Melodyland and the Trinity

[aron]

ANSWERS TO THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN - CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

"This book is the republication of a series of articles first published in The Orange County Register on October 8 and 15, 1977. They were answers to an attack made by Walter Martin, who called himself “the Bible Answer Man.” Martin made this attack against Witness Lee and “the Local Church” in a lecture given at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California on October 2, 1977. The tape of that lecture, entitled Witness Lee and the Local Church, is still in circulation today. This book again publishes the answers to that tape."

"Before the events of 1977, those in the local churches had already made several attempts to correct the errors of the CRI authors. This was done both in person and in writing. In each case the response was confrontational arrogance that eliminated any true fellowship or even proper discussion. Thus, a pattern developed of attacking while ignoring the protests from the churches that what CRI circulated did not reflect what the churches really believed.

In early 1977 Walter Martin was publicly confronted by representatives of the local churches. They again insisted that the CRI statements did not reflect the churches’ beliefs and offered to discuss the problems with him. Martin issued an apology to Witness Lee and suspended all CRI writings concerning Witness Lee and “the Local Church” until such discussion could take place. Based upon that apology and the suspending of the tracts, Witness Lee met with Walter Martin in February 1977.

The two agreed to stop all publications until Martin could come to an adequate understanding of the true beliefs of the local churches, through mutual fellowship. Martin was offered complete cooperation for his research. That agreement was broken about a week later when one of Martin’s research associates resumed the attack upon the churches through letters from CRI. Witness Lee insisted that the agreement could be continued only if Martin dealt with the infractions. Martin answered in the old CRI mode—by renewing the attack. Of course, Martin ignored the fact that the research which he agreed should be done had, in fact, never been done.

Martin’s response to the canceled agreement was the source of the meeting at Melodyland and the tape that is still sold today by CRI. Martin admitted on the tape that he relied mainly upon his youthful assistants. He repeated their old accusations, which by then had already been refuted. He endorsed a book, The Mindbenders, that proved to be so blatantly biased and false that it was later retracted with apology by its publisher. Martin’s tape displayed a lack of understanding of the Bible, theology, and church history. At the same time, it was steeped in the sarcastic arrogance that was Martin’s trademark."

Dan Towle
Anaheim, California
March 1994

[aron]

A STATEMENT BY WITNESS LEE


It is very sad and shameful that Christian brothers have been continually fighting one against another through the centuries. It is mainly because their understanding of the Bible differs; they have different views and are on different levels. The reasons for this are three.

1.The Bible, being the revelation of God, is extremely profound. On its surface are the plain doctrines, but in its depth are the deep and vital truths. It is easy to know the doctrines of the Bible, but more grace is required to realize the deeper truths revealed in the Bible concerning God’s eternal purpose. For example, John 1:29 tells us that the Lord Jesus died on the cross as the Lamb of God to bear our sins that we may be redeemed. All real Christians know this. But the same Gospel, chapter twelve, verse 24, reveals that the Lord died also as a grain of wheat, falling into the ground to release His life, that He might be multiplied into many grains for the formation of His Body, which is the church. It seems that the speaker at Melodyland has not seen this truth, because he has accused us of being heretical concerning this matter. Actually, it is not that we are heretical, but that he has not seen this deep thing of God (1 Cor. 2:10).

Another example: First Timothy 3:15 says that the church is the house of the living God and the pillar and ground of the truth. But the very next verse, verse 16, reveals that the church is also the mystery of godliness, that is, God was manifest in the flesh. The church is not only the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, but also the manifestation of God in the flesh. The context of this verse confirms this. This is also a deep truth, for which we are condemned by the speaker. Again, it seems that he is short of sight in this matter.

2.The truths in the Bible are often of two aspects, the objective and the subjective. The subjective aspect is mainly for our experience. For example, on one hand Christ today is in the heavens, but on the other hand Christ today is also in us, and His being in us is that we may experience Him as life and the life supply. Since He is the very embodiment of God, and since we have Him within us as our life, we partake of the divine nature of God. This subjective truth was also objected to by the speaker, because he simply did not see it.

Another example: The Holy Trinity not only has the side of three, but also the side of one. On one hand our Triune God is three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but on the other hand He is one, the unique God. This is clearly and fully revealed in the Holy Word. But sorry to say, the speaker, standing unbalanced on the side of three, fights against the side of one. Although he says that God is one, the oneness in his concept is a corporate oneness, not the individual oneness of our unique God, because he does not believe the pure word in Isaiah 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.

3.The divine revelation was fully completed when the book of Revelation was written to the churches. But not long after that, the church began to lose sight of God’s open revelation and deviate from the central line of His perfect Word. Thus, the Bible became a veiled book until the time of reformation, when Martin Luther was raised up by the Lord to begin the recovery of the lost truths. Luther, by returning to the Bible from the deviated historic church, discovered the truth of justification by faith among the lost truths. However, that was just the beginning of the Lord’s recovery. Thence, through the past five centuries, the Lord has continually carried on His recovery through many different channels. How we thank the Lord for those channels! But there has always been a sad story accompanying each step of the Lord’s recovery. Nearly every time a lost truth was recovered by some new channels, the old channels fought against the newly discovered truth, and even fought against the channels used by the Lord to recover that truth. In principle, it is the same today.

I was born, raised up, and educated in Christianity. From my youth I have been taught with Bible stories and many teachings of the Bible. After I was saved, I sat at the feet of the great Brethren teachers, listening to hundreds of their messages concerning the Bible. Later I was helped by reading the inner-life books, such as the books by Madame Guyon, Andrew Murray, and Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis. After that, I was also involved in the Pentecostal movement. Then the Lord showed us from His Word a number of lost truths, such as the multiplication, the enlargement, of the unlimited Christ, the corporate Christ, the church being the manifestation of God in the flesh, the proper unity of the Body of Christ, the practical expression of the church, and other items.

Because these truths are new to some dear Christian brothers, they consider them as heresies, as teachings which are not according to the Bible. Then they fight against these newly recovered truths under the excuse of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Sometimes these Christian brothers have gone so far that they have even fought their battle by building up false accusations according to their erroneous or inadequate understanding of the Bible. Actually, these newly recovered truths are absolutely scriptural. To see these truths requires that the veil of traditional concepts held by the so-called historic church be taken away, and that the Lord’s people come back to the pure Word of God in His Holy Writings. We, in the Lord’s recovery, following the footsteps of Martin Luther, only care for the pure Word, not for any traditional concept of the historic church. These three reasons are just brief principles.

Lastly, I would like to say a word from my heart. We Christian brothers may hold different opinions concerning certain truths and may argue over them one with another. But let us do it in a spirit and on a level that are worthy of a saint in Christ. The truths of the Bible are holy. We do not believe that any mocking, ridiculing, or despising is the way for a saint to contend for the holy truths of our Holy God. It is a solemn thing to deal with the Word of God. We may edify others; we may also destroy others. We must always remind ourselves that whatever we say and do will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ when He comes back. May the Lord’s grace be with us all!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

A STATEMENT BY WITNESS LEE

It is very sad and shameful that Christian brothers have been continually fighting one against another through the centuries. It is mainly because their understanding of the Bible differs; they have different views and are on different levels... The Bible, being the revelation of God, is extremely profound. On its surface are the plain doctrines, but in its depth are the deep and vital truths. It is easy to know the doctrines of the Bible, but more grace is required to realize the deeper truths revealed in the Bible concerning God’s eternal purpose.

Okay, which "vital truths" are worth fighting each other over? Or, which "deep truths" necessitate rejecting the validity of portions of the Bible in order to preserve themselves? Is there some "deep level" of understanding in which we can then hold up one brief passage as the "pure word" and drop the rest? What kind of revelation is that?

Believe me, I love deep truths. Do I live them? Perhaps not. But without vision there is no chance to live anything. I love getting vision from the Scriptures. But Jesus taught "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Not just the words which we can arrange into our current message, which is conveniently printed and for sale.

What kind of a truth, now packaged and sold, brings discord not only among men, but within the text itself?

Originally Posted by aron

The Holy Trinity not only has the side of three, but also the side of one. On one hand our Triune God is three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but on the other hand He is one, the unique God. This is clearly and fully revealed in the Holy Word. But sorry to say, the speaker, standing unbalanced on the side of three, fights against the side of one. Although he says that God is one, the oneness in his concept is a corporate oneness, not the individual oneness of our unique God, because he does not believe the pure word in Isaiah 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.

The scriptures used to support Lee's "recovered truths" are called "the pure word", but the scriptures that he can't line up are called "fallen" and "natural". I say that is wrong; dead wrong.

Originally Posted by aron

The divine revelation was fully completed when the book of Revelation was written to the churches. But not long after that, the church began to lose sight of God’s open revelation and deviate from the central line of His perfect Word. Thus, the Bible became a veiled book until the time of reformation, when Martin Luther was raised up by the Lord to begin the recovery of the lost truths. Luther, by returning to the Bible from the deviated historic church, discovered the truth of justification by faith among the lost truths. However, that was just the beginning of the Lord’s recovery. Thence, through the past five centuries, the Lord has continually carried on His recovery through many different channels. How we thank the Lord for those channels! But there has always been a sad story accompanying each step of the Lord’s recovery. Nearly every time a lost truth was recovered by some new channels, the old channels fought against the newly discovered truth, and even fought against the channels used by the Lord to recover that truth. In principle, it is the same today.

Whatever Lee does or says is in the "recovery of truth", and whatever anyone else does is "deviation from truth"... got it? You really do need a revelation, and a vision, to follow this ministry. Otherwise you might begin to think, and start to consider, and we all know where that leads, right? Tree of Knowledge. The serpent asked questions. Bad move. Don't question. Only Luther, Darby, Nee and Lee could ask questions.

If Luther or Nee or Lee asked questions that was a recovery of the truth. If you or I were to ask questions that was being independent, divisive, and deviant. This was an intrinsic and essential part of the message that Lee continually spoke to us. Whatever he was teaching, this point would be integrated into it.

Originally Posted by aron

The truths of the Bible are holy. We do not believe that any mocking, ridiculing, or despising is the way for a saint to contend for the holy truths of our Holy God. It is a solemn thing to deal with the Word of God. We may edify others; we may also destroy others. We must always remind ourselves that whatever we say and do will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ when He comes back. May the Lord’s grace be with us all!

If Lee does it then it is called correcting, rebuking, and edifying. If anyone else does it, then it is called mocking, ridiculing, and despising. Got that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

A STATEMENT BY WITNESS LEE

Lastly, I would like to say a word from my heart. We Christian brothers may hold different opinions concerning certain truths and may argue over them one with another. But let us do it in a spirit and on a level that are worthy of a saint in Christ. The truths of the Bible are holy. We do not believe that any mocking, ridiculing, or despising is the way for a saint to contend for the holy truths of our Holy God. It is a solemn thing to deal with the Word of God. We may edify others; we may also destroy others. We must always remind ourselves that whatever we say and do will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ when He comes back. May the Lord’s grace be with us all!

I learned to mock, ridicule, and despise other Christians and their diverse practices by watching Witness Lee. Who is he to tell us not to do it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

A STATEMENT BY WITNESS LEE

I was born, raised up, and educated in Christianity. From my youth I have been taught with Bible stories and many teachings of the Bible. After I was saved, I sat at the feet of the great Brethren teachers, listening to hundreds of their messages concerning the Bible. Later I was helped by reading the inner-life books, such as the books by Madame Guyon, Andrew Murray, and Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis. After that, I was also involved in the Pentecostal movement. Then the Lord showed us from His Word a number of lost truths, such as the multiplication, the enlargement, of the unlimited Christ, the corporate Christ, the church being the manifestation of God in the flesh, the proper unity of the Body of Christ, the practical expression of the church, and other items.

Now this I agree with!

In this age of calculators and computers, multiplication is a lost truth!

Quick test -- how much is 14 times 16?

If you didn't know the answer in 2.24 seconds, it just proves that multiplication is a lost truth!

Witness Lee was right!

We need a recovery of the lost truth of multiplication.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now this I agree with!

In this age of calculators and computers, multiplication is a lost truth!

Quick test -- how much is 14 times 16?

If you didn't know the answer in 2.24 seconds, it just proves that multiplication is a lost truth!

Witness Lee was right!

We need a recovery of the lost truth of multiplication.

Forget multiplication. I can't even add : 3=1.

[awareness]

Aron,

I don't think it was Lee's teachings that were the problem (in general). What makes the LRC a cult is the practices ... such as deputy/delegated authority. So, Martin was looking in the wrong place to find a cult there.

[UntoHim]

Actually Dr. Martin, and other apologists and critics, could only look at what they could see - which at the time were the writings in the form of books, booklets and tracts etc. Obviously many people were also aware of the Local Church's aggressive attitude and behavior towards other Christian groups. Not many people were aware of, much less able to directly observe, so many of the aberrational teachings and practices that took place behind the closed doors of the LC meeting halls.

Around this time (circa 1978) the LC released a booklet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches". Much of what was presented in this booklet was a highly sanitized version of what was commonly taught and practiced in the movement. For example, under the Q & A section one of the posed questions was "Who is your leader?". The answer given:
"Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly."

Not many years later...."even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and bold claims from church leaders that entire churches "owed their existence to Witness Lee" and that Lee was an apostle of the first order, just like the apostle Paul. Even worse things were said.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee was right!

We need a recovery of the lost truth of multiplication.

I guess this is one of the benefits of "the recovered ground": when the Living Streamers have multiple meetings on one "locality" it is called multiplication. As in "Meeting Hall A" and "Meeting Hall B", or "the Chinese-speaking meeting" and "the college-age meeting" and "the Tuesday night vital home group meeting in Jon Smith's house". So that's good. But when someone not affiliated to LSM has multiple meetings in a locality that is called division. And that, of course, is bad.

So it's really simple. Just remember that when the LSM'ers do it they call it multiplication, and when anyone else does it they call it division. The nice thing about words is they can mean whatever people want them to mean.

[aron]

Over the last few years I began to see things in the Bible I never had considered before. Why does it say this here, or use this particular phraseology? Why did Jesus teach that there? Slowly, with occasional "revelations", a story began to emerge, a "meta-story" if you will, which began to make sense of it all. It was really amazing; it was like the Bible was "talking" to me. The Word actually was coming alive. It's like I began to perceive things on a deeper, unseen, 'spiritual' level. The physical was still there, but behind it was the world of the spirit(s), if you will.

And yesterday, for example, I was telling someone about how Jesus quoted Psalm 82, where it said, "I said, You are gods", to those who were confronting Him. Now, we all know that God is one, and that there are not multiple Gods. So why did Jesus quote that? I told my friend that there was likely a shared understanding of Psalm 82, and that Jesus expected some level of familiarity with it among the listening audience. There was a message there, beyond the snippet of "I said, you are gods". The Psalm 82 text can be interpreted several ways, on several levels, and depending on what level you see it will give different meaning to the story in John chapter 10. To my friend I was sharing one of the more physical levels, or readings, of this scene.

Okay, now on to my point. First, there is no guarantee my "meta-story", with its dependent reading of a fairly poetical or stylized narrative in Psalm 82, is objectively right. It is just something that I am currently reading into, or onto, the text. And there's no guarantee that even if my "vision" or "revelation" were correct on some objective level (i.e. 'many scholars take this position'), that I live anywhere near the spiritual reality of what I am beginning to see in these stories. And lastly, why should I fight with someone over my so-called "truths"? What kind of truth would that be if I began to call everyone else ignorant, blind, and dark who didn't agree with my vision? What kind of truth is that? Just exactly what would I have recovered, in that case?

[Elden1971]

This thread is giving me serious flashbacks as I not only attended the Melodyland meeting, but had met privately with Robert and Gretchen Passantino who were Dr. Martin's research associates the day before the meeting.
'

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"Martin’s response to the canceled agreement was the source of the meeting at Melodyland and the tape that is still sold today by CRI. Martin admitted on the tape that he relied mainly upon his youthful assistants. He repeated their old accusations, which by then had already been refuted. He endorsed a book, The Mindbenders, that proved to be so blatantly biased and false that it was later retracted with apology by its publisher. Martin’s tape displayed a lack of understanding of the Bible, theology, and church history. At the same time, it was steeped in the sarcastic arrogance that was Martin’s trademark."

I remember reading this when I was a rabid disciple of Lee. It bothered me, because the language was so stilted. Everything written by anyone but Lee was an "attack" or an "accusation". The other writers were called ignorant, arrogant, and so forth.

But they weren't rapists or devil worshipers. They were Christians who were supposedly "persecuting" Lee for his stand on the truth of the Bible. The whole thing bothered me. Weren't we all supposed to love and receive one another? Why the fighting? What truth? I never got it. I still don't.

Do my posts fall into the same trap? I hope not. I suspect they sometimes do. I said ("accused"!! "attacked"!!) that Lee produced half-baked theology recently; perhaps mine is only quarter-baked. Perhaps Lee is three-quarters baked. So I shouldn't judge lest I be judged, right?

Well, yes, I agree. But at the same time creating "new truths" out of the Bible, or recovering old truths if you will, that alienate both myself and my hearers from other believers is a serious thing. Believe me, I do come up with all sorts of ideas! In fact, one could argue that every preacher at the podium on Sunday morning has to come up with "treasures old and new". But does our biblical exposition create turmoil in the flock, with the kind of results of Lee and Melodyland? I think this is a stumbling. Hopefully my writings are not as divisive as Lee's were. I would hate to think that I was the true heir of the ministry of Witness Lee.

My current contention with the ministry of Witness Lee is really over this: that he put out "recovered truths" which not only alienated him and the rest of his disciples from the larger Christian conversation (which fact alone I found hard to stomach), it even alienated him, and us, from the Word itself. Lee's "recovered truths" necessitated that whole swaths of scripture which he couldn't line up with his exposition got re-labeled as "natural" and "fallen". Scripture was no longer revelatory, if Lee couldn't use it to support his theology; rather it was merely the concepts of sinful men who were ignorantly and vainly groping for God. Nothing there that pointed to the coming Christ. Sorry, folks, keep moving on to the high peaks of Lee's exposition.

Where did Jesus, or Paul, or John, tell us that only some of scripture was God-breathed? That only some of scripture was revelatory, and some was instead a spiritual dead end? To follow Lee, my Bible got stranger and stranger. Instead of the Bible revealing Christ, now Lee became the mediator of a new covenant, in which his "revelation" or "vision" became the controlling factor.

And as recently pointed out on this forum, even the scriptures that Lee did use, often had to be radically divorced from the original context of the message, in order for them to "work" or "speak" as he intended (needed) them to.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

ANSWERS TO THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN - CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

"This book is the republication of a series of articles first published in The Orange County Register on October 8 and 15, 1977. They were answers to an attack made by Walter Martin, who called himself “the Bible Answer Man.” Martin made this attack against Witness Lee and “the Local Church” in a lecture given at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California on October 2, 1977. The tape of that lecture, entitled Witness Lee and the Local Church, is still in circulation today. This book again publishes the answers to that tape."

"Before the events of 1977, those in the local churches had already made several attempts to correct the errors of the CRI authors. This was done both in person and in writing. In each case the response was confrontational arrogance that eliminated any true fellowship or even proper discussion. Thus, a pattern developed of attacking while ignoring the protests from the churches that what CRI circulated did not reflect what the churches really believed.

In early 1977 Walter Martin was publicly confronted by representatives of the local churches. They again insisted that the CRI statements did not reflect the churches’ beliefs and offered to discuss the problems with him. Martin issued an apology to Witness Lee and suspended all CRI writings concerning Witness Lee and “the Local Church” until such discussion could take place. Based upon that apology and the suspending of the tracts, Witness Lee met with Walter Martin in February 1977.

The two agreed to stop all publications until Martin could come to an adequate understanding of the true beliefs of the local churches, through mutual fellowship. Martin was offered complete cooperation for his research. That agreement was broken about a week later when one of Martin’s research associates resumed the attack upon the churches through letters from CRI. Witness Lee insisted that the agreement could be continued only if Martin dealt with the infractions. Martin answered in the old CRI mode—by renewing the attack. Of course, Martin ignored the fact that the research which he agreed should be done had, in fact, never been done.

Martin’s response to the canceled agreement was the source of the meeting at Melodyland and the tape that is still sold today by CRI. Martin admitted on the tape that he relied mainly upon his youthful assistants. He repeated their old accusations, which by then had already been refuted. He endorsed a book, The Mindbenders, that proved to be so blatantly biased and false that it was later retracted with apology by its publisher. Martin’s tape displayed a lack of understanding of the Bible, theology, and church history. At the same time, it was steeped in the sarcastic arrogance that was Martin’s trademark."

Dan Towle
Anaheim, California
March 1994

The portion I have placed in bold, didn't this get repeated in 2003-4 when some of the blended brothers disregarded agreements made in the Phoenix Accord?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

The portion I have placed in bold, didn't this get repeated in 2003-4 when some of the blended brothers disregarded agreements made in the Phoenix Accord?

Yeah, "adequate understandings of true beliefs"... now that's a moving target, isn't it?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Yeah, "adequate understandings of true beliefs"... now that's a moving target, isn't it?

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Pho...Commentary.pdf

"1. In whatever fellowship we have, we should exercise forbearance, love, meekness, and
forgiveness as we work through problems that confront us.
2. In all of our speaking-privately, publicly, and globally-we should refrain from indictments and
innuendos.
3. At all times we should find ways to keep open lines of fellowship among the brothers.
4. We should let go of the negative and, in turn, emphasize the positive.
5. Direct communication is imperative in all our relationships.
6. We should look for resolution of problems through constant, personal, face-to-face fellowship.
7. We should try not to misunderstand one another but to understand by giving each other the
benefit of the doubt.
8. We should endeavor to help the saints and those with whom we serve to keep the oneness of the
Spirit and to speak well of all the churches, saints, elders, and co-workers."

I emphasize point number two as in principle it relates to this thread on Melodyland.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Pho...Commentary.pdf

"1. In whatever fellowship we have, we should exercise forbearance, love, meekness, and
forgiveness as we work through problems that confront us.
2. In all of our speaking-privately, publicly, and globally-we should refrain from indictments and
innuendos.
3. At all times we should find ways to keep open lines of fellowship among the brothers.
4. We should let go of the negative and, in turn, emphasize the positive.
5. Direct communication is imperative in all our relationships.
6. We should look for resolution of problems through constant, personal, face-to-face fellowship.
7. We should try not to misunderstand one another but to understand by giving each other the
benefit of the doubt.
8. We should endeavor to help the saints and those with whom we serve to keep the oneness of the
Spirit and to speak well of all the churches, saints, elders, and co-workers."

I emphasize point number two as in principle it relates to this thread on Melodyland.

When I read this Phoenix Accord years ago, it sounded like a school teacher writing rules on the blackboard for naughty children. And to think that these rules were adopted by "mature" ministers attempting to get along without killing each other.

This accord helped me to realize that LC oneness and the ministry of reconciliation, so emphasized by Lee for decades, was all just a farce, and the real issue at hand was two ministry camps fighting for control of the LC's.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I read this Phoenix Accord years ago, it sounded like a school teacher writing rules on the blackboard for naughty children. And to think that these rules were adopted by "mature" ministers attempting to get along without killing each other.

This accord helped me to realize that LC oneness and the ministry of reconciliation, so emphasized by Lee for decades, was all just a farce, and the real issue at hand was two ministry camps fighting for control of the LC's.

What ministry of reconciliation? History has proven when leaders lose favor with Witness Lee and currently with the blended brothers, there is no possibility of reconciling the brothers, but with God reconciliation is possible.
The accord to me makes it much more apparent the LC oneness is not based on Jesus Christ, but based on oneness in a man's ministry. You might be told the LC oneness is according to John 17:21. If that was the case, there would have been no need for a Phoenix Accord. If that was the case former members, former elders, and former co-workers would be warmly welcomed back.