we are not capable of multitasking (not really). Get set and go. Otherwise we are too worried about the "spiritual" and worthless in the practical.

I seem to be pushing the "doing' so much because my observation is that even those who have been in very good, spiritually and doctrinally founded, Evangelical groups are way to much for more knowledge. More spiritual stuff. And not really much for "works." We may actually live in a righteous manner. But we still feel that there is something wrong with any kind of social outreach. Especially if there is any chance that we can't just be preaching the gospel the whole time. We put stipulations on our service. So we don't do too much of it. We let the "liberal" churches that we don't even think are really Christian do it for us. What does that say about us and our doing? Way short.

I'm talking about me too.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well.

Yes, they can be dead. But the presumption within the LRC is that they simply are dead. They aren't abiding the way we are.

How does anyone determine that about another? How do we simply call the works of much of anyone "dead"? Surely you can preach to the choir that we need to be careful not to just be doing things because we think we are supposed to but without maintaining that connection with God. But knowing that certain others aren't doing it? How do we know that?

Originally Posted by Igzy

On the flip side, abiding without the issue being laboring for the Lord is an oxymoron. Jesus' prescription for abiding contained the thought that our subsequent doing would not amount to nothing. James says true faith manifests works. So anyone who says "we don't need" works does not understand that true abiding issues in good works, whatever they may be.

And we clearly are on the same page here. And on to the end.

[OBW]

This has been discussed before as well. But it is always a good topic.

Recovery implies something is lost or damaged. It suggests that something is wrong and needs recovering. And based on the rhetoric, everything that pretends to be Christian but is not in line with Lee’s thinking on things, and more importantly, under his ministry, needs recovering. And the only place to get that recovery is in . . . well . . . The Recovery.

Now recovery is an important thing. AA is a recovery program for alcoholics. NA is for the drug addicts. OA for the overeaters. And so on. And there are now groups that refocus the “higher power” back to Christ. One such group is “Recovery at IBC.”

But somehow, despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, I’m not sure that anything important in the Christian life has been lost such that it needs recovery. Some think that all groups ought to be more like them. And if they are not then there is something wrong or missing in their worship, belief, practice, etc. And one group is especially like that. They think that so much is missing from those other groups. So much that a search party was needed, led by Nee, then Lee, and now the BBs, to find and recover all that missing stuff.

But have they really provided much that is not already there in Christianity? Outside of claiming some exclusive stuff like “ground,” what have they provided that is not just the same song under a different label?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll start at the end. Being connected with God is abiding. That is what I realized for myself was the disconnect. I was looking for something more than being connected and thereby receiving what the connection provided. And I'm not just talking about being saved = being connected. We keep looking for something that is more than being actively connected that must be done before we can assert that we are abiding and then start doing something. We are over-thinking abiding. We make it into its own activity that must be accomplished before anything else can go on. That is not what the metaphor I see would suggest.

Abiding is simply maintaining a personal spiritual contact with God. On the one hand it's very natural to do it once one gets a taste for it. On the other hand, the world, the flesh and the devil all work to distract us from it, so we tend to get distracted from it.

I never thought the LRC taught there was more to abiding than what it is. I just think the LRC worked like any other religion to complicate the simplicity that's in Christ.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying abiding is not an activity that must be accomplished before anything else can happen. That in fact is pretty much what it is. Without abiding we can do nothing. So it must come first. Unless the problem you are having is with the word "accomplished." Abiding is never accomplished any more that breathing is. It is ongoing, it is sometimes almost unconscious, but it is primary.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You think I have gone too far to the obedience and doing side of the equation. I doubt I have gone far enough. And probably few of us have if we are too concerned about whether we are abiding. Do your reading. Your meditation. Take a little time through the day to refocus (however you do that — reading, prayer. . .). Accept that we are not capable of multitasking (not really). Get set and go. Otherwise we are too worried about the "spiritual" and worthless in the practical.

I see your point.

In my experience I'm most obedient when I'm most abiding. That is when I'm flush in the presence of God and delighting in him good works seem to be all I can do. But when I'm fretting whether I'm good enough or doing enough I lose my peace and am not good for anything, let alone service to God.

"Performance failure" aka "condemnation" is a common problem among serious Christians. Jesus said come to him if you are heavy laden and he will give you rest.

It's a balance. God doesn't want us to kill ourselves serving him. But neither does he just want us to sit under a tree counting daisies. He doesn't want us to navel gaze, yet he wants us to maintain inner peace. You only find your own optimal operation by practice.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You have to recall that the early LRC was a reaction to dead works. "Dead works" is a biblical phrase (Heb 9:14). Yes, it was referring specifically to Jewish works, but there's no doubt Christian works can be dead as well. The solution is to "serve the living God." Key phrase: "living." How to do that? The answer must be to abide in the Vine while laboring in vineyard. And many Christians don't abide in the vine even while laboring in the vineyard. That's just a fact.

The key here in the book of Hebrews is faith. To put Paul and James together -- works without faith is dead, and faith without works is dead. Sounds contradictory, but is not.

Faith places the believers in contact with the living God. No man on earth, whether Pope or MOTA, can supervise the works of God through His body. God's works in the old creation are infinitely diverse, so shouldn't His work in the new creation be the same? What organization on earth could come remotely close to meeting His needs today? To talk as if on earth today is only "one work," as WL and LSM so often have done, is absurd.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The key here in the book of Hebrews is faith. To put Paul and James together -- works without faith is dead, and faith without works is dead. Sounds contradictory, but is not.

Faith places the believers in contact with the living God. No man on earth, whether Pope or MOTA, can supervise the works of God through His body. God's works in the old creation are infinitely diverse, so shouldn't His work in the new creation be the same. What organization on earth could come remotely close to meeting His needs today? To talk as if on earth today is only "one work," as WL and LSM so often have done, is absurd.

Speaking of diversity, here's a great example of it from a website called sandgrains.com. Even grains of sand are incredibly diverse.



"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore." Gen 22:17

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"The simplicity that is in Christ" is the literal biblical phrase used in 2 Cor 11:3. It's not an LRC phrase. It implies first of all that there is something simple about following Christ which is crucial or Paul would not have worried that the believers could be led away from it.

Another catch phrase that commonly was used to defraud the saints from the simplicity that is in Christ is "being one with the body." This has so complicated many a brother and sister. Instead of the simplicity of being attuned to what the Lord was doing within, many had the complexities of being "one with the body, one with the church, and one with the brothers." The demands to conform for the sake of oneness stole the joys of our simplicity in Christ.

It seems that diversity became a huge threat to the program. We often heard challenges like, "anybody can claim to be one with the Lord, but he real test is being one with the body." So often the tests of real faith in Christ were not in the unseen, but in the seen.

[Hope]

Hello Mike,

The Lord is good and ever faithful.

Regarding “God’s economy.” Or “administration” or “stewardship” as the Greek word is translated, here is an interesting verse.

Ephesians 3:8-10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Here is seems that part of Paul’s commission was to teach God’s administration (economy).

The Lord has helped me very much in the understanding of God’s administration. This was the reason I left circa 1987-88 and pretty much severed my relationships with LSM etc by 1989.

This is about the only interest I would have in continuing to interact with former or current members of the old local churches.

The personal attacks against various personalities of previous times when I was on the forum plus my own personal family issues (Daron’s paralysis) added to the time required to take care of about 25 new believers here in Durham caused me to retire from the forum.

But I will look to the Lord if I should reengage regarding bringing to light what is the administration of the mystery. May the Lord lead.

Hope

[OBW]

I am very glad to discuss the mystery, and the administration of it. Some are assuming that I am dismissing "economy" in its entirety. What I am opposed to is a system in which something as broad an all-encompassing as "God's economy" can be altered into something that, in turn, alters the view of scripture.

Paul revealed much of the life that God brought in Jesus Christ. While that life is not entirely different from the life that was decreed previously, its source of power was changed from the outside to the inside. Yet the core of that life is not actually altered. When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be. I realize that the use of quotes around a phrase is sort of way to indicate that it is not really what is being discussed. And that is exactly what I am saying. There is much to God's economy. It is mostly not the thing that rewrites scripture. It is the result of reading and understanding the scripture that already is.

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

But there does not really seem to be any desire to discuss the doctrinal errors of Lee and his followers. We like to rail on the bad things the BBs do. And point out how they are not faithful to Lee's ministry (as if that is a good benchmark). And quibble over who is following that ministry best. In other words, who does the best job of following a system of errors.

I need a break.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

But there does not really seem to be any desire to discuss the doctrinal errors of Lee and his followers. We like to rail on the bad things the BBs do. And point out how they are not faithful to Lee's ministry (as if that is a good benchmark). And quibble over who is following that ministry best. In other words, who does the best job of following a system of errors.

Why the backlash on the book of James, I don't know. There's much in the book of James I've gained from. Maybe because the text in James convicts your spirit?

When you get into the doctrinal errors versus bad things BB's do, at least my my persepctive the harmful practices are obvious. When you get into doctrinal errors, the key is learning where Witness Lee's ministry was doctrinally correct and where it wasn't. As I've stated before in the forum, until the late 80's I couldn't find fault in any of Witness Lee's ministry. Perhaps doctrinally what needs to be identified is whether scriptural support mentioned in Witness Lee's ministry was taken out of context? Going forward whatever ministry you read, this is the approach that should be taken; examination.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be.

Everyone take note. This is important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be.

To me this was another example of "Early Lee -- Later Lee." When I first read, reread, and studied this book with the church in the mid-70's, these derogatory comments about the book of James were not included. Later on in the Life Study of James in ~1983, these comments about James being "not clear about God's New Testament Economy" were used often. Then during the Crystalization Study of James, WL basically trashed the book.

So, as OBW has voiced in his concerns in recent posts, the teaching and understanding of "God's Economy" has deteriorated over time. What is now understood as "God's Economy" is a far cry from the original book on the subject. This explains why different brothers in the Recovery have completely different views of what "God's Economy" refers to. Most brothers I knew took their understanding from the Greek texts in the Bible, and the original teaching by WL. Nowadays "God's Economy" has come to mean an exclusive view, focused singularly on the ministry of WL, and exclusive to the Recovery.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then during the Crystalization Study of James, WL basically trashed the book.

In the thread RayLiotta started on FTTAOL, why would the online study include the Crystalization Study of the Epistle of James? What exactly is being taught in the FTTA regarding James?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is now understood as "God's Economy" is a far cry from the original book on the subject. This explains why different brothers in the Recovery have completely different views of what "God's Economy" refers to. Most brothers I knew took their understanding from the Greek texts in the Bible, and the original teaching by WL. Nowadays "God's Economy" has come to mean an exclusive view, focused singularly on the ministry of WL, and exclusive to the Recovery.

Nothing has changed. Read the first chapter of TEOG. It is a primer in disregarding, even ignoring scripture. There is essentially none there. And he tricks us into accepting his "just God dispensing himself into man" definition through a vague reference to some "careful study of the entire Bible" which he site absolutely none of.

And so when someone goes to other verses in which the given understanding of TEOG is used to alter the reading, then that verse is, in turn, used as evidence that TEOG really is all he says it is (which is essentially every place that Lee brought it up as a reason to reread anything in a different way than it obviously read).

That is not "later Lee." The fantasy in TEOG in 1963(ish) was no different from the fantasy of Nee in Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission) in the first couple of chapters, and Nee's dismissal of home churches as meaningless in Further Talks since to understand it as it obviously should be understood was in contradiction of the "one church in a city" doctrine.

These guys are not reading scripture for enlightenment. They are reading scripture to find where it might be construed to say what they already think is true. And if necessary, rewrite a little of it through the application of some overlay to get the job done. For Lee, "God's economy" seems to have served him well in many cases. It doesn't matter that there is a rich meaning to God's economy that would not do what Lee wanted. He grabbed it, tied it up, and led it all over the place as his proof that his misreading of scripture was really right.

It's the same old story. Same old song and dance.

They played the pipe for us and we danced. In Lee's case, we danced all the way to the bank.

Maybe the average LRCer doesn't think of God's economy as this thing that trumps words, grammar, and logic. But they are buying what Lee said that was not the words, grammar and logic of the sentences provided in scripture. And when asked why he thinks it is true, one of those overlays, like "God's economy" is given without much meaningful explanation. "It's just what is supposed to be taught, therefore we must be misreading this verse."

BTW, Lee may not have put all the negative stuff into a lot of serious messages about James in a training prior to when I left in 1987. But he had said plenty about James "missing God's economy" by focusing on "works" and other such nonsense. I heard some of it first hand.

My problem is not with God's economy; it is with what Lee did with it to effectively lead the LRC astray.

[rayliotta]

The teaching of God's economy is a Lord's Recovery pet. Its purpose is to scratch the itch, feed the hunger of needing to be special, needing to be different, needing to be unique. This belief that God's economy is something so huge, that sooooo many Christian teachers have missed the boat on -- how much does this belief reinforce the feeling that the "Lord's Recovery" is something that you could never leave?

"I could never go back to Cris-chee-a-ni-tee!"

Given this context, why would you want to continue focusing on this teaching?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read that someone is teaching that the book of James is not God's instruction to us for our living, but is allowed in scripture as an example of the wrong way to live, all because of a presumption of not understanding "God's economy," then I have a problem with what it is that they are claiming "God's economy" to be...

"God's economy," and a handful of other overlays, is used over and over to bring thoughts with no context into the reading of verses such that what actually is in the context is ignored, and in some cases, demeaned as some kind of poor thing. The book of James is just the most egregious example.

I ran into the same thing in the LSM interpretations of the Psalms, recently covered again in their semi-annual trainings. They literally bypass dozens of chapters of the Psalms, because those chapters don't fit the Lee's revelations. The excluded chapters were supposedly written by well-meaning but ignorant psalmists, and were left in the Bible merely to show us what not to do, and how not to think/act.

I'm serious. Go look at a Recovery version of the Bible, and read the footnotes. The chapters that line up with LSM "God's economy" get all the ink. Whole sections of multiple chapters are skipped because they can't reconcile them to Lee's "revelations" on "God's economy".

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

So who doesn't fit well here, the Bible or the LSM?

[aron]

Another Local Church-ism is "saints". If you are meeting in the LSM-affiliated groups, you are regarded, and addressed, as "saints". If you are in un-affiliated "christianity" then you are a "christian" or a "believer".

From the common useage, you'd think there were no saints outside of the Lord's Recovery movement. Of course LSM spokesmen/pitchmen will deny this, but that's what they say in among the LSM-ites.

"We met with the saints in Ft Lauderdale" can only mean one thing in Local Churchese. "We met with LSM-affiliated christians in Ft. Lauderdale." Nobody says "The saints in the Baptist church in Ft. Lauderdale".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest.

So here is an introduction, so you can get my point, and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. That is how I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So that was the introduction in Psalm 1 (see footnote on 1:1), which chapter is a "natural concept" psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept". Sorry, no Christ there, according to Lee.

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms pass without mention.

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1. Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I ran into the same thing in the LSM interpretations of the Psalms, recently covered again in their semi-annual trainings. They literally bypass dozens of chapters of the Psalms, because those chapters don't fit the Lee's revelations. The excluded chapters were supposedly written by well-meaning but ignorant psalmists, and were left in the Bible merely to show us what not to do, and how not to think/act.

I'm serious. Go look at a Recovery version of the Bible, and read the footnotes. The chapters that line up with LSM "God's economy" get all the ink. Whole sections of multiple chapters are skipped because they can't reconcile them to Lee's "revelations" on "God's economy".

My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."

So who doesn't fit well here, the Bible or the LSM?

I am not surpised. When the Isaiah training occurred a few years ago I was watchful for the same trend. Covering portions that are positive and affirming and neglecting portions that is troubling to the spirit and may even cause introspection. The point to realize is when content is covered in trainings, conferences, etc the goal is to tie the message in a nice bow that "reconciles" scripture to the ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Hope

Regarding “God’s economy.” Or “administration” or “stewardship” as the Greek word is translated, here is an interesting verse.

Ephesians 3:8-10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Here is seems that part of Paul’s commission was to teach God’s administration (economy).

But I will look to the Lord if I should reengage regarding bringing to light what is the administration of the mystery. May the Lord lead.

Although I've said this before, I'll repeat myself: Jesus also used the word "oikonomia" in His teachings, in the parable in the Gospel of Luke on "stewardship". LSM poured out rivers of ink on Paul's "oikonomia" of God, but largely ignored Jesus' "oikonomia" of the believer/disciple.

I guess Jesus' teachings weren't in the "central lane of God's economy".

[Loveneverfails]

Ah, I was just thinking "I wish I had a dictionary for all the LC jargon!" When I stumbled upon this thread. I know it's an old thread, but I'm currently trying to understand the common terms and phrases used in the LC so I hope no one minds if I post here.

It seems like several of my questions are addressed in the posts above, so I'll start with one that I didn't see mentioned yet:

What exactly is meant by the term "blended" and who/what are the "blended brothers"?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Ah, I was just thinking "I wish I had a dictionary for all the LC jargon!" When I stumbled upon this thread. I know it's an old thread, but I'm currently trying to understand the common terms and phrases used in the LC so I hope no one minds if I post here.

It seems like several of my questions are addressed in the posts above, so I'll start with one that I didn't see mentioned yet:

What exactly is meant by the term "blended" and who/what are the "blended brothers"?

"Blended" is one of those terms that seems like it is used in a way that is meaningless. For example, if all those meeting in a certain LC go and visit a different LC that is called "blending". I guess it is supposed to have something to do with being mixed with those who you don't know so well. The problem is that this term is only used as they see fit. So it might not apply to an assembling of just a single church, even if the members don't know each other that well.

The "Blended Brothers" are a group of brothers that see themselves as the plural successor to Witness Lee. They use the term "Blended", because in LC lingo it implies whatever they are doing involves a broad sphere of fellowship where multiple brothers have a say. This is not really the case at all, whereas they can't even accept non-LSM publications. Whatever the basis of their fellowship is, it is much narrower than they would like to admit.

[Loveneverfails]

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

I completely agree. It it a somewhat odd sounding term, with respect to the Body of Christ. The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that. I'm not sure that anyone in the LC could really give a concrete answers as to what being "blended" means.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I completely agree. It it a somewhat odd sounding term, with respect to the Body of Christ. The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that. I'm not sure that anyone in the LC could really give a concrete answers as to what being "blended" means.

It is not really much different than their teaching on the Trinity. Oh they believe in Three in One, but have little real use for anything but the One. It is as if they have blended them together into a smoothie in which they are "just each other."

Reminds me of that joke:
Q. What's green and red and goes in a circle at 150 mph?
A. A frog in a blender.

In the case of the LRC theology on the body of Christ and on the Trinity, I don't know what the question would be, but the answer is " the body (or the Trinity) in a blender."

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC has translated their Recovery Version of the Bible to fit their idea of being "blended". In the Recovery Version, 1 Cor 12:24 says "God has blended the body together", which in my mind changes the meaning of this verse. The NKJV says "God composed the body..." and the NIV says "God has put the body together..." The latter two translations make sense, whereas with the term blended you are left wondering what is meant by that.

Translators can never be totally distanced from meanings and have to translate according to their own concepts, like the LSM did. I do not believe they changed the meaning but used the word they preferred out of a few possibilities.

Actually, "blended" as used here is one of several words/expressions that could be used. The Concordant Literal Version uses "blends" while Young's Literal Translation uses "temper"; actually, "temper" seems to win hands down in most translations.

The Amplified has this: "But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body." I believe "blend" sums it up quite well. The Greek could have the figurative meaning of combine and assimilate; thus tempered together, i.e. blended.

That pretty well explains it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Loveneverfails

Thank you for the prompt response, Freedom. I keep hearing "being blended together as the body of Christ" and it never sat right with me. A body isn't blended together. It is separate components that work together and operate as a whole under the leadership of the head. "Blended" just makes me think of a smoothie.

The word is designed to be disarming to the rank and file shrouded in a cloak of spirituality. The real intention is to manipulate the undiscerning. There is absolutely nothing benign about its use by Lee or anaheim. The GLA had a total disdain for the word.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The word is designed to be disarming to the rank and file shrouded in a cloak of spirituality.

In the LC, I commonly hear the phrase "we need to blend out all our differences". To someone outside the LC, that is a meaningless statement. For someone in the LC, it is quite clear that "blending" or "blended" is synonymous with renouncing individuality. Of course it is always the rank and file LCers that are the ones who must not express their own opinions or ideas. This is where the trouble is, it is not something that starts at the top. The BB's are immune from having to set aside their own interests.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real intention is to manipulate the undiscerning. There is absolutely nothing benign about its use by Lee or anaheim. The GLA had a total disdain for the word.

I see many take this teaching of being "blended" without hesitation. After all, the word can be found in the Recovery Version. Would anyone even suspect that perhaps they translated 1 Cor 12:24 this way simply to support Lee's teaching on being blended, not because they felt that was really the best translation?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Freedom

"Blended" is one of those terms that seems like it is used in a way that is meaningless. For example, if all those meeting in a certain LC go and visit a different LC that is called "blending". I guess it is supposed to have something to do with being mixed with those who you don't know so well. The problem is that this term is only used as they see fit. So it might not apply to an assembling of just a single church, even if the members don't know each other that well.

The "Blended Brothers" are a group of brothers that see themselves as the plural successor to Witness Lee. They use the term "Blended", because in LC lingo it implies whatever they are doing involves a broad sphere of fellowship where multiple brothers have a say. This is not really the case at all, whereas they can't even accept non-LSM publications. Whatever the basis of their fellowship is, it is much narrower than they would like to admit.

Anything to distinguish themselves further from the entire Body of Christ...as if they are pleasing God. Mercy LORD! Mercy!!!!

I liked it better when we were encouraged back in the 70's to build up the saints, the body of Christ, the church. But whatever is not of the Lord, as we were told is 'wood, hay and stubble!'

question:
Is there a man amidst the bunch of blendeds who is a leader among them. I know there is a board of directors. So maybe the chairman of the board is the cut above the rest???

Just wondering...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

question:
Is there a man amidst the bunch of blendeds who is a leader among them. I know there is a board of directors. So maybe the chairman of the board is the cut above the rest???

Just wondering...

Probably Benson or Ron if anyone. They seem to be the head honchos based upon how much respect they get.

I remember back in the mid 2000's when they were pressed as to who the blended brothers are, they answered something like "the blended brothers are the brothers who are blended". So they seem reluctant to name anyone who is part of their group. I guess the top of their group would be those who speak at the semi-annual trainings. IIRC they had a special section in the semi-annual trainings where the coworkers aka blended brothers sit.

[Lisbon]

One thing that has always chafed me is taking one word from the Bible and making a doctrine. Lately we have talked about blended, blending etc for one. Surely this is a poor translation to begin with because of the context. You grind up an eye, ear, and foot together and you have none of the three. Paul says the eye needs the ear. And you know all the comparisons from this part of I believe 1 Cor. It is insane to speculate that as some have suggested we are aiming at a huge smoothie.

How many messages have we heard on the Lord became a spirit. How many on "the" Spirit was not yet? How many on Isa 9:6. How many on God's economy? Now it just looks like plain dishonesty which is another way of saying WL was lying and then his minions continued the lie.

My background before coming to the LC was pentecost. I have no problem admitting there were real problems among these people but I knew of many who were sincerely for the Lord. And besides, the tongues and miracles things is clearly in the Bible. I would never had a problem with WL saying I don't understand the situation and leaving it alone but to boldly state "we don't need these things in the church today." Who was he to make such a call. I've never known of an apostle in my whole life. If I had been told that WL was an apostle when I first came, I would never have come. Near my business there was a group of people who just loved apostles, prophets, bishops, etc. and I easily considered them crackpots. Paul talked about signs of apostles. What signs of apostleship did WL have. Dishonesty, immorality, cutting up the Bible are not signs. Excuse me, they are signs, but not of apostleship.

Lisbon