Ministry Churches

[Indiana]

The reason I address the Local Church leaders today is because of their belief that they are the New Testament recovered church, expressed in many localities in the U. S. and around the world. Yet, there are important discrepancies in their belief that rightfully ought to be brought to their attention and to that of the Christian public. In this writing I will address their inability to receive believers according to Christ alone.

After over fifty years in the U. S., they still have the teaching that they are on a ground of oneness with all believers in their localities; but in practice they unwittingly separate themselves from those who do not meet with them. This is due to their strict adherence to a man and a ministry. Their teaching that they have THE MINISTRY of the age accentuates the demarcation. And their one publication policy completes the death knell to their claim to church authenticity. They are, in fact, ministry churches of the first degree, not local churches. Their One Publication Proclamation seals their Distinction and makes official what they have become over the years - a sect.


www.twoturmoils.com/ministrychurches.pdf

Be accurate: 'Lee-WeBB' ministry churches. Unique. Exclusive. SECT.
.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Yes, yes, and yes!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The reason I address the Local Church leaders today is because of their belief that they are the New Testament recovered church, expressed in many localities in the U. S. and around the world. Yet, there are important discrepancies in their belief that rightfully ought to be brought to their attention and to that of the Christian public. In this writing I will address their inability to receive believers according to Christ alone.

Thank you brother Steve for taking the time to write on this subject. This document provides numerous examples of why the local churches are indeed “ministry churches”. If the BBs feel that this isn’t the case, then why do they remain silent? Perhaps they will always be that way, however, I don’t think the effort is in vain. I think these types of writings are an invaluable source to both current and ex-LC members. The Christian public also needs a way to determine what really is going on in the LC, lest they be deceived.

The LC has a history of withholding information from members. I highly doubt many current members have even read the writings produced in the wake of the quarantine that happened 10 years ago. Events such as the “One Publication” proclamation served to set a distinctive new path forward for the LC. To those in the LC, some might not have thought there was anything the least bit unusual about the “One Publication”. I feel that the LC is now more sectarian than what I’ve seen in the past. Ironically, they’ve managed to gain the support of an outside group (CRI) who go as far to call them “an exemplary group of Christians”. The information presented to LC members is completely contradictory to the facts that have been documented by many ex-members.

Because those in the LC talk so much about “oneness”, it is not too difficult for an outsider or new comer to get the impression that they demonstrate oneness. A lot of things about the LC might lead to that conclusion: not taking a name, everyone uses the same Bible, everyone is reading the same ministry material, there are no dissenting opinions that are expressed, and the list could go on. Some of these things might seem admirable, but someone only has to realize that such practices are not optional. That changes everything. The forced “oneness” that is displayed in the LC is nothing admirable. This is something that the BB’s need to answer to. They continually speak about oneness, but practice sectarianism. It’s hard to understand how they’ve been able to get always with it for so long. I am glad that those who have felt convicted to do so have taken it upon themselves to call the BB’s out on these issues.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

After over fifty years in the U. S., they still have the teaching that they are on a ground of oneness with all believers in their localities; but in practice they unwittingly separate themselves from those who do not meet with them. This is due to their strict adherence to a man and a ministry. Their teaching that they have THE MINISTRY of the age accentuates the demarcation. And their one publication policy completes the death knell to their claim to church authenticity. They are, in fact, ministry churches of the first degree, not local churches.

There is practice/teaching the ground of oneness with them has a corresponding reality to the Word. In order to have a ground of oneness with the local churches, your fellowship must be according to the ministry LSM publishes.

Apart from the LSM publications, there is no basis for fellowship. Because of local churches reliance on LSM publications, local churches have in fact become ministry churches.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

There is practice/teaching the ground of oneness with them has a corresponding reality to the Word. In order to have a ground of oneness with the local churches, your fellowship must be according to the ministry LSM publishes.

Apart from the LSM publications, there is no basis for fellowship. Because of local churches reliance on LSM publications, local churches have in fact become ministry churches.

My impression is that LC leadership doesn't necessarily deny that they are "ministry churches", however, they would take great offense if makes that claim about any LC. The way that I have seen them sidestep the issue is by taking about how "rich" Lee's ministry is, and saying that the saints feel that it is the only ministry worth using. It's a poor excuse for the real issue at hand. When the "One Publication" proclamation was made, I remember the BBs said something about how the saints knew that Lee's ministry had the right "flavor" and all other ministries (especially those that had co-existed in the LC) didn't have the right "flavor".

It's interesting to consider whether or not the exclusive use of Lee's ministry was really something that all the saints in the LC felt best about. If you took a vote, I don't know if that's what everyone really would have asked for, but I'm inclined to believe that most in the LC would go along with whatever is pushed by LC leadership. If the BB's were to start promoting a non-LSM ministry, those in the LC would probably go along with it. From the days before Lee's ministry was used exclusively, I've noticed that there is a common set of non-LSM books that many who were around in those days have. No doubt, those books were suggested reading material at a certain point in time. Therefore, I think it's deceptive for the BB's to simplify the issue by saying that Lee's ministry is the only ministry the saints feel good about.

Finally, if those in the LCM don't like the label "ministry churches", then the following questions need to be answered: 1) Why are there no recognized "local churches" that don't use Lee's ministry? and 2) Why has the LCM ceased to recognize certain churches that have stopped using Lee's ministry? The answers are clear, however, I have never heard those in the LCM give good answers to these types of questions. That is because they can't. They know the truth, but the promotion of a man and a ministry is more important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When the "One Publication" proclamation was made, I remember the BBs said something about how the saints knew that Lee's ministry had the right "flavor" and all other ministries (especially those that had co-existed in the LC) didn't have the right "flavor".

Both Lee and the Blendeds, publicly and privately, sowed seeds of suspicion into all the saints concerning every other ministry except their own. They would say that the "ministry of life has a unique taste." They used this to drive a wedge between their ministry and that of Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lan in Brazil. LSM spent years actively cultivating their own unique "flavor."

It's all so subjective. I could say unreservedly that Witness Lee "tasted differently" than Ron Kangas who "tasted differently" than Dick Taylor. But isn't that exactly the kind of "corrupt communication" that Paul warned us about in Ephesians 4.29? For a ministry that champions the so-called "oneness of the faith," their behavior borders the despicable, and "grieves the Holy Spirit of God." (Ephesians 4.30)

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's interesting to consider whether or not the exclusive use of Lee's ministry was really something that all the saints in the LC felt best about. If you took a vote, I don't know if that's what everyone really would have asked for, but I'm inclined to believe that most in the LC would go along with whatever is pushed by LC leadership.

Many sisters, extending back years before the "One Pub Bull" was announced by the Blindeds, secretly went to other ministries like Focus on the Family and Joyce Meyers. They knew that LSM could not provide specific Christian counseling for their family's needs.

Originally Posted by Freedom

They know the truth, but the promotion of a man and a ministry is more important.

I used to think that LCers knew "the truth," but actually most only know obscure doctrines, and lots of them.

[OBW]

This whole "ministry church" issue is quite novel to me since I left in the middle of 1987, and if there was any such thing then it was masked enough that I did not notice it as I was phasing out.

It seems that the idea that a church, or even group of churches might like to have some "editorial control" over what is taught is not entirely ridiculous. But the extreme narrowness of source for the LCM is definitely beyond what seems reasonable. They have effectively rejected all writings of all Christian sources other than the Bible, Lee, and some Nee. And after they finish interpreting the Bible, I'm not sure how much of that is left. (After you supposedly glean only the best from all others and then reject everything else they wrote, it is hard to say that you are standing on the shoulders of the people that you are effectively dismissing as deficient.)

But what stands out to me more than anything about this is that the way that they are "ministry churches" is the very thing that establishes the denomination that they claim not to be. When a central office sends out a schedule of what will be taught each week, even dictating the song (now typically only one song, not two or more) that will be sung, then the denomination is established. Some have declared that the Lord's table is still just a local meeting that is free to be observed as the members will. But the time allotted for that has in many cases been shortened (by edict) so that another ministry station ("MS") meeting can occur. In fact, if you look at the meetings of any particular church that remains loyal to the LSM, how many meetings each week are under the rule of the LSM and how many are local?

Maybe the local assembly has the right to choose to sing more songs, but simply don't because they trust their Anaheim leaders. And maybe they don't have to give over as many meetings to the MS model.

But what happens if a particular church should actually start to ignore one of the MS times and just have their own meeting. Or sing a couple more songs and have less time for the pre-packaged MS meeting. What would happen to the leadership of that assembly?

I'm sure that the canned answer would be that they are free to do just that, but that none have cared to do other than the "suggested" formats. That makes it virtually impossible to truly determine the truth. If none will act differently (probably because they are so steeped in a theology in which oneness is about looking identical), then we will never know if they could actually get by without consequence. They will just declare that none want to even if the truth is that none dare to.

[HERn]

I think the experiment has been conducted and the conclusion reached. Just look at what happened to the GLA local churches after they dared mix LSM material and speakers with non-LSM material and speakers. Many got their "local church" franchises pulled or cancelled.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the experiment has been conducted and the conclusion reached. Just look at what happened to the GLA local churches after they dared mix LSM material and speakers with non-LSM material and speakers. Many got their "local church" franchises pulled or cancelled.

Maybe and maybe not. There is a difference there. In the GLA, they didn't just fail to be as strong in following. They followed someone who openly bucked the system, including publishing his own materials.

If instead you follow the LSM, just not quite "all in," that is different. Not saying the outcome wouldn't be the same. But are there examples of "loyal" LSM churches that are not by-the-book loyal? Maybe there are. Anaheim has to consider how petty the difference can be and still have their followers buy into another mass excommunication.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the experiment has been conducted and the conclusion reached. Just look at what happened to the GLA local churches after they dared mix LSM material and speakers with non-LSM material and speakers. Many got their "local church" franchises pulled or cancelled.

This was just one of many symptoms, but the real "disease" that got Titus Chu quarantine was his threat to the Blinded power struggle. Word on the streets in SE Asia was a growing groundswell of "Nee-Lee-Chu" for King of the Recovery. As pathetic as that sounds, it scared the Blendeds into action. None of them were willing or qualified to relocate to Cleveburg.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Finally, if those in the LCM don't like the label "ministry churches", then the following questions need to be answered: 1) Why are there no recognized "local churches" that don't use Lee's ministry? and 2) Why has the LCM ceased to recognize certain churches that have stopped using Lee's ministry? The answers are clear, however, I have never heard those in the LCM give good answers to these types of questions. That is because they can't. They know the truth, but the promotion of a man and a ministry is more important.

My sense is the leadership wants it both ways. They want the "local church" label, but using anything aprt from Lee's ministry is non-negotiable. As a disclaimer in advance

When I was a single brother in the mid-90's I had asked a Bellevue elder what about the Church in Moses Lake? Years later I learned it's elders walked out of the April 1986 Elders Conference and Moses Lake subsequently disassociated with LSM, but the response from this Bellevue elder was, "they're a rebel church".
That sums up why there are no localities recognized by LSM that don't use LSM publications.
The following quote attributed to the late elder RW appears to be truthful, but brothers don't wish to acknowledge:

"If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

My sense is the leadership wants it both ways. They want the "local church" label, but using anything aprt from Lee's ministry is non-negotiable. As a disclaimer in advance

When I was a single brother in the mid-90's I had asked a Bellevue elder what about the Church in Moses Lake? Years later I learned it's elders walked out of the April 1986 Elders Conference and Moses Lake subsequently disassociated with LSM, but the response from this Bellevue elder was, "they're a rebel church".
That sums up why there are no localities recognized by LSM that don't use LSM publications.
The following quote attributed to the late elder RW appears to be truthful, but brothers don't wish to acknowledge:

"If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here."

I agree, LC leadership want things both ways. They want the designation of being “local churches” in the sense that they claim they have recovered the New Testament church, but they also feel that they are obligated to practice it according to Lee’s ministry.
I will repost something that UntoHim just posted in a different thread, because I think it fits in well here:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Many of us former Local Churchers (me included), have to one degree or another, talked ourselves into believing that theology/teaching/doctrine can actually be separated and/or removed from our experience and practice. I think this faulty, and potentially dangerous, understanding came from Witness Lee himself, who was constantly emphasizing experience and practice (Calling on the Lord, Pray-Reading, going to meetings, etc) over against traditional notions of studying, contemplation and meditation on God's Word. If we had been doing the later we wouldn't have swallowed wholesale all the bad theology, and in turn we wouldn't see all the bad fruit of the aberrant and harmful practices.

I think this highlights the problem at hand. Nee taught something about the Church, and he may have had some valid points. Lee was concerned with putting it into practice. Somewhere along the way, things went awry and the end result was that the practice did not match the teaching. I’m not here to say whether Nee and Lee’s teachings were right or wrong, but I think it’s important for those in the LC to realize that their current practice does not match the teachings of Nee or early-Lee. It’s a dangerous position to be in, for them to not realize what they really are. They are so convinced that their supposed “vision” is what makes them who they are, that they completely ignore the aspect of their actual practice.

Both Nee and Lee spoke against churches being “for the ministry”, and I know that one of Lee’s criticisms of TAS was that he had a ministry center. Lee eventually went down that same path. The LCM has stayed on that path, and a few years ago they finished their Ministry Conference Center aka “Building 8”. Again, the LCM can’t see that they have become the very thing that their leaders have spoken out against. I suspect that many LC members would also speak against local churches being "for the ministry" (not realizing that's exactly what is going on). The LCM argument is that they aren't "ministry churches", they just seek want to use the "ministry of the age" and they don't have time for anything else. Members actually believe this. I did at one point. It's all really sad, because the facts speak for themselves. Those in the LCM are in complete denial.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Both Nee and Lee spoke against churches being “for the ministry”, and I know that one of Lee’s criticisms of TAS was that he had a ministry center. Lee eventually went down that same path. The LCM has stayed on that path, and a few years ago they finished their Ministry Conference Center aka “Building 8”. Again, the LCM can’t see that they have become the very thing that their leaders have spoken out against. I suspect that many LC members would also speak against local churches being "for the ministry" (not realizing that's exactly what is going on). The LCM argument is that they aren't "ministry churches", they just seek want to use the "ministry of the age" and they don't have time for anything else. Members actually believe this. I did at one point. It's all really sad, because the facts speak for themselves. Those in the LCM are in complete denial.

In Lee-land doublespeak, they can "speak things into existence." Such it was with the saying, "the churches are not for the ministry, rather the ministry is for the churches." I heard this repeatedly for decades. It took me a long time to step back and look at the facts. It wasn't that way in the beginning, but fact is the LC's existed only to serve LSM.