Does "Baptist" Mean to a Baptist What "Recovery" Means..

[Cal]

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)


What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

[OBW]

In other words, the LC engages in a form of equivocation concerning the significance of their moniker v the significance of that of others.

In reality, it would seem that the LC thinks more highly of their moniker than does most other Christian groups. Yet they speak as if it is the opposite. “Red is grey and yellow, white.” I think I know which is an illusion.

[countmeworthy]

I think the BIGGEST difference between the 'Lord's Recovery' and all other Christian gatherings who meet in a building once or twice a week to hear the Word of God is that in the LC meetings, people used to 'testify' after the message was given by the elder.

I don't know if they still call it testify or if they now call it prophesy.
The other difference was/is that at prayer meetings, people in the LC would 'build upon' each other's prayers...again supporting the 'burden' for the week.

I'm not critisizing the testimonies. I rather enjoyed the testimonies. It helped build confidence in the saints and I think over all that was a good thing.

I don't think it's like that now. I think people stand in line and there are little bells so the testimonies don't get too long winded. I don't know for sure.

Anyway.........those are the differences that distinguish 'The Lord's Recovery' from any other denomination or non-denomination IMHO. (In My Humble Opinion)

Otherwise, there isn't much difference. Well....I don't know...I don't know how many congregations watch webcasts.

[Hope]

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Just as the Recovery have much in common with the Plymouth Brethren (aka Exclusive Brethren), the Recovery also has some in common with the SBC Baptists. Some of which I am going to present a superficial comparison.

• Baptism
  1 Baptists I met with did not emphasize baptism, but who one is baptized can only happen by immersion.
  2.Local Churches was not as strict how one is baptized, but beginning with my baptism and all the baptisms I had witnessed in the Local Churches, all were by immersion
• One Publication
  1. Baptists use a Lifeway publication for their Lord's Day Sunday school.
  2. Local Churches uses a LSM publication for ther Lord's Day prophesying time.
• Children's Ministry with the view of salvation
  1. Baptists have a Children's ministry with the intent of Children's salvation.
  2. Local Churches used to have a Children's ministry with the same purpose of salvation.
• Membership
  1. Baptists make membership being a formality before becoming a member of the assembly.
  2. Local churches all that is needed for membership is regeneration; salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.
• Community
  1. Baptists stress serving the community
  2. Local Churches stress a ministry over locality

Personally I think it would be an easy transition for a Baptist to enter into the Recovery brand of fellowship. One of the few differences would me no visible clergy instead of a pastor.

[Evangelical]

I think Terry a while ago stated the clear difference between a baptist denomination/sect and a local church right here:

Originally Posted by Terry

[*]Membership
1. Baptists make membership being a formality before becoming a member of the assembly.
2. Local churches all that is needed for membership is regeneration; salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Any group that has formal membership requirements must automatically be discounted as being a genuine local church. When a person is baptized in a Baptist church, they are baptized into the Baptist church, hence their baptism is denominational. This is demonstrated when a Baptist church will re-baptize a person just because they were not baptized properly by full immersion or baptized in a non-similar denomination. People who have a denominational baptism will usually say "I was baptized as a ... Baptist" , or "baptized as a ... Lutheran". They have no concept of true baptism when they think they are baptized into a particular denomination.

[Hope]

Ibzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptist being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities.

Being raised in the local churches, one minor teaching is other Christian assemblies are denominations because a name is taken. This thread is comparing Baptists to LCers. I think more important than a name is our heart. Where are we giving the headship?
Is it necessary to be pigeonholed according to a particular denomination? Whether it's LC, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Brethren?
Isn't it good enough just to be a brother or sister in the Lord and see each other as such?
What Igzy's question says to me, if a Baptist cannot meet with a non-Baptist congregation, there is division. Same goes for one in the LC's. If an lcer cannot meet with a non-lc assembly, there is division.
Our hearts need to be recallibrated in receiving one another.
For the record, I am currently meeting with an assembly that has the word Baptist in their name. When we meet I don't see Baptists, I see brothers and sisters in the Lord. In the same context when I met in the local churches.

This might be along the same line as Igzy's questioning, but can God's administration (economy) be only found in the local churches?

Terry

[Oregon]

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”...

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.

Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.
Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,

Your phrase above really made me chuckle. Texas is a large area and had and still does have many different local churches with hundreds of many different brothers and sisters. I know personally the posters here who came from Texas. None of them was just your average bear. Jane Anderson is a very unique personality and one of the most intense persons I ever knew. She was not then and is not now just the average sister you might run into. Matt, Mike, Nell are all very strong personalities (a good thing). Jane and Nell were in Houston and OK City. Ray Graver and James Barber had a thing about subduing strong personalities. No doubt they were among their targets. I would suppose they received more than their fair share of abuse.

The humorous thing is that your area was discussed as a region that was under the thumb of ole tyrant Titus Chu, legal and not very living. Thus, the explanation for some of the problems. I did not like it then and I do not think it helps to lump individuals such as Igzy into groups of people. It tends to minimize what they have to offer.

Just a little brotherly fellowship.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I frankly appreciate Igzy's pointing out the fallicies and contradictions. If our premise is that all was roses or all was briars and stickers we have missed the mark by a mile. From the start there were struggles, problems and many issues to overcome. We need to throw out the myths about the recovery. I sat in too many sessions with WL in which he was discussing big problems and issues in China and Taiwan as well as Elden and then Anaheim. If you ever attended one of his elders/co-workers meetings, you know how much of his speaking was concerning the latest round of problems and what to do about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,...

Brother Hope, thanks for the brotherly fellowship. You are right about intense persons with strong personalities taking hold of the leadership of the movement. This occurred both in Texas and Ohio, but of course in the end we know who continually wins that battle, don't we? Whether on the football field or in the courtroom, Ohio folks are just no match for those Lone Star folks, with their pickup trucks and shotguns in the back window.

Yes, these are generalizations and broad brush characterizations which overly simplify very complex situations, but they do help at times to explain our history. I left the LC's because I was tired of the bullying in my area, only to come to the forum and learn (partly thru Thread of Gold) that some other places were far worse. In fact, it was this systemic disease of mistreatments and abuses that caused me to first realize that something was seriously, inherently wrong with the whole program. Of course, not every leader and not every saint was molded the same way, but the leaders did tend to promote those of similar character.

Sorry, Igzy, for "lumping you" with the others.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

By the way,

I did not get involved in the forums to play Mr. Nice guy.

It is time for light to shine. John 1:5, And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 3:20-21, "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB

I saw too much bully behavior and too many sincere brothers and sisters abused. Likewise I saw too much pure work of the Lord damaged.

I appreciate posters as OBW and Igzy who bring things into the light and are themselves willing to be brought into the light. Same with respect to Oregon, Ohio, Indianna and any other state. We can all learn a lot and many can be helped. May the free exchange continue.

I am not discouraged by critical words nor do I swoon when someone give a positive promotion.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down. Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

Well ... Igzy, perhaps our paths have crossed more than once, for I can surely relate to your story. It is mine also and perhaps the singlemost important reason I have posted on the forums. I do thank the Lord for all those who truly loved and shepherded me, but often mixed in with this was, as you also experienced, a certain degree of manipulation, fear based controls, bullying mistreatments, and being "used" for another's benefit. Due to my own childhood experiences, perhaps I was more vulnerable than others. Were it not for the repeated abuses undeservedly inflicted upon other precious brothers, I might never have become aware of my own situation. I am not completely innocent myself either, since at times I found myself treating others the way I was being treated. That frankly scared me.

As I read Hope's account several months ago, this was the section that moved me to tears:

We peasants had sympathy toward the weaker members of our society, and especially for ones oppressed. I believe the Lord Jesus puts into his believers a strong desire to bestow more abundant honor on the less comely and to protect the weak. One of the main reasons I eventually left the local churches was the rough treatment received by weaker ones and ones whose opinions did not match the leaders’ ideas. I recognize in some ways my reaction to the “lording it over” that came in later days may have been partly due to my culture. Ransford Ackah of Ghana once told me, “Don, you always favor the poor.” I had to confess to him that his statement was true. Regardless of our background, culture, disposition, or how our mother raised us, we all need to be transformed and conformed to Christ.

Here is a small example of the kinds of events which has long troubled me. I served for years as deacon under the elder's direction. I constantly was contacting the saints related to their serving the church. I personally tried to maintain the attitude that these saints are volunteers, giving their time willingly, and I should do my best to appreciate them. Not all feel this way. One time I was expressing some difficulty to the leader about carrying out the latest changes. I told him I was doing my best to support his burden, and suddenly he said to me, "I don't need you. If you can't do this, I'll get someone else who can." The attitude startled me.

Experiences like this eventually turned me sour. I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

Wow Ohio, your words stirred me up. Earlier this week in emanna the topic of one email was The Church Only Having One Class of Believers. Here is a short excerpt:

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Is this really the case in denominational or non-denominational churches?
Ohio, as I read into your experience, did the elders view themselves as a different class apart from the non-administrative member? The place of fellowship where I've been meeting there is no distinction of classes. Can the same be said within the local churches?

Terry

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

I’m not really saying you should just go away. Just noting that saying negative things are said about the LC is pointless.

I also have a father, a brother and sister and their families that meet with the LC. I agree that they are dear Christians. But I also see the toll that the LC is having on them. They would deny it, but it is as plain as the nose on your face.

But rather than complaining about Igzy’s characterization of the moniker “the recovery” relative to that of others, consider the truth or fallacy of that characterization.

This forum is a tremendous aid to those of us who need to be freed from the bondage that the LC laid on us. The arguments made here by various LC apologists are typically phrased in broad terms that are hard to argue against at that level. It is difficult to say anything against some of the generalities that sound so spiritual. But if there is nothing to be said against them, then why aren’t we still there? Because there is something wrong with those things even if it seems to be an attack on Christ Himself to say that. But it only seems so.

Here we can deconstruct the teachings into the parts that, while sounding untouchable, are not supported by scripture. So Albert and others come and try to obfuscate the discussion by repackaging everything into those spiritual-sounding catch-phrases that seem so hard to refute at the macro level. Once you get to the significant details and see the error, you can be freed. It has freed me.

With a few exceptions, we are never talking about the people in the LC. We are talking about the system of teachings and practices and the culture of shame and bondage. When dear Christians become fooled into thinking that near heresy is God’s highest and shaming of brothers and sisters is administered by God’s deputy authorities, it is time to speak up. Do you think that the members of so many other true cults are simply evil like the system they are trapped within? No, they are misguided and have been duped. We can argue about the applicability of the “C” word to the LC, but real dear Christians are duped to stay in such a aberrant system. Won't you say something for their benefit?

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by OBW

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Oregon

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

You are correct that you never said that anyone should leave. I never said you did. And, if you look at what I wrote carefully, you will see that I really didn't either. But I did say that the purpose of the forum is the discussion of the problems of the LC, therefore if constantly hearing about its problems (something that is, by definition, negative when viewed from the inside and even the outside) then being part of the forum is probably not a good idea.

I didn't intend to suggest you or anyone else should just leave. I suggested that you consider the purpose of the forum before complaining. We are within the grouping "Practice What He Preached?" It should be presumed that the topics of discussion would begin with "No." That is, by definition, negative. Any are free to disagree. There have been threads that are positive with respect to the LC. Admittedly not many, but they do exist.

But if you think I was being antagonistic with you, I did not intend that and am sorry for giving that impression.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

Dear Oregon,

Well, in the first place my post wasn't that negative. It was just pointing out a fundamental flaw in thinking on the part of some. Do you think things would be better if this was not pointed out for the sake of not being negative? Certainly not every perceived error needs to be pointed out. But this one has lead to gross hypocrisy. How can I ignore it?

I can see how you could be irked by seeing just this one side of me. I know there are good saints in the LCs. What breaks my heart the most is feeling I can't really have free fellowship with my old friends there. I miss them very much. But, simply put, they think anyone not in their movement is off and that's hard to deal with in a relationship.

As far as the part of my life which is spent on this board goes (I do have other parts), it is about pointing out the flaws in the arguments and thinking put forth by LCers and LSM/LCers. Not all flaws, though. I am not interested in nitpicking. I feel to focus on the flaws in reasoning which work to hold people there. I'm trying to help people be set free from a web of reasoning which formerly ensnared me and for many years stumbled my walk. That is what my life on this board is about, more or less.

Why do I do this? Honestly because I feel not enough people are doing it. I have certain gifts that lend themselves to this arena and I think the Lord is pleased that I am using them. I'm also by nature a debater and someone who doesn't mind speaking my mind and even feels called to do it.

I pray a lot about my efforts here. I myself get bothered sometimes by the seeming negativity. I suppose I could do like most people do and just pretend the problem doesn't exist and go about my business. It bothers me how many do that. I understand the idea of moving on and going on positively and living and let living. But I don't understand leaving victims in a ditch to fend for themselves when something can be done about it. Frankly, I think a lot of people are just plain scared to take on LSM.

One walks a treacherous path, however, when one becomes a critic. Sometimes you hurt innocent people's feelings or worse do damage. If I've done either to you, I apologize.

However, simply calling me overly critical is not going to work with me. You are going to have to tell me why the things I write should not be written, why they do more damage than good, because I'm seeking to do some good.

Someone is going to have to convince me I'm wrong before I stop, short of the Lord just plain telling me to. I hope you can understand and I hope this post doesn't make me sound self-righteous because I'm certainly open to being corrected.

Igzy

[Cal]

BTW, how am I going to know when I'm done here? I guess when I run out of things to say. But the post that started this thread has not been said before. At least, I think, not in the way I said it. So perhaps it can do some good.

Anyway, basically what I guess my post adds up to is that the LSM/LC is as much a denomination, and in some ways more of one, than many of the others. The unique thing about it is that it is a denomination which thinks denominating is bad, so it pretends not to be one, while condemning all the others. That's pretty much it.

[Oregon]

Igzy and OBW,

I deeply and honestly appreciate your last posts. Please forgive me if I was too much in my post. The last posts by both of you have helped me to open up to understand both of you better. Like the word says...."a soft answer turneth away wrath".......and I appreciate your soft answers. I know there are problems with the LC. Gosh....I spent over 30 years of my life there. My first wife divorced me because she literally hated the LC.......and that's where I met her as a young sister. Believe me......I've been through it too. I guess where I am coming from is that even the seven churches in Revelation who were nearly all rebuked by the Lord had some good things about them and the Lord mentioned them. So....sometimes I do get a little bothered when all I see is an unending flow of criticism.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)


What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

Well said!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

Great commentary Igzy.

One thought on the portion quoted above. Is it really the same for "many" or "most" - The LSM is founded on the principle that claims the exclusive move of God and the "recovered" truth. As a part of the LSM churches wouldn't ALL members be actively participating and agreeing to the sectarian and divisive position? Could they plead their case against this, as it is the foundation and bedrock of the LSM?

Also, (although not impossible) - but Baptists wouldn't make that claim, where, to your point, it is a tenant of the LSM churches.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

...The LSM is founded on the principle that claims the exclusive move of God and the "recovered" truth...

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Of course. They and they alone.

All other Christians are poor, poor, degraded Christianity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Only because their rituals are better. Their major ritual is worship of Nee and mostly Lee. All other Christians don't have those rituals. That makes them poor.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. The thousand years of outer darkness, the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. The thousand years of outer darkness, the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

By His Mercy,

First, going just by what you have written above your friend was wrong to take that attitude if she was referring to you.

Second, you also are wrong in saying you are a Mary and she is but a Martha.

There is no tangible difference in your or her attitudes.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

By His Mercy,

First, going just by what you have written above your friend was wrong to take that attitude if she was referring to you.

Second, you also are wrong in saying you are a Mary and she is but a Martha.

There is no tangible difference in your or her attitudes.

Drake

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. [b]The thousand years of outer darkness[/], the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

Wow! I've certainly had or been a party to those "exclusive" conversations as well. Yikes! No building-up there, to be sure.

The thousand years in outer darkness teaching is something many of us in Scottsdale have struggled with for years. But - glory to God - we are drying out! Some who were around when this group split from the LC back in the 1980s, have had longer to dry out than me, and have been helping me along - to renew my mind from a fear-based/performance walk. I thank God nearly every day for the brothers here! God is not a steamroller - He loves us; He loves US; He LOVES US!

Now here's a "balancing word" regarding being poor. Yes, we have been given far more riches than we know in this life. However, He does tell the Church in Laodacia that they have become, "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow! I've certainly had or been a party to those "exclusive" conversations as well. Yikes! No building-up there, to be sure.

The thousand years in outer darkness teaching is something many of us in Scottsdale have struggled with for years. But - glory to God - we are drying out! Some who were around when this group split from the LC back in the 1980s, have had longer to dry out than me, and have been helping me along - to renew my mind from a fear-based/performance walk. I thank God nearly every day for the brothers here! God is not a steamroller - He loves us; He loves US; He LOVES US!

Now here's a "balancing word" regarding being poor. Yes, we have been given far more riches than we know in this life. However, He does tell the Church in Laodacia that they have become, "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

Praise Jesus, Sonstoglory! I see we actually can be poor....thank you for this word. I was speaking from the feet of the Lord! In prayer, spending time with Him, I realized how far from poor I was and was sharing based off of that. I believe any person looking at Him would experience the treasure of Christ....

And just to clarify, Drake, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord. I see the LC as one rushing about, furiously trying to usher every child of God into and under the umbrella of WLs ministry, and forsaking those who try to buck this rider off their back. We are set free in Christ Jesus, brother. Everything in me wants to say to the LC, show me the justification for the division....in scripture! from the rest of Gods children....but that conversation is impossible, that door is closed to me. You really have no idea how much I appreciate some willingness to discuss these things, in you, Drake. Praise Jesus, brother.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

A few years ago when I was just starting to pull my head out of the sand and trying to figure things out, I asked two elders independently from each other if it is purely the fact that we do not "name" ourselves some form of Lee-ites or Nee-ites, as Lutherans or Wesleyans do, that we can say the LC's are not a denomination. I remarked that in following Lee/Nee, we are in practice doing the same things as others are doing, who we criticize, and I asked if the only reason we can make a distinction is because we don't actually use Lee/Nee's name in our name. To their credit, both elders, not knowing how the other responded, admitted that yes, the practice is the same or at least very similar. I asked what would happen if someone stood up in a meeting and shared from a non-LSM book, particularly week after week, even if the light they received from the book was genuine and their experience of the Lord real and living. They both said that probably at first it would be tolerated but after a few weeks, there would be some comments. (Although when I had a similar conversation with one of them years later he changed his story and said there are some who do not share from HWMR, for example, and are still accepted in the meetings). One elder admitted that we as a group do not do a good job of educating the saints that Lee/Nee is not the basis for our fellowship.

Of course no subsequent education occurred (no doubt because the hammer from Anaheim would come down if they caught wind of it), but at least I appreciated that they could admit the real situation.

[Trapped]

One thing that bothers me is that in the ministry Lee says that the church should only take the name of the Lord Jesus, and that taking the name of another is wrong (e.g. saying you are a Methodist/Baptist/Lutheran, etc is wrong). I.e., if you are Mrs. Jones, you do not take the name Smith.

Okay, then, by that principle, the local church websites should not state that the churches follow the teaching and ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee! Why, in talking about the church, are there other names mentioned besides the Lord Jesus? If you are Mrs. Jones, yes, you should not take the name Smith.....but to further the analogy, if you are Mrs. Jones, you also should not "take up" with Smith, regardless of whether you actually take the name Smith or just only involve yourself with Smith without taking the name. If the LC does what W. Lee’s ministry itself describes, it should only be stating that they follow the New Testament ministry, or that they follow the Lord Jesus.

(I could get into how LSM intentionally blurs and conflates the phrases “the New Testament ministry” with “brother Lee’s ministry” with “the ministry” in the publications that are put out, but won’t).

So the LC’s can’t call themselves Lee-ans. Fine. But saying “we are the church in [city] (we follow the ministry of W. Lee and W. Nee)" is apparently okay.

So if Wesleyan/Lutheran is wrong, what criticizing word would LSM come up with if they came across a group who stated that they were, for example, "The church in [city] (we follow the teachings of Wesley/Luther)"?!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

I had a vision of the Lord standing over a huge map of the US, pointing at Houston and telling me "if you want Me I am there". That is the vision that sent me to return to Houston and enter the LC there. So I was always aware that I was sent by the Lord to the church in Houston.

However, I just recently realized that a second interesting experience I had on my way to Houston was the Lord's instructions / warning to me.

After receiving the vision in Connecticut, I did a 180 and headed to Houston. I was hitchhiking across the country, it was the summer time. When I got to West Memphis it was very hot, the middle of the day, and so I was looking for some shade. There was a church so I went there. The door was locked. So I prayed "Lord, I am your son, this is your house, can you open the door?" I tried again and the door opened. I went to the back, there was carpet, it was cool, I laid down. Within a couple of minutes I heard a car come to a stop on the gravel outside. It was a cop car. Then a second car pulled up. I went to the last pew and got down on my knees. The pastor came in and asked what I was doing, I said "I am praying". He asked how I got in. I said I came in the front door. He said, how, it was locked? I was standing next to him and could see a bicycle chain hanging down. Apparently they wrapped the chain around the handles on the inside. I said "who are you to lock the house of God?"

I always thought that this was a message the Lord wanted me to deliver to him, never saw it before as a warning he was giving to me.

1. We are son's of God, that is our standing.

and

2. No one has some special status.

In Galatians Paul warned that these ones were trying to bring us into subjection. To lock you in, or to lock you out.