The Church with No Name?

[Nell]

When I first "came in" to the Local Church, it was still a local church. "Denominations" were exposed and condemned. There was a meeting hall, of course, but there was no name on the property because to "take a name" would be to become a "denomination". The "local church" was NOT a denomination. The "local church" was "one" with all Christians in the city. This was the prevailing teaching in the church in Houston where I first began my journey. They were quite proud of this standing and made much of the fact that there was no name and the meeting hall was just that...a place to meet. The church had an address, but not a name. All Christians were welcome.

How the worm has turned. I was in Oklahoma City over the weekend and decided to drive by the meeting hall. There was a HUGE sign out front!

"The Church in Oklahoma City Meeting Hall" it proclaimed. Last summer I drove by 6355 Windswept in Houston. Same thing. A HUGE sign out front.

I don't know why this shocks me so much. Yet another sign of the apostacy? Or, is it an admission of what it always was...another denomination?

We used to hand out business cards with "Jesus is Lord" on the front and a simple address on the back. That ended years ago. I guess that carries the virtue of honesty too...Jesus isn't Lord there anymore, or, He never was. Don't hand out cards that imply otherwise. (Maybe "Lee is Lord" cards instead with a disclaimer that Lee is dead.)

I guess in a way it makes sense. When the local churches became a franchise outlet of the Living Stream Ministry, it only makes sense to advertise. In fact, the font on the sign, at least in Oklahoma City, looks like the Living Stream Ministry font used in its publications.

Oh. And remember when "the ministry" began? Lee's ministry meetings were separate from church meetings. In Austin, the "ministry" messages were advertised prominently as Lee's ministry and was strictly separate from church meetings. The "Ministry Meetings" were held in the community room of a nearby shopping mall. Local church elders delivered the messages. In Austin, it was George Whitington who delivered Lee's messages, beginning with what later became "Life Studies". That didn't last long either. The meetings moved from the mall to the hall. At that point, "the Ministry" and "the Church" merged, and once again the truth of the situation became evident. It was a Witness Lee takeover, never to look back.

Just keep in mind....in the beginning it was not so.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just keep in mind....in the beginning it was not so.

Nell

Oh Nell ... a few fancy signs don't a hypocrite make.

"Have you not read" about the church with no name in Columbus Ohio which has sued in court to keep the rights to their name?

[zeek]

The churches had to formally take names in order to receive the legal status of non-profit income tax organizations didn't they? At one point does the claim to be THE church in a locality cease to be a means to unity with all Christians and become a claim of arrogance? Whatever that point is, Lee's Local Churches crossed it years ago in the 1970s if not before. When the training and Life Studies were first being promulgated, the Church in Miami was totally absorbed in their consumption. Lee's image on the TV screen and amplified voice dominated the meetings. The church was all Lee all the time. Reminds me of a song... "I've been to the desert in the church with no name..."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

The churches had to formally take names in order to receive the legal status of non-profit income tax organizations didn't they?

Yes. You do. This was always the case from day one. We had yearly business meetings, the charter was read, etc. We were doing business as "The Church in ...." on file with the Secretary of State.

Still, you are not required to have a sign out front. It's a choice. There was derisive criticism of poor degraded Christianity for having a sign out front.

I believe claiming to be THE church is divisive. Why not just let the Lord call you the church, if indeed you are! Wait! He did! When 2-3 are gathered in His name. Of course, the LC doesn't gather in Jesus' name. It's about Witness Lee. So they don't qualify on that one either.

Nell

[Nell]

Please delete.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes. You do. This was always the case from day one. We had yearly business meetings, the charter was read, etc. We were doing business as "The Church in ...." on file with the Secretary of State.

Still, you are not required to have a sign out front. It's a choice. There was derisive criticism of poor degraded Christianity for having a sign out front.

I believe claiming to be THE church is divisive. Why not just let the Lord call you the church, if indeed you are! Wait! He did! When 2-3 are gathered in His name. Of course, the LC doesn't gather in Jesus' name. It's about Witness Lee. So they don't qualify on that one either.

Nell

Yes, well in the scheme of things it is, to me, one more step down from the ideal. One small step for man, one giant step down for a dream of God. The Local Church takes it's place beside the other denominations with the dream of going back to the original New Testament model of what a church is supposed to be. It makes me a little sad. Is that what you are getting at?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, well in the scheme of things it is, to me, one more step down from the ideal. One small step for man, one giant step down for a dream of God. The Local Church takes it's place beside the other denominations with the dream of going back to the original New Testament model of what a church is supposed to be. It makes me a little sad. Is that what you are getting at?

For me, it's about the hypocrisy. It's so blatant.

Also for me, the more I know, the less certain I am that fallen man can get very little related to the church "right". I think there is waaaaay too much "church talk"; waaaaay much "leaning on our own understanding".

There's too much "church talk" and not enough reliance on a simple walk with God. Not enough reading the Bible and obedience to its commands. Not enough "when we sin, repent." Not enough "when someone sins against us, go to the brother". When God speaks, we listen and obey. If He tells us to go somewhere and meet with certain Christians---GO! If He tells us to share the gospel with someone, we speak.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. People think "this is it" only to spawn yet another denomination. This is what I see among Christians. Trying to "get it right"; trying to figure out "the church". Didn't Jesus say "I will build my church"? Why not get out of the way and let him? Didn't Jesus say "Follow Me"? What a great idea? He builds his church and we follow him.

The problem with thinking you've figured out "the church" is...you haven't. It's not possible. The best you can do is get to know Him, obey Him, and trust Him to lead you in the path you should go. When you mess up, talk it over with Him.

Forget the "church talk". If Jesus is your best friend, I think you'll be OK.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Still, you are not required to have a sign out front. It's a choice. There was derisive criticism of poor degraded Christianity for having a sign out front.

Nell,

I think I understand your entire meaning based on all the posts. But this one part brings up something that I just want to make sure about.

You aren't suggesting that taking down the sign at the local meeting halls makes any actual difference are you?

Pretty sure I know the answer.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

I think I understand your entire meaning based on all the posts. But this one part brings up something that I just want to make sure about.

You aren't suggesting that taking down the sign at the local meeting halls makes any actual difference are you?

Pretty sure I know the answer.

No. Short of shutting the place down, not much will make a difference. Lord shine your light.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

I think I understand your entire meaning based on all the posts. But this one part brings up something that I just want to make sure about.

You aren't suggesting that taking down the sign at the local meeting halls makes any actual difference are you?

Pretty sure I know the answer.

We took a lot of heat for not having a sign out front, as if we were being deceptive. Looking back, the biggest thing we had to hide was our relationship with Lee and LSM.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

I believe claiming to be THE church is divisive. Why not just let the Lord call you the church, if indeed you are! Wait! He did! When 2-3 are gathered in His name. Of course, the LC doesn't gather in Jesus' name. It's about Witness Lee. So they don't qualify on that one either.

Very true Nell. When you claim to be something at the exclusion of others, it is division. Why not call it what it is.
Present time fellowship in the LC is based on receiving a specific Christian publisher. If you don't receive publications of this Christian publisher, there cannot be fellowship.
They may not teach it, but the practice is making their receiving narrower than God's receiving, Reference to Romans 15:7.

I can't help but wish I knew who Nell is. I came into the 'church' in 1972 in Dallas. Our first 'ministry meeting' was at a Holiday Inn near SMU. I ushered at the first meeting and a nosey old aunt of my wife came into the meeting after it was over advertising another Christian group. An elder told me to get her out. I told him I couldn't because she was my wife's aunt. That was not the highlight of my entrance into the church life in Dallas.

In the metroplex now all the churches advertise they follow the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Doesn't that sound like first Corinthians? What a can of worms.

But I still say if the Lord is OK with it all I can do is get out which I have done. It's no worse than JW, LDS, and others which seem to be flourishing. I'm really thankful that I'm still a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do appreciate most of you posters.

Lisbon

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by zeek

The churches had to formally take names in order to receive the legal status of non-profit income tax organizations didn't they? At one point does the claim to be THE church in a locality cease to be a means to unity with all Christians and become a claim of arrogance? Whatever that point is, Lee's Local Churches crossed it years ago in the 1970s if not before. When the training and Life Studies were first being promulgated, the Church in Miami was totally absorbed in their consumption. Lee's image on the TV screen and amplified voice dominated the meetings. The church was all Lee all the time. Reminds me of a song... "I've been to the desert in the church with no name..."

Was the real church we read of in the bible a 'BUSINESS'??? Honestly... I don't know but I do not think so. That is what Christianity has become...Local churches..LSM... any everything in between the mega churches and the denominations.

What I highlighted brought me back to the days I started cringing at what the LC was becoming. I have fond memories of the first 2 yrs I was in San Diego. 1975/76. Even though we were reading the life studies, I thought they were helpful since I had never in my life picked up a bible. But I started seeing BIG changes in 1977. By 1978, Big Brother Lee was amplified in almost all our meetings. No longer were the local elders teaching us the Word of God.

The SPIRIT and the Bride say "COME LORD JESUS".
Shalom everyone,
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Nell

When I first "came in" to the Local Church, it was still a local church. "Denominations" were exposed and condemned. There was a meeting hall, of course, but there was no name on the property because to "take a name" would be to become a "denomination". The "local church" was NOT a denomination. The "local church" was "one" with all Christians in the city. This was the prevailing teaching in the church in Houston where I first began my journey. They were quite proud of this standing and made much of the fact that there was no name and the meeting hall was just that...a place to meet. The church had an address, but not a name. All Christians were welcome.

How the worm has turned. I was in Oklahoma City over the weekend and decided to drive by the meeting hall. There was a HUGE sign out front!

"The Church in Oklahoma City Meeting Hall" it proclaimed. Last summer I drove by 6355 Windswept in Houston. Same thing. A HUGE sign out front.

I don't know why this shocks me so much. Yet another sign of the apostacy? Or, is it an admission of what it always was...another denomination?

We used to hand out business cards with "Jesus is Lord" on the front and a simple address on the back. That ended years ago. I guess that carries the virtue of honesty too...Jesus isn't Lord there anymore, or, He never was. Don't hand out cards that imply otherwise. (Maybe "Lee is Lord" cards instead with a disclaimer that Lee is dead.)

I guess in a way it makes sense. When the local churches became a franchise outlet of the Living Stream Ministry, it only makes sense to advertise. In fact, the font on the sign, at least in Oklahoma City, looks like the Living Stream Ministry font used in its publications.

Oh. And remember when "the ministry" began? Lee's ministry meetings were separate from church meetings. In Austin, the "ministry" messages were advertised prominently as Lee's ministry and was strictly separate from church meetings. The "Ministry Meetings" were held in the community room of a nearby shopping mall. Local church elders delivered the messages. In Austin, it was George Whitington who delivered Lee's messages, beginning with what later became "Life Studies". That didn't last long either. The meetings moved from the mall to the hall. At that point, "the Ministry" and "the Church" merged, and once again the truth of the situation became evident. It was a Witness Lee takeover, never to look back.

Just keep in mind....in the beginning it was not so.

Nell

I visited the 'church in San Diego' in 2005. I was shocked to see a huge sign at the entrance of the building that said "The church in San Diego meeting hall". I commented on the sign. They sheepishly giggled and said 'Yeah... we put a sign up there'. I did not go any further than that. My heart knew. It was more confirmation I made the right decision to leave when I did... 1978/79.

Peace, Blessings and Showers of God's Love,
Carol