What is God's Economy?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.

Anyone remember that song that showed how Lee was all about centering on Christ and totally not at all about centering on man?

"O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe."

All sarcasm aside, I really do like the tune of the song, if not the message anymore.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Well Jay, maybe I was just really lucky for this to happen to little old me - but a couple of years after I walked away from the LC here in my hometown (the same one I migrated from San Diego to help establish in 1985) I found myself in the midst of a well attended multi-church Prayer Conference less than 5 miles from the LC Meeting Hall and then this shocking image flashed up on the screen...



What do you think ran through my mind in that moment?

No Jay, I was NOT thinking "What the hell are these degraded lifeless Babylonians doing stealing such rich insights from the Ministry Of The Age and failing to give credit where credit is due?"

Actually Jay, I was rejoicing that someone had gone beyond simply knowing that human beings have a spirit! These people were actually doing something practical with a truth that we in the LCs had simply been content to know & beat our chests about. They were pressing on to maturity in Christ - and helping others along the same path!

Please STOP painting believers outside the LC with such a broad negative brush. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

P.S.

Looks an awful lot like one of Lee's charts

How do we know they didn't steal these concepts from Lee? We don't

Anyway if you're happy with your church that's nice. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Christianity is very poor in many ways. Lee was right about that. But I disagree with the spirit of mocking he used whenever he would say it

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Anyone remember that song that showed how Lee was all about centering on Christ and totally not at all about centering on man?

"O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe."

All sarcasm aside, I really do like the tune of the song, if not the message anymore.

Is Christ the center of the universe? Or is man? Lol, I just realized these two concepts conflict

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

My sense of the chief deficiency in WL’s ministry – and others may see differently – is that he made the Bible about himself, when it’s really about Jesus. WL held WN as de facto Minister of the Age – he called him Seer of the Divine Revelation – and then as WN’s purported close acolyte, WL then became the new Seer, the new MOTA. The believers’ relationship with God was defined by their relationship with him – if they were on the “proper” ground or not, and then if they were “independent” or even worse, “ambitious” or “rebellious”, versus being “one” with “God’s oracle”, and to what degree of “practical oneness” they exhibited. All these factors determined one’s proximity or involvement to the supposed flow from the throne of God.

It was a Chinese [cultural] guanxi network, with a patina of Christianity on top for recruiting purposes. A Caucasian on this forum (DR) wrote “when the Chinese brothers realized I was tight with WL, they completely changed their attitudes towards me and became very deferential.” In a large conference, I personally saw WL publicly calling out TC, who replied “I am ashamed…” and confessed the shorcomings of his local churches. Relationships were strongly mediated by unexamined cultural biases, which determined who’d kow tow to another.

That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.

This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage. And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.

The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.

When I first moved to Bellevue in 2006 I realized that locality was like 75% Asian, mostly Chinese. It was definitely something that was noticeably cultural and I believe it played a large part in my feeling somewhat ostracized and judged. I definitely didn't feel much love from them if at all. However two of the three leading elders were Caucasian and one was Japanese, not Chinese. Which is an odd juxtaposition given the large number of Chinese in the congregation. I often wonder how much the language barrier affected the life level in that locality. It certainly lacked a lot of Christ and was poor in the enjoyment of the spirit

I think that the Chinese have a lot of pride that Nee and Lee came out of their country. I also think they think they're more advanced than Americans. And I've heard a tape of a brothers meeting where Lee was bashing American culture and uplifting Chinese culture, which was wild to hear back when I thought Lee was always so spiritual and never natural or fleshly. But I always see a lot of pride in the Chinese in the local churches, granted it could be their nature in general, but I've found the Chinese to be very latently racist as well just in general. How much all of that came into the church I'm sure is relative, but I can't say that it doesn't latently exist

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

God had been reduced to an object, processed for personal use - mastication, enjoyment, assimilation. We had become the center and focus of the narrative. We fixated on our overcoming, or not... our "making it" versus being "in a dark room" for 1000 years. Witness Lee, at the center of the religious enterprise (really, a personal 'guanxi network' per cultural affiliation), manipulated us by making us introspective. He gave us a puzzle - ourselves - and the only way out is to regard the MOTA and his message. His version of "God's economy" was central to that exercise. It was all about you, exercising your spirit, enjoying, reigning in life. It is really a subjective maze, a hall of mirrors, manipulated by the MOTA... are you "enjoying" today? Or, headed for the "dark room"?

Very interesting point, but I enjoyed the Lord yesterday while calling on his name and reading a little bit from a morning revival. I felt the spirit yesterday as I do from time to time when I practice praying, calling, and exercising my spirit. So not for nothing was Lee's doctrine on the economy of God

I rather like the concept that God made himself small in order to become assimilated into the being of his believers. That to me sound verrrrrrry Biblical and very practical, and nothing else brings me closer to God than exercising my spirit. I never got that concept or practice in the denominations when I went to their meetings. Their meetings were focused on being a better person, behavior modification, prosperity gospel, or at best some attempts at expounding the word of God. Even over the years watching random preachers from time to time you don't hear them talk at all about the spirit or enjoying the Lord or calling or anything from the economy of God. Mostly they touch on things like forgiveness, justification, works, love, things like that. Some of what they say is very good, but if you consider that if God wants to dwell in us and his mode of doing so is the exercise of the spirit, then most, if not all, of modern Christianity falls short of that

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

"My food is to do the will of the Father", that was ignored

I'm pretty sure the 'will of his father' here is to go to the cross to redeem the world back to the father. But ok, that doesn't mean God's will isn't multifaceted. It clearly is. Said it before and I'll say it again, the concept of eating God as spiritual food is saturated in the scriptures from beginning to end. Whether it's the spirit, or it's the word itself enlivened by us when we exercise our spirit to partake of it, the concept of eating God himself is probably the cornerstone doctrine in the entire Bible. It's literally the means and the mode for just about everything, including the building up of the body, and the preparing of the bride. If you read the Bible clearly and fully there is no way for us to become the bride to match God through our works. That's silly talk. It has to be through assimilation of the spirit. This is very very clearly in the Bible, not something Lee made up or manufactured

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this one. Who else would the focus be but us? Animals don't have a spirit, they were not created in the image of God. Atheists aren't born again so they don't have a regenerated human spirit in order to contact God. So who else would the dispensing be for? It's wonderful that we're the object of God's desire and his plan, and he accomplishes it through dispensing himself into us. That's a wonderful privilege. To ignore that and focus on works or love or anything else is actually pretty sad. God's like "hey you can do works, you can have love, you can have every positive thing, but all of these things are found in the spirit of my son Jesus. Hear ye him." Are we listening to Christ today? Or are we trying to please God out of our works, which is just a modified version of following the law. Any person who reads the Bible carefully understands that attempting to please God by following the law results in spiritual death and really is an insult to God. Just read the book of Romans up until chapter 8 and you'll see how following the law in order to please God is an error

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.

That I in that phrase is Jeremiah. I've never once in my life heard it being interpreted as anyone else. But certainly we can interpose ourselves into the practice of that verse by having morning revival. I see no basis for any contention on who the I in that verse was referring to. The Bible consistently refers to eating and musing and praying over the word of God. From David to Jeremiah to the apostle John, it's a running theme in the Bible. I see no evidence that the I in this verse is Christ. John 4:24 combined with John 6:57 clearly proves that Jesus wants US to eat him as the spirit. When we combine those two verses with John 1:1 which clearly states that Jesus is the very incarnated word of God, then we see clearly that God wants us to eat and pray read the verses in the Bible. This is very simple stuff when you actually understand the Bible

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.

I think you're doing a lot of inferring and conjecturing here without much or any evidence presented

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage

Actually Lee was definitely right in his assessment of the Psalms and David's natural and lawful concepts. Paul clarifies in Romans and Galatians that the law should not be uplifted and should not replace Christ

I think you're also doing a lot of weird leaps in logic here. Just because David in one Psalm expressed his natural fallen attempts at fulfilling the law, but at other times he expressed and uplifted Christ does not mean that the entire book of Psalms is supposed to be congruently cohesive in spiritual tone and efficacy. That's a logical error. David could be very fallen one day and very spiritual and ascended on another day, as can we all. And we see this a lot in the Psalms. We see a lot of David's negative fleshly concepts and a lot of his uplifting the law and trying to fit the mold of the law of God by his own efforts, etc. And then at other times we see him just transcending, even to such a point that Christ is speaking through him and they're one in their sufferings (see Psalm 22 which literally quotes what Jesus said on the cross, 1,000 years before Jesus was incarnated). That to me is solid proof that David was up and down in his experiences and this clearly came through in his writing

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.

If this is true then I think it's very wrong of Lee to say. The elders aren't kings, they're supposed to be slaves according to Lee. But I'd say they're supposed to be shepherds and more mature ones in life and experience, and they're supposed to love and care for the congregation

Can you quote Lee where he said this? Can you add a link?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

Are we listening to Christ today? Or are we trying to please God out of our works, which is just a modified version of following the law. Any person who reads the Bible carefully understands that attempting to please God by following the law results in spiritual death and really is an insult to God. Just read the book of Romans up until chapter 8 and you'll see how following the law in order to please God is an error

We cannot separate "good works" from "listening to Christ," nor is it sound to make the attempt. Christ commanded us to do good works. God commands us to do good works. These things please the Lord because he is pleased with obedience and pleased with what is good. To say that we should not try to do good works to please God is one of Witness Lee's most incredibly misleading phrases and teachings. This is due mainly to the fact that there is one major and important distinction that seems to be lost to Witness Lee: the difference between doing good works in order to be saved and doing good works because it pleases our God. I don't know about you, but I wish to make my Father happy, and because of this I will endeavor to do the good works he is training me to do.

Ephesians 2:1-10
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

The law of the spirit which frees us that is mentioned in Romans 8 is very clearly outlined by James as well.

James 2:8-13
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Even the law of the spirit which gives freedom requires something of us. We are to love our neighbor, and this manifests itself as abstaining from murder and adultery. It manifests itself by the fruit we produce as Jesus warned, "you shall know them by their fruit." That fruit is also clearly shown to us in Galatians.

Galatians 5:13-26
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

That we are called to freedom does not mean we are exempt from good works. It means that we no longer need to do them for the sake of our salvation. Despite this, we are absolutely still called to do good works in order to show that we live by the spirit and in order to please our God. It is not to be saved, but because we are saved that we must do good works. Otherwise, we will bring shame to the name of the Lord by claiming to be his and yet abstaining from what is good.

A simple analogy is this: I am a teacher. I love my students. They have been given to me. They are mine. They misbehave at times, but they will not stop being my students. They have a measure of assurance that they will remain in my classroom despite their misbehavior, yet they should not adopt the mindset that they do not have to be obedient and good because of this assurance. They absolutely will be held to a higher standard and depending on the situation I will teach, rebuke, correct, or discipline them if they do not. Those who wish to please me thinking they may be kicked out at any moment are mistaken. Those who wish to please me because they know they are mine and they know this is what I want in my classroom have the correct idea. Those who love me and know me and wish to please me also know that they may be disciplined if they do not do what they are tasked with or if they act wickedly, yet they know they will still be my students. This assurance drives them to be better, not out of fear, but out of love and because they know they are secure even if they make a mistake.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

That to me is solid proof that David was up and down in his experiences and this clearly came through in his writing

You are reading Lee's theology back onto the text as he trained you to do so. But where in the NT is the basis? There are dozens of quotes showing revelation, but nothing that I can find where they (Jesus, Paul, Peter) pan the natural concepts of David. There is no precedent for this interpretive position. It was an approach of selfish convenience to prop up a weak theology. The fallen concepts belong to Lee, not David.

“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

We can either say that David was in error in Psalm 16, thinking that God would keep him from Sheol/Hades, or that he foreknew the Seed that would come. Which approach did Peter take?

"The Holy Spirit spoke through David and he himself said: "The Lord said to my Lord, `Sit beside me until I make you master over your enemies.'" Jesus said that the Holy Spirit spoke through David - where does Jesus say that David was in his fallen human self, vainly trying to be good? There's no precedent for this position in the NT usage. It's a position that WL came up with, against NT precedent. Who was entertaining fallen human concepts, here?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" - does NT precedent suggest A) Jeremiah's vanity, or B) NT believers enjoying the processed God, or C) Jesus obeying the Father? Lee gave us a false choice set: A or B, but he skipped C.

Originally Posted by Jay

Can you quote Lee where he said this? Can you add a link?

It's in the RecV footnotes. Yet again, the false dichotomy is assumed of either A or B, ignoring option C, which is the option the NT writers took.

"The law here refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, written by Moses. In ruling over the people the king had to be instructed... and controlled by the word of God. The principle should be the same with the elders in the churches. In order to administrate or manage the church, the elders must be reconstituted with the holy word of God. As a result, they will be under God's government, under God's rule and control. Then spontaneously God will be in their decisions, and the elders will represent God and manage the affairs of the church. This kind of management is theocracy."

The NT reception shows us the Messiah fulfilling the OT script. That's the whole reason the books were written: to show that scripture (what we call the OT) was speaking about Jesus the Nazarene. Lee bypassed this clear and established precedent here, said it was about the local church elders, and that Psalm 1 was vanity.

[aron]

I may have been elliptical in my approach, and even disjointed. But really over the past 5 years on this forum, I've had 2 main themes, which in my view tightly relate.

The first is objective - how we treat the text. What does it say. What happened. What do we believe. In my view, the clear NT precedent is to treat the OT scripture as being completed in Jesus the Nazarene. Of course the repentant protagonist in Psalm 51 isn't Jesus - but even there is a foretaste of Jesus speaking to Peter: "When you turn, you will strengthen the brothers". Jesus interceded for Peter, and Peter turned, and this turning became a beacon for others. See Psalm 51:13: "Then I teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you."

Witness Lee turned it into the [local] church, and Christ was "everything to us" - our shoes, our umbrella, our window. Of course Jesus said that he was the door, the bread, the Shepherd, but it was His experience that is the basis. As he was in relation with the Father, so is ours with him. Otherwise we create a fake experience with a fake shoe, a fake bread, a fake door. We fool ourselves and each other. That's what Nee and Lee did. They were Spiritual Giants apart from Christ, and the Christ they proffered was of their own manufacture. They missed the text and made their own. And Lee's "economy" was cut from this cloth, as I've shown.

The related thing that I've learned in an experiential way, is reciprocity. "As you do to others, so God will do to you." I was always focused on myself, a black hole of need. Lee fooled me for a while, fed my ego. I was a brother in the local church. Not a sister. Not one of the poor Christians. Not an unbeliever. Not an unredeemed sinner. No, I was exercising my human spirit on the local ground. "Oh, I'm a man - I'm the center and the meaning of the universe!" I shouted and yelled with the best of them, and it was great. But my problems remained, and ultimately I left in despair and frustration.

After some unhappy years passed, I discovered reciprocity. As I do to others, God will do to me. If I want to be blessed, I bless. It's that simple. "Give, and it will be given to you, pressed down, shaken, running over." Wow. This is the gospel Paul preached. I've gone over the verses in detail. This is our heavenly manna. "Blessed is that one, when the Master comes, he will find so doing." Doing what? Pray-reading? No - giving to those who lack. It might be comfort, encouragement, wisdom, a smile. It might be some sort of help along the way. It could be anything. The situation and the HS will dictate what is to be done.

As soon as I re-oriented my life changed. That is the subjective part. The objective part is that the NT no longer is a mystery to me. It is all of apace. There is no high gospel or low gospel. There is one gospel. It is a holistic document with one theme. God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son, that we might believe and be saved. And we follow him - "When I was sick, you visited me, when I was hungry you gave me food". This is our journey of faith. It is pure grace to care for others. As you care for them, God cares for you. If you ignore them, God ignores you.

"The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight." Only Jesus fills this text. Not David, not the redeemed sinner. Let your consciousness be in him. It is only his subjective experience that matters.

Then the HS speaks: "To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd. You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty." The voice is the HS to God, but the listener of the directive, who sees the principle of reciprocity, can place themselves where they will, by their attitudes and actions, especially toward those around them.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

You are reading Lee's theology back onto the text as he trained you to do so. But where in the NT is the basis? There are dozens of quotes showing revelation, but nothing that I can find where they (Jesus, Paul, Peter) pan the natural concepts of David. There is no precedent for this interpretive position. It was an approach of selfish convenience to prop up a weak theology. The fallen concepts belong to Lee, not David.

There's plenty of old testament verses that aren't quoted, interpreted, or deconstructed in the New Testament. And they just don't have to be. Your logic isn't sound here. But anyway it's obvious that Lee is right about David, and he clearly explains himself in the footnotes with comparison to the New Testament. When David asks God to smite his enemies Lee says that David's concept was fallen and sinful, and Lee uses the New Testament to prove it citing Matthew 5:38-39

That's just a correct assessment. All the stuff you added to attack Lee with regards to his assessment of David is just baseless unfortunately

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

It's in the RecV footnotes. Yet again, the false dichotomy is assumed of either A or B, ignoring option C, which is the option the NT writers took.

"The law here refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, written by Moses. In ruling over the people the king had to be instructed... and controlled by the word of God. The principle should be the same with the elders in the churches. In order to administrate or manage the church, the elders must be reconstituted with the holy word of God. As a result, they will be under God's government, under God's rule and control. Then spontaneously God will be in their decisions, and the elders will represent God and manage the affairs of the church. This kind of management is theocracy."

Wow that does not sound right of Lee to say. It appears he's implying that the elders are kings in the recovery, or maybe he's not. Maybe he's just using the kings as an example here? Idk it's a weird thing to say in the context he said it and regarding the kings and comparing their walk with God to the elder's walk with God. seems like people could read that and easily get confused and an elder could assume that means he's a king in God's house. Is that what Lee meant? Idk hard to say. We'd maybe need some other footnote or quote from Lee to verify

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

We can either say that David was in error in Psalm 16, thinking that God would keep him from Sheol/Hades, or that he foreknew the Seed that would come. Which approach did Peter take?

"The Holy Spirit spoke through David and he himself said: "The Lord said to my Lord, `Sit beside me until I make you master over your enemies.'" Jesus said that the Holy Spirit spoke through David - where does Jesus say that David was in his fallen human self, vainly trying to be good? There's no precedent for this position in the NT usage. It's a position that WL came up with, against NT precedent. Who was entertaining fallen human concepts, here?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" - does NT precedent suggest A) Jeremiah's vanity, or B) NT believers enjoying the processed God, or C) Jesus obeying the Father? Lee gave us a false choice set: A or B, but he skipped C.

I have no idea how you're tying this into the footnotes about Lee saying David's concept was often natural and fallen. It's just an incredibly weak point you're attempting. It doesn't even make sense logically. As I said before, David was up and down in his spiritual progression, as we all are at different stages and different times in our lives. But you're taking random Psalms out of context to make a broad sweeping generalization about the entire book. Which is very poor logic

Just because David was very spiritual and ascended in one Psalm, doesn't mean ALL the Psalms are very spiritual and ascended. In fact there are many Psalms that start out well and go in an errant direction, often either a lawful or vengeful direction. And there are many Psalms that start out bad and end in an ascended way. It's weird to think that all of the Old Testament is very ascended or all of the old testament is about Jesus etc. No the old testament is multifaceted as is the entire Bible. You're like assuming just because something is true in one book/chapter/verse that it's true in all the other books/chapter/verses. Which is really weird

If you read David's history in the old testament it's often up and down. Which clearly backs up Lee's points about David. David at one point entered into an extremely dark period in his life, where he became a murderer and an adulterer. He also to whatever degree (not nearly as much as his son Solomon) became a lecher. So David's personal spiritual walk was consistently inconsistent sir. This helps to prove Lee's point and it's just the truth and it's obvious too

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have no idea how you're tying this into the footnotes about Lee saying David's concept was often natural and fallen. It's just an incredibly weak point you're attempting. It doesn't even make sense logically.

I do get Lee's logic, and understand it's support within his immediate community. However, there's one problem - nowhere do I see NT usage giving him precedent. Neither Paul nor Jesus or the gospelists, all of whom quoted extensively, ever took this approach. So, he has no basis, except for his own fallen human reasoning, which, btw, I don't trust anymore, as he was clearly shot through with bias & self interest.

However, I must add that I appreciate your coming on this forum and defending your perspective. It takes a lot of personal courage and honesty to admit there are serious issues in the LC, even while you hold the teachings. Many collapse and give up the faith, as the strain is too great. They just chuck everything. So I've no doubt that your voice is a beacon to many.

My point is simple - there's a pattern of reception in the NT, and WL breaks that pattern.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by aron

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God." This is our daily bread.

I believe that Witness Lee employed terms like "God's Economy" as a means to draw and then separate individuals from the broader Body of Christ. Additionally, concepts such as the teaching of the local ground of the church and practices like pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord were similarly utilized to create a sense of exclusivity and control. Much like Jehovah Witnesses emphasize the name "Jehovah" and Seventh Day Adventists prioritize observing the Sabbath, Witness Lee emphasized buzzwords such as "God's Economy" and "Lord's Recovery," as well as phrases like "exercise your Spirit”, “sense of life” to isolate and bind believers.

The term "economy" appears only a handful of times in the writings of Paul, indicating that it is not of central importance compared to themes like Christ, the cross, repentance, holiness, and salvation, which are extensively emphasized throughout the Bible. Furthermore, the interpretation of "God's Economy" given by Witness Lee as the mingling and dispensing of the Triune God with tripartite man lacks biblical support and is an erroneous teaching. This perceived exclusivity around the concept of "economy" within the Lord's Recovery hinders genuine fellowship with other Christians outside the movement, creating unnecessary division.

In my perspective, God's Economy encompasses His grand plan of salvation in Christ and His divine will to establish His kingdom among us. This includes the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the apostles, such as believing in Christ, repenting of sins, living a righteous life, spreading the gospel, practicing compassion and generosity, honoring marriage, and more—all of which contribute to the realization of God's economy. However, within the Lord's Recovery movement, there appears to be a downplaying of these essential aspects, while abstract and mystical concepts like mingling and dispensing are elevated to a central focus. This shift can obscure the simplicity and power of the gospel message and detract from the core teachings of Scripture. It's crucial for believers to discern and recognize the subtle tactics of the enemy to distort foundational truths and sow division among God's people.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I believe that Witness Lee employed terms like "God's Economy" as a means to draw and then separate individuals from the broader Body of Christ. Additionally, concepts such as the teaching of the local ground of the church and practices like pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord were similarly utilized to create a sense of exclusivity and control. Much like Jehovah Witnesses emphasize the name "Jehovah" and Seventh Day Adventists prioritize observing the Sabbath, Witness Lee emphasized buzzwords such as "God's Economy" and "Lord's Recovery," as well as phrases like "exercise your Spirit”, “sense of life” to isolate and bind believers.

Yes, the drive for a group to adopt "special practices" seems to have several unholy goals such as to maintain group loyalty through establishing unique terminology & language, to make the Guru feel like he or she has a special connection with God, and to make followers think the same of the leader.

One publication that has helped me to understand this odd drive for "special-ness" within the Recovery was F.B. Hole's Modern Mystical Teachings and the Word of God.

Link: https://blendedbody.com/4LCD/ModernM...eWordofGod.pdf

P.S.

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

In my perspective, God's Economy encompasses His grand plan of salvation in Christ and His divine will to establish His kingdom among us. This includes the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the apostles, such as believing in Christ, repenting of sins, living a righteous life, spreading the gospel, practicing compassion and generosity, honoring marriage, and more—all of which contribute to the realization of God's economy. However, within the Lord's Recovery movement, there appears to be a downplaying of these essential aspects, while abstract and mystical concepts like mingling and dispensing are elevated to a central focus. This shift can obscure the simplicity and power of the gospel message and detract from the core teachings of Scripture. It's crucial for believers to discern and recognize the subtle tactics of the enemy to distort foundational truths and sow division among God's people.

If the term God's economy is as Lee defined it- 'Oikonomos' in the Greek, which means household manager, or household arrangement, then it would seem that BOTH Lee's interpretation and your definition here are correct. However you also bring up a solid point in that Lee mostly only focuses on the dispensing of the spirit as opposed to the other aspects of a household arrangement, or household management. I think this is a great point you're making in that Lee for the most part downplays important aspects of the Bible that aren't directly linked to large terms that he constantly hits on such as 'the triune God' 'the mingled spirit, 'exercising the spirit,' etc. And because of the extreme adoration the LC has for Lee they follow this absolutely. To the point where very large matters such as marriage, sin, works of practical care, kindness, love, fellowship, compassion (things you mentioned), all take a very distant second to the core things Lee always hit on. It's not that Lee never touched on these other things, he absolutely does and did, but it's always within the scope of his major points of the spirit and mingling. I guess in a sense that's kinda ok and good in a way, because I think if Jesus is the spirit then we should run everything by the spirit first and foremost, which i think is his point by that. But also when you spend lots of time with the LC you start to realize that they put almost NO emphasis on other things. It's just solely the same major points about dispending and the spirit OVER AND OVER AND OVER, just repackaged, recooked, reheated, rehashed, etc. in different ways according to their supposed revelation. Essentially all they're doing is talking about the same points over and over again but just changing their words around each time. Which does not seem balanced

Again if you meet with the LC you realize that this is all they talk about. They rarely talk about practical points from the Bible like you said. So while although I can't say Lee and the LC are objectively wrong to talk about the mingling, the spirit, calling on the Lord, morning revival, contacting God etc. I can that they are not balanced in their focus and teachings. On the other hand I would say that the denominations aren't balanced either, but in the opposite direction. The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, and the triune God, etc.

So we have an imbalance of both camps, which I'm seeing is a running theme here with regards to the talks about the different practices between the LC and the denominations

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

In my perspective, God's Economy encompasses His grand plan of salvation in Christ and His divine will to establish His kingdom among us. This includes the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the apostles, such as believing in Christ, repenting of sins, living a righteous life, spreading the gospel, practicing compassion and generosity, honoring marriage, and more—all of which contribute to the realization of God's economy. However, within the Lord's Recovery movement, there appears to be a downplaying of these essential aspects, while abstract and mystical concepts like mingling and dispensing are elevated to a central focus. This shift can obscure the simplicity and power of the gospel message and detract from the core teachings of Scripture. It's crucial for believers to discern and recognize the subtle tactics of the enemy to distort foundational truths and sow division among God's people.

If the term God's economy is as Lee defined it- 'Oikonomos' in the Greek, which means household manager, or household arrangement, then it would seem that BOTH Lee's interpretation and your definition here are correct. However you also bring up a solid point in that Lee mostly only focuses on the dispensing of the spirit as opposed to the other aspects of a household arrangement, or household management. I think this is a great point you're making in that Lee for the most part downplays important aspects of the Bible that aren't directly linked to large terms that he constantly hits on such as 'the triune God' 'the mingled spirit, 'exercising the spirit,' etc. And because of the extreme adoration the LC has for Lee they follow this absolutely. To the point where very large matters such as marriage, sin, works of practical care, kindness, love, fellowship, compassion (things you mentioned), all take a very distant second to the core things Lee always hit on. It's not that Lee never touched on these other things, he absolutely does and did, but it's always within the scope of his major points of the spirit and mingling. I guess in a sense that's kinda ok and good in a way, because I think if Jesus is the spirit then we should run everything by the spirit first and foremost, which i think is his point by that. But also when you spend lots of time with the LC you start to realize that they put almost NO emphasis on other things. It's just solely the same major points about dispending and the spirit OVER AND OVER AND OVER, just repackaged, recooked, reheated, rehashed, etc. in different ways according to their supposed ongoing revelation, which really is just the speaking brothers rearranging things Lee has said. Essentially all they're doing is talking about the same points over and over again but just changing their words around each time. Which does not seem balanced

Again if you meet with the LC you realize that this is all they talk about. They rarely talk about practical points from the Bible like you said. So while although I can't say Lee and the LC are objectively wrong to talk about the mingling, the spirit, calling on the Lord, morning revival, contacting God etc. I can surmise that they are not very balanced in their teachings. I think this leads to a lot of neglect and problems that stem from neglect of other things in the Christian walk. I think this is why so often people get ignored, their problems get swept under the rug, and it gives the elders and leaders plausible deniability to be somewhat lazy in helping the congregation. It's easy to just push off someone's problems by saying something like "Oh you just need to exercise your spirit more," or "just turn the Lord brother, everything will be ok." Which is an easy out for not helping people in a real, lasting, and practical way. I've seen this happen a lot actually in my time with the LC. People's problems get ignored or just shucked off in lieu of some broad sweeping generality that they package into a maxim

On the other hand I would say that the denominations aren't at all balanced either, but in the opposite direction. The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, transformation, and the triune God, etc.

So we have an imbalance of both camps, which I'm seeing is a running theme here with regards to the talks about the different practices between the LC and the denominations. It seems that the answer to both the problems of each camp is somewhere in the middle. The LC tends to be very much too extreme in many ways, and the denominations tend to be too basic. Of course I am not at all endorsing the denominations as I believe that Nee and Lee are objectively correct about them according to the Bible

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

……The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, and the triune God, etc.

NEVER? How do you know this? Have you visited every church congregation in America?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

NEVER? How do you know this? Have you visited every church congregation in America?

Yes I have

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I believe that Witness Lee employed terms like "God's Economy" as a means to draw and then separate individuals from the broader Body of Christ. Additionally, concepts such as the teaching of the local ground of the church and practices like pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord were similarly utilized to create a sense of exclusivity and control. Much like Jehovah Witnesses emphasize the name "Jehovah" and Seventh Day Adventists prioritize observing the Sabbath, Witness Lee emphasized buzzwords such as "God's Economy" and "Lord's Recovery," as well as phrases like "exercise your Spirit”, “sense of life” to isolate and bind believers.

The term "economy" appears only a handful of times in the writings of Paul, indicating that it is not of central importance compared to themes like Christ, the cross, repentance, holiness, and salvation, which are extensively emphasized throughout the Bible. Furthermore, the interpretation of "God's Economy" given by Witness Lee as the mingling and dispensing of the Triune God with tripartite man lacks biblical support and is an erroneous teaching. This perceived exclusivity around the concept of "economy" within the Lord's Recovery hinders genuine fellowship with other Christians outside the movement, creating unnecessary division.

This is an interesting take, which seems to be generally held by people on this forum

I wonder then what is the major theme of the Bible if not God being dispensed into his redeemed members? Personally I can see no greater emphasis than that in the Bible. How can we be holy and righteous outside of Christ? How can we live the Christian life outside of Christ? How can we do any of it through Christ if God doesn't dispense himself into us somehow? It seems that the spirit and its dispensing into our being is the mode and means by which everything in the Christian life is accomplished. Otherwise it would be just us trying to do it all, and we know from Paul's experience that that's futility

BUT, with that said, if Lee and LC leadership uses any major point, even a core correct major point, as a means and mode of control (physically or mentally) then of course that's a big problem that needs to be addressed

If they are doing this, is it knowingly? Or is it perfunctory in order to keep up a type of culture? Lends to a lot of questions

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand I would say that the denominations aren't at all balanced either, but in the opposite direction. The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, transformation, and the triune God, etc.

Jay, just take the loss rather than countering with childish sarcasm. You know this statement is not true. I know it's not true. Many denominations speak on the spirit of man, which is what gives us the ability of higher thought and the ability to commune with the Holy Spirit. I've been to Baptist, Pentecostal, and nondenominational churches, and they all touch on the spirit of man and our relation to the Holy Spirit. I was aware of this even while within the other denominations.

As for "mingling," most churches don't believe we "become God" like Lee taught. There's a reason the word "mingling" fell out of use for centuries. Most of the churches I've been to teach on us becoming closer and closer to God, being conformed to his image more and more as we grow in our Christian life and subsequently becoming more and more like God through the way we live and interact with one another and the world. I could see this even while within the other denominations.

On the matter of "dispensing," most churches know that we receive the dispensing of the Holy Spirit and that we receive this dispensing in many ways. It may appear through gifts or healing or wisdom or the fruit of the spirit mentioned in Galatians. Lee wanted to sound special by turning the spirit into some yummy snack we can munch on every day, but this is not different than what Christians have already known for centuries: we seek the Lord, we receive the Holy Spirit, and we grow as we become one with the spirit. We seek continuously in order to grow continuously. I knew of this even while within the other denominations.

On the matter of "exercising the spirit," Lee erroneously established a false dichotomy between the spirit and the soul. Look at the function of the spirit of man throughout the bible. Even without the dispensing of the Holy Spirit, man's spirit is what gives him the ability to reason and to think and to feel. Man's spirit is capable of thought and emotion and will. There's a reason the soul an spirit of man are likened to bone and marrow. You cannot reasonably separate one from the other. Lee's concept of "exercising the spirit" is just another way of using new vocabulary to try and sound like he discovered something grand and mysterious, but in reality any man who uses a reasonable mind to know God and seek him and pray to him and follow him is already "exercising the spirit" because he is seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I feel like making a point on "contacting God" would be redundant. Anyone who seeks the Lord is contacting him. Anyone who sets their hearts on God is contacting him. This is nothing new.

Prophesying: most churches I've been in give opportunity to their members to speak the word of God through the use of smaller bible studies and gatherings. That many of them get together for a bigger sermon does not negate this. Jesus and the apostles also made use of larger meetings and sermons to teach. Those in the Lord's Recovery have a very similar format whether they admit it or not. They have several days-long trainings and conferences and meetings where there is one main speaker giving an extended message for hours and then they have the prophesying meetings where everyone can have a chance to speak (though often times the only thing that was accepted was Lee's doctrines). The point is that many members of many churches "prophesy" when they get together to study the word of God and build each other up. Iron sharpens iron. Building the body of Christ. This is not something Lee came up with. It is foolish to think that such things do not exist outside of The Lord's Recovery.

Transformation: are we really having to tell you about this, Jay? The transforming power of the spirit? Really? You're really going to tell me that not a single assembly you've been to outside of The Lord's Recovery has ever in their history spoken on this? Where in the world are you where you can so boldly and foolishly make such a claim? What backwater spiritual desert have you been killing yourself in to feel that no other denomination besides the Lord's Recovery speaks on these things? Your locality must be woefully pathetic if this is the conclusion that the assemblies in your area have led you to. Either that, or you're once again just buying into Recovery dogma and reflexively making unfounded statements like "no one else does this!"

That's literally the whole point that Thankful made. Lee just took some very common biblical ideas, used a set of vocabulary words that no one else uses, and used some good ol' fashioned eisegesis to twist things here and there to seem like he came up with so many grand ideas that you can't ever find anywhere else. The fact that you so confidently use your all-caps NEVER and respond with petty sarcasm shows that the dogma of Lee is strongly embedded in you. You need to take a few steps back and consider the grand task of getting over yourself before taking such a huge dump on all of the other denominations. Think for a moment, Jay.

And as for the Triune God: I'm not even going to grace this one with a rebuttal.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Jay, just take the loss rather than countering with childish sarcasm. You know this statement is not true. I know it's not true. Many denominations speak on the spirit of man, which is what gives us the ability of higher thought and the ability to commune with the Holy Spirit. I've been to Baptist, Pentecostal, and nondenominational churches, and they all touch on the spirit of man and our relation to the Holy Spirit. I was aware of this even while within the other denominations.

So you've been to denominations that know what the spirit is and practice exercising their spirit? They call on the Lord, pray read, and are in tune with how their spirit functions and they know how to live in their spirit, which is connected to God's spirit?

I doubt it sir

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

As for "mingling," most churches don't believe we "become God" like Lee taught. There's a reason the word "mingling" fell out of use for centuries. Most of the churches I've been to teach on us becoming closer and closer to God, being conformed to his image more and more as we grow in our Christian life and subsequently becoming more and more like God through the way we live and interact with one another and the world. I could see this even while within the other denominations.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit
Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ
John 15:4 Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing
6:15a Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?

All these verses (there's plenty more than just these few) prove that we are not only organically connected to God when we turn to our spirit, but that we can and should live by his life in our spirit. This is very different from merely being "like" God

The denominations are famous for imitating Christ....."what would Jesus do," type of concepts held there. But that is far far short of what the Bible actually says. Unfortunately this is why so many Christians are actually following a type of law that is outside of Christ and what God wants. Very sad

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

I feel like making a point on "contacting God" would be redundant. Anyone who seeks the Lord is contacting him. Anyone who sets their hearts on God is contacting him. This is nothing new.

Not really. Romans 8:6 says 'For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace'

What that verse DOESN'T say is 'He who seeks the Lord and sets his heart on the Lord will be in their spirit and have life and peace.' It says that the person who uses his mind to set himself on the spirit will have life and peace as a result. The important words in that verse are mind and spirit. This implies an exercise and a definite directional practice. We all seek God in a general way, but there's a difference between seeking God and contacting God. The difference there is crucial. One can certainly seek out the knowledge of a car engine, learn about its parts and how they function, but until one turns the key the engine will not start. How can we get into our spirit if we are not exercising our spirit? At best it would be some kind of mystical intermittent experience that may or may not happen if the stars align and everything is going right. Like lighting strikes or something. OR......you could just figure out how to "turn the engine on" and then you can contact God any time you like

Do the denominations teach this? I don't think so

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Prophesying: most churches I've been in give opportunity to their members to speak the word of God through the use of smaller bible studies and gatherings. That many of them get together for a bigger sermon does not negate this. Jesus and the apostles also made use of larger meetings and sermons to teach. Those in the Lord's Recovery have a very similar format whether they admit it or not. They have several days-long trainings and conferences and meetings where there is one main speaker giving an extended message for hours and then they have the prophesying meetings where everyone can have a chance to speak (though often times the only thing that was accepted was Lee's doctrines). The point is that many members of many churches "prophesy" when they get together to study the word of God and build each other up. Iron sharpens iron. Building the body of Christ. This is not something Lee came up with. It is foolish to think that such things do not exist outside of The Lord's Recovery.

Yeah naw, the pastoral system amongst the denominations is obvious and blatant clergy-laity. This goes against 1 Corinthians 14:26-31


14:26 What then, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two, or at the most three, and in turn, and one should interpret;
14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church, and speak to himself and to God.
14:29 And as to prophets, two or three should speak, and the others discern.
14:30 But if something is revealed to another sitting by, the first should be silent.
14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged

What does verse 26 say? It says 'WHEVENEVER you come together.' It doesn't say 'only at certain set times can the members function to build up the church. It says that ALL can prophesy, not just the clergy, aka the paid pastor who gives sermons for his salary. That's a degradation and is one of the largest tactics satan used historically to damage the church. It's also complete heresy. You will not find that concept in the Bible of only one man speaking while the congregation passively sits by and listens for two hours

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Transformation: are we really having to tell you about this, Jay? The transforming power of the spirit? Really? You're really going to tell me that not a single assembly you've been to outside of The Lord's Recovery has ever in their history spoken on this? Where in the world are you where you can so boldly and foolishly make such a claim? What backwater spiritual desert have you been killing yourself in to feel that no other denomination besides the Lord's Recovery speaks on these things? Your locality must be woefully pathetic if this is the conclusion that the assemblies in your area have led you to. Either that, or you're once again just buying into Recovery dogma and reflexively making unfounded statements like "no one else does this!"

How can one be transformed by the spirit if one doesn't actually exercise their spirit?

Also where's Neil at? The other day I got reprimanded for being half as condescending as you are being now. Or is it only the people who totally bash the LC and Lee are able to get away with blatant mocking like this?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

On the matter of "exercising the spirit," Lee erroneously established a false dichotomy between the spirit and the soul. Look at the function of the spirit of man throughout the bible. Even without the dispensing of the Holy Spirit, man's spirit is what gives him the ability to reason and to think and to feel. Man's spirit is capable of thought and emotion and will. There's a reason the soul an spirit of man are likened to bone and marrow. You cannot reasonably separate one from the other. Lee's concept of "exercising the spirit" is just another way of using new vocabulary to try and sound like he discovered something grand and mysterious, but in reality any man who uses a reasonable mind to know God and seek him and pray to him and follow him is already "exercising the spirit" because he is seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged word, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ


These verses prove there is a definite difference between man's spirit and man's soul

Genesis 2:7 Jehovah God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul


This verse proves that God made man a living soul, NOT a living spirit. Man is a soul, not a spirit. But man has a spirit within him (Job 32:8)

So it's not Nee or Lee who is separating the spirit from the soul, it's literally the Bible


Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 tell us that to contact our spirit we need to exercise it by calling on the name of the Lord

You are doing a very poor job of attacking Lee here sir. I think you need to read the Bible more often and get your points sorted out. But probably if you did that you would lose your basis for attack in the first place, so I guess nevermind

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

On the matter of "dispensing," most churches know that we receive the dispensing of the Holy Spirit and that we receive this dispensing in many ways. It may appear through gifts or healing or wisdom or the fruit of the spirit mentioned in Galatians. Lee wanted to sound special by turning the spirit into some yummy snack we can munch on every day, but this is not different than what Christians have already known for centuries: we seek the Lord, we receive the Holy Spirit, and we grow as we become one with the spirit. We seek continuously in order to grow continuously. I knew of this even while within the other denominations.

John 4:24 He who worships must worship in spirit and truthfulness

John 6:57 He who eats me he also shall live because of me

Zechariah 4:6 And he answered and spoke to me, saying, This is the word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says Jehovah of hosts

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death

Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

Romans 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace


How can we receive the dispensing of God if we are not exercising our spirit sir? How can we be one with God if we are not exercising the right organ to contact him?

[ACuriousFellow]

Ah… once again discerning the scriptures and judging other groups through the lens of Lee. Of course you’re going to think they aren’t doing such scriptural things because they don’t do it the way Lee prescribed. I’m honestly shocked at how those in The Lord’s Recovery do not realize they are in yet another denomination.

Well, that’s enough pathos for now. It’s time to return to logos, and it’s time to return to the Logos.

As I challenged you with the naming of assemblies, I will challenge you with Lee’s various and unfortunate instances of eisegesis which have led to more unnecessary practices which give the saints in The Lord’s Recovery their distasteful sense of spiritual superiority.

Let’s begin with calling. You say the none of the other denominations apart from The Lord’s Recovery do not do this, and I say many of them do. I am almost certain this disagreement exists because the denominations rarely do it the way that Witness Lee prescribed. Just as well, I’m almost certain your reflexive thought and likely response will be “it’s how the bible prescribed.” If that is so, let’s take a look at the scriptures and continue our duel, shall we?

Here is my challenge to you if you’ll take it:

Show me in the scriptures where “calling on the Lord” is either explicitly or implicitly shown to be a practice of repeatedly chanting “Oh Lord Jesus” or some variation of the like as Lee explicitly taught.

For my part, I will endeavor to show you either/both implicit and explicit scriptures to the contrary.

Whether you answer my challenge or not, I will prepare and publish a response to Lee's doctrinal folly.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

...How can we receive the dispensing of God if we are not exercising our spirit sir? How can we be one with God if we are not exercising the right organ to contact him?

How indeed...sir. It's pretty simple.

He is GOD. We depend on him, not the other way around. Witness Lee was a "methodist" who taught that we depend on Lee's methods instead of God and God's mercy and his great love for us.

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


I can GUARANTEE you that I don't follow Witness Lee's methods, and haven't for 20 or so years. I don't "call Oh Lord Jesus" and haven't for 20 years. I talk to God. Every day. He talks to me. I listen to him. I obey him. When I mess up, he tells me. I tell him I'm sorry. I don't "exercise my spirit". Oneness with God doesn't depend on "exercising the right organ to contact him". This sounds absurd.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as you, Father, art in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you hast sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me: for you loved me before the foundation of the world.


It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Ah… once again discerning the scriptures and judging other groups through the lens of Lee. Of course you’re going to think they aren’t doing such scriptural things because they don’t do it the way Lee prescribed. I’m honestly shocked at how those in The Lord’s Recovery do not realize they are in yet another denomination.

Well, that’s enough pathos for now. It’s time to return to logos, and it’s time to return to the Logos.

As I challenged you with the naming of assemblies, I will challenge you with Lee’s various and unfortunate instances of eisegesis which have led to more unnecessary practices which give the saints in The Lord’s Recovery their distasteful sense of spiritual superiority.

Let’s begin with calling. You say the none of the other denominations apart from The Lord’s Recovery do not do this, and I say many of them do. I am almost certain this disagreement exists because the denominations rarely do it the way that Witness Lee prescribed. Just as well, I’m almost certain your reflexive thought and likely response will be “it’s how the bible prescribed.” If that is so, let’s take a look at the scriptures and continue our duel, shall we?

Here is my challenge to you if you’ll take it:

Show me in the scriptures where “calling on the Lord” is either explicitly or implicitly shown to be a practice of repeatedly chanting “Oh Lord Jesus” or some variation of the like as Lee explicitly taught.

For my part, I will endeavor to show you either/both implicit and explicit scriptures to the contrary.

Whether you answer my challenge or not, I will prepare and publish a response to Lee's doctrinal folly.

I already did show you. Romans 10:13

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Ah… once again discerning the scriptures and judging other groups through the lens of Lee. Of course you’re going to think they aren’t doing such scriptural things because they don’t do it the way Lee prescribed. I’m honestly shocked at how those in The Lord’s Recovery do not realize they are in yet another denomination.

Well, that’s enough pathos for now. It’s time to return to logos, and it’s time to return to the Logos.

As I challenged you with the naming of assemblies, I will challenge you with Lee’s various and unfortunate instances of eisegesis which have led to more unnecessary practices which give the saints in The Lord’s Recovery their distasteful sense of spiritual superiority.

Let’s begin with calling. You say the none of the other denominations apart from The Lord’s Recovery do not do this, and I say many of them do. I am almost certain this disagreement exists because the denominations rarely do it the way that Witness Lee prescribed. Just as well, I’m almost certain your reflexive thought and likely response will be “it’s how the bible prescribed.” If that is so, let’s take a look at the scriptures and continue our duel, shall we?

Here is my challenge to you if you’ll take it:

Show me in the scriptures where “calling on the Lord” is either explicitly or implicitly shown to be a practice of repeatedly chanting “Oh Lord Jesus” or some variation of the like as Lee explicitly taught.

For my part, I will endeavor to show you either/both implicit and explicit scriptures to the contrary.

Whether you answer my challenge or not, I will prepare and publish a response to Lee's doctrinal folly.

Here's a bevy of verses that touch on calling on the name of the Lord

Acts 7:59; 9:14; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22; Gen. 4:26; 12:8; Deut. 4:7; Psa. 99:6; 116:17; 145:18; Isa. 12:2-4; 55:6; 64:7; Lam. 3:55-57

They all say either "calling on his name" or "calling upon the name of the Lord. Who is the Lord? Is it not the Lord Jesus? So should we not say "Oh Lord Jesus?" Does the Bible not tell us to do this?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

How indeed...sir. It's pretty simple.

He is GOD. We depend on him, not the other way around. Witness Lee was a "methodist" who taught that we depend on Lee's methods instead of God and God's mercy and his great love for us.

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


I can GUARANTEE you that I don't follow Witness Lee's methods, and haven't for 20 or so years. I don't "call Oh Lord Jesus" and haven't for 20 years. I talk to God. Every day. He talks to me. I listen to him. I obey him. When I mess up, he tells me. I tell him I'm sorry. I don't "exercise my spirit". Oneness with God doesn't depend on "exercising the right organ to contact him". This sounds absurd.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as you, Father, art in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you hast sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me: for you loved me before the foundation of the world.


It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

Welp the Bible tells us to call on the Lord, so idk what to tell you man. I'm sorry that you got hurt by controlling elders or whatever. I have been too and that's a problem. But it's very difficult to bash Lee on his interpretation of the Bible. Verrrrrry very difficult and I haven't seen much if any success on that so far from this site. I think probably the only thing I've seen is the misbehavior of the elders which seems to be backed up by certain old testament verses which Nee and Lee used to justify deputy authority and subsequently misused that so called authority, as I've seen evidence for, and experienced myself in the LC. That's about it. I think everything else is either a stretch or an unfounded attack

Look if you got hurt by elders etc. that's one thing. But to try to malign someone's validity by claiming their doctrine is wrong.....you better be correct in trying that. I haven't seen much correctness with regards to that

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

How indeed...sir. It's pretty simple.

He is GOD. We depend on him, not the other way around. Witness Lee was a "methodist" who taught that we depend on Lee's methods instead of God and God's mercy and his great love for us.

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


I can GUARANTEE you that I don't follow Witness Lee's methods, and haven't for 20 or so years. I don't "call Oh Lord Jesus" and haven't for 20 years. I talk to God. Every day. He talks to me. I listen to him. I obey him. When I mess up, he tells me. I tell him I'm sorry. I don't "exercise my spirit". Oneness with God doesn't depend on "exercising the right organ to contact him". This sounds absurd.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as you, Father, art in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you hast sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me: for you loved me before the foundation of the world.


It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

.....but I'm not downplaying your experience and relationship with God. I do think talking to him and listening to him are very valid ways to experience him and maintain a relationship with him. But I can't agree that calling on the Lord is any type of erroneous method that you're claiming it is. We could call walking a method. Is it the only way to get from one place to another? No, we could drive, ride, or fly also. So is walking erroneous because there are other methods of transportation?

Calling on the name of the Lord is the quickest way to get into one's spirit in my estimation. It's immediate. But I suppose if one really knows their spirit and has had much experience with walking in and by their spirit then it's possible that you wouldn't need to say "Oh Lord Jesus." But we can't sit here and say the Bible doesn't very much encourage us to do so, because it does

If you're implying that chanting "Oh Lord Jesus" is a culty way of controlling people.....maybe, but I see it as a practical way to touch the Lord himself. Maybe though we could say that Lee's "methods" are some type of neurolinguistic programming that kind of distract people from other types of practices. We could dip into that a bit maybe. Maybe those in the LC are so used to practicing "methods" that the methods themselves lose efficacy. That's possible

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

Here's a bevy of verses that touch on calling on the name of the Lord

Acts 7:59; 9:14; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22; Gen. 4:26; 12:8; Deut. 4:7; Psa. 99:6; 116:17; 145:18; Isa. 12:2-4; 55:6; 64:7; Lam. 3:55-57

They all say either "calling on his name" or "calling upon the name of the Lord. Who is the Lord? Is it not the Lord Jesus? So should we not say "Oh Lord Jesus?" Does the Bible not tell us to do this?

I find your exposition regarding calling on the Lord to be as poorly executed as your attempts to justify Lee’s doctrine regarding the naming of the assemblies of God. You must realize that throwing a bunch of verses that mention “calling on the name of the Lord” is hardly a justification of the practice of repeatedly and mindlessly chanting the name of God in order to stir ourselves up. You have shown that “calling on the name of the Lord” is something mentioned in the scriptures. You have not shown at all that Lee’s doctrine regarding calling is something taught by the scriptures either explicitly or implicitly. You can do better than that, Jay.

I can show you a verse where a man sacrificed his virgin daughter to the flames in the name of YWH in order to keep his oath and received no condemnation or rebuke in the scriptures. Shall we use that as precedent to justify human sacrifice? No, because there is context to be considered. It would be supremely foolish and wicked to say and do such things and judge those who don't follow our lead. So don’t just throw verses that say “calling on the Lord.” Look at how those verses display and define “calling on the Lord” and show me how this justifies repetitious and mindless calling.

Honestly, this is an even poorer attempt at exposition than the matter of names because at the very least we see somewhat of a pattern with that in the New Testament (although as we know patterns are not rules and even if they were the pattern was broken with the church in Cenchreae and the church in Phoebe’s house). We cannot even find any sort of pattern that even implies that calling on the Lord means to just repeat his name over and over, much less that we should criticize the assemblies for not doing so.

But I promised you a thorough response. You have made a poor attempt at providing scriptural support by “reading the bible through a straw” as my mother would say, but it is an attempt nonetheless. I will answer it soon enough.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Welp the Bible tells us to call on the Lord, so idk what to tell you man. I'm sorry that you got hurt by controlling elders or whatever. I have been too and that's a problem. But it's very difficult to bash Lee on his interpretation of the Bible. Verrrrrry very difficult and I haven't seen much if any success on that so far from this site. I think probably the only thing I've seen is the misbehavior of the elders which seems to be backed up by certain old testament verses which Nee and Lee used to justify deputy authority and subsequently misused that so called authority, as I've seen evidence for, and experienced myself in the LC. That's about it. I think everything else is either a stretch or an unfounded attack

Look if you got hurt by elders etc. that's one thing. But to try to malign someone's validity by claiming their doctrine is wrong.....you better be correct in trying that. I haven't seen much correctness with regards to that

I'm correct.

All Lee had to do was to acknowledge that his interpretation of the bible was just that...his INTERPRETATION. Everyone who has ever read the bible has interpreted it one way or another, but no one has legitimate claim to THE INTERPRETATION that supersedes all others. Lee did that. You call telling the truth---"bashing"? So be it. You are wrong.

You should welcome a challenge to Witness Lee's doctrines. If he actually is the "minister of the age", he would pass the test with confirmation of the Spirit which would end all doubts. If Lee was who he claimed to be, there should be no abuse by the elders he "trained." None.

Once I was called into a "little dark room" and torn to pieces by some elders. I was terrified. I thought I was going to die. I didn't understand what they are accusing me of. I was so scared, I admitted to some of their accusations that didn't happen. I didn't attack them. They attacked me. (This was Lee's practice which he taught to his elders in those "elders meetings" he had with them.).

A few years later, I was called back into a little room that was full of light. These same elders apologized to me and repented for what they had said to me those years ago.

Bashing and maligning accusations is YOUR way to minimize the sinful behavior of the offending elders AND the errant doctrines/teachings of a man who held himself out to be the "minister of the age". If someone's behavior is wrong, their doctrine should be tested...Acts 17 gives us this charge. Actually, Acts tells us to test all things without qualification.

I was "disciplined" by the elders. They admitted they were wrong, i.e., what they did was sin...not mere misbehavior.

Telling the truth may hurt, but its not the same as bashing and maligning. You are defending Witness Lee's "interpretation". Yet we are told to test all things. We received Lee's "words", now we are testing it with a sober mind which Acts 17 calls "noble".

TEST ALL THINGS
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

We received Witness Lee's word with all readiness of mind. Now we are searching the scriptures and have found that many things Lee says are not so. We should have done this from day one.

Nell

[ACuriousFellow]

Greetings, Jay.

It seems I was in luck. I had already prepared a short bible-study some time ago regarding calling on the name of the Lord. I refined it a bit in order to present it to you.

Here is a link to my study.

It has been uploaded as a word document on the site.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Greetings, Jay.

It seems I was in luck. I had already prepared a short bible-study some time ago regarding calling on the name of the Lord. I refined it a bit in order to present it to you.

Here is a link to my study.

It has been uploaded as a word document on the site.

You make some good points, and he makes some good points. Neither are fully correct. Balance and nuance is necessary. I believe Lee is wrong to say "we don't need doctrines" because the Bible is just chock full of doctrine

You are wrong for implying that calling on the Lord is erroneous. It's clearly not

He is right in saying that exercising the spirit is a wonderful way to "open the window" to contact God, and I am happy to hear him say something along the lines of "what if we just called on the Lord for two hours." That would be lovely. Exercising the spirit is a wonderful way to contact God, and we can do that by calling on the name of the Lord. Wonderful, correct, and one of the best habits a believer can practice. Does that mean we throw out doctrine? Nope! He's wrong for saying that and imbalanced

So if his teachings are not balanced then it lends to extremism and we have seen the fruit of extremism in the LC. Of which I don't agree with. But, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

I'm correct.

All Lee had to do was to acknowledge that his interpretation of the bible was just that...his INTERPRETATION. Everyone who has ever read the bible has interpreted it one way or another, but no one has legitimate claim to THE INTERPRETATION that supersedes all others. Lee did that. You call telling the truth---"bashing"? So be it. You are wrong.

You should welcome a challenge to Witness Lee's doctrines. If he actually is the "minister of the age", he would pass the test with confirmation of the Spirit which would end all doubts. If Lee was who he claimed to be, there should be no abuse by the elders he "trained." None.

Once I was called into a "little dark room" and torn to pieces by some elders. I was terrified. I thought I was going to die. I didn't understand what they are accusing me of. I was so scared, I admitted to some of their accusations that didn't happen. I didn't attack them. They attacked me. (This was Lee's practice which he taught to his elders in those "elders meetings" he had with them.).

A few years later, I was called back into a little room that was full of light. These same elders apologized to me and repented for what they had said to me those years ago.

Bashing and maligning accusations is YOUR way to minimize the sinful behavior of the offending elders AND the errant doctrines/teachings of a man who held himself out to be the "minister of the age". If someone's behavior is wrong, their doctrine should be tested...Acts 17 gives us this charge. Actually, Acts tells us to test all things without qualification.

I was "disciplined" by the elders. They admitted they were wrong, i.e., what they did was sin...not mere misbehavior.

Telling the truth may hurt, but its not the same as bashing and maligning. You are defending Witness Lee's "interpretation". Yet we are told to test all things. We received Lee's "words", now we are testing it with a sober mind which Acts 17 calls "noble".

TEST ALL THINGS
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

We received Witness Lee's word with all readiness of mind. Now we are searching the scriptures and have found that many things Lee says are not so. We should have done this from day one.

Nell

Can you admit you're wrong for punishing me for having some slight condescension towards members on this site, while totally ignoring how I've been attacked and maligned here on this site? Can you admit that that's an abuse of your administrative power due to your personal bias?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

You are wrong for implying that calling on the Lord is erroneous. It's clearly not

Bzzzt.

This is an incorrect assessment of what was actually written. The premise of your statement is false. You need to drop that habit of putting words in the mouths of others, especially when the text is right in front of us for all to see.

I never said calling on the Lord is erroneous, nor did I imply it. I very explicitly stated that calling on the Lord is crucial and serves several purposes such as calling for the sake of salvation and for the sake of intercession. What is also implied based on the verses I provided is that calling on the Lord also serves the purpose of praising and glorifying the Lord. What fool would say that calling on the Lord is wrong? Only the greatest.

Never did I imply that calling on the Lord is erroneous. What I did was I very explicitly stated that Lee's interpretation of calling on the Lord, which consists of repetitiously calling in a chant-like fashion for prolonged periods of time in order to stir ourselves up, is not scripturally sound and that in addition to there being no scriptural support for the very specific and detailed practice that Witness Lee refers to as "calling," there is a subtle but serious danger to the Lord's people and his church if such a practice is utilized in our personal lives and in the assembly. Vain repetitions do the Lord and his people no good.

To put it as simply as possible: what Witness Lee refers to as "calling on the Lord" is not what the scriptures refer to as "calling on the Lord."

They are two different things that are very thoroughly incompatible with one another.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Bzzzt.

This is an incorrect assessment of what was actually written. The premise of your statement is false. You need to drop that habit of putting words in the mouths of others, especially when the text is right in front of us for all to see.

I never said calling on the Lord is erroneous, nor did I imply it. I very explicitly stated that calling on the Lord is crucial and serves several purposes such as calling for the sake of salvation and for the sake of intercession. What is also implied based on the verses I provided is that calling on the Lord also serves the purpose of praising and glorifying the Lord. What fool would say that calling on the Lord is wrong? Only the greatest.

Never did I imply that calling on the Lord is erroneous. What I did was I very explicitly stated that Lee's interpretation of calling on the Lord, which consists of repetitiously calling in a chant-like fashion for prolonged periods of time in order to stir ourselves up, is not scripturally sound and that in addition to there being no scriptural support for the very specific and detailed practice that Witness Lee refers to as "calling," there is a subtle but serious danger to the Lord's people and his church if such a practice is utilized in our personal lives and in the assembly. Vain repetitions do the Lord and his people no good.

To put it as simply as possible: what Witness Lee refers to as "calling on the Lord" is not what the scriptures refer to as "calling on the Lord."

They are two different things that are very thoroughly incompatible with one another.

In the book of Acts when Paul was persecuting the Christians, he identified them by hearing their calling on the Lord in their houses. How would he be able to do that if they weren't calling over and over? Doesn't seem logical

At any rate, you can dissect and break it down any way you like, it doesn't and won't ever erase millions of people's experience practicing it. Sorry, we tried it, we liked it, we practice it. You're certainly welcome to attack and cry about it though.....

Originally Posted by Nell

It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

I was a member of the LC for many years. I unfortunately was fooled when I was young, by the LC recruiters. I came to realization that what the LC teaches and promotes, is the same concept of evolution that’s promoted by secular society to deny God. I understood that just like in the theory of Darwin, monkey couldn’t possibly become a human being with soul and spirit, nether in the theory of Lee a men could never become God, or same in life and nature.

I could be wrong, but I feel like Lee just used the same analogy and the Big Bang became the event when “God became a men”, therefore through the process of evolving and some dispensing, one can become God. I love the Lord, and I believe that God is amazing and loving. But one thing that I understood, that something that was created can never ever be equal to or of the same as something that was not created. God has no beginning and no end, He absolutely not ever changing or evolving, or ever needed to do anything that I was taught in LC. Jesus came into this world to redeem His creation, reuniting it with the Father. That’s the love, grace, care, and the ultimate resolve that most of us will never grasp or understand until we see Him face to face! I’m so glad today that those things that I was exposed to in LC are no longer part of my life in any shape or form. It’s liberating and feels like you actually experiencing a real loving God, after years of some systematic destruction by Lee and his successors.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

In the book of Acts when Paul was persecuting the Christians, he identified them by hearing their calling on the Lord in their houses. How would he be able to do that if they weren't calling over and over? Doesn't seem logical

Wait a minute. So even though the Bible plainly shows in 1 Kings 18 what calling on the name of the Lord is (it's not calling over and over) and even though the Bible condemns vain repetitions (which is calling over and over), you would still stick with calling over and over, even though it's what the Bible condemns and never teaches?

From your post above, you make it clear that your experience trumps the Bible even when your experience is in direct contradiction to it. Why bother with the Bible at all?

Those in the local church have every right to practice however they want. But if the local church is going to teach that "OHHHH LORD JESUUUUUS! OHHHH LORRRRD JEEEESUUUUSS! OHHH LORRRD JESUUUUS!" is what is meant in the Bible by "calling on the Lord", then people outside the local church are going to call out that error.

Originally Posted by Jay

At any rate, you can dissect and break it down any way you like, it doesn't and won't ever erase millions of people's experience practicing it. Sorry, we tried it, we liked it, we practice it. You're certainly welcome to attack and cry about it though.....

It's a classic marker of a cult to consider disagreement and clear presentation of errors "attacks". I can't even comprehend hearing the truth of the Bible and considering it an attack!! Is that really the position you want to take?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Wait a minute. So even though the Bible plainly shows in 1 Kings 18 what calling on the name of the Lord is (it's not calling over and over) and even though the Bible condemns vain repetitions (which is calling over and over), you would still stick with calling over and over, even though it's what the Bible condemns and never teaches?

From your post above, you make it clear that your experience trumps the Bible even when your experience is in direct contradiction to it. Why bother with the Bible at all?

Those in the local church have every right to practice however they want. But if the local church is going to teach that "OHHHH LORD JESUUUUUS! OHHHH LORRRRD JEEEESUUUUSS! OHHH LORRRD JESUUUUS!" is what is meant in the Bible by "calling on the Lord", then people outside the local church are going to call out that error.



It's a classic marker of a cult to consider disagreement and clear presentation of errors "attacks". I can't even comprehend hearing the truth of the Bible and considering it an attack!! Is that really the position you want to take?

How are you not attacking though? You're just bashing. Which is whatever I guess. If you've been hurt it's understandable. But at least have some solid points in your attacks. Some of the stuff you all say I agree with, but if I don't agree then you just bash me. That's pretty weak honestly. You can't be objective and classy? You can't be mature? It's almost like you're a hate group with no other goal but to hate, even if what you're saying isn't viable. At least make sense. If it makes sense to you then fine, but if I disagree with it objectively then you attack me. That's silliness. Have you lost all your rationality?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

How are you not attacking though? You're just bashing. Which is whatever I guess. If you've been hurt it's understandable. But at least have some solid points in your attacks. Some of the stuff you all say I agree with, but if I don't agree then you just bash me. That's pretty weak honestly. You can't be objective and classy? You can't be mature? It's almost like you're a hate group with no other goal but to hate, even if what you're saying isn't viable. At least make sense. If it makes sense to you then fine, but if I disagree with it objectively then you attack me. That's silliness. Have you lost all your rationality?

I'm not aware of a post where I, Trapped, have bashed you, Jay. Can you give me an example? If so, I am happy to apologize. Generally I try to make it a point to deal with the teachings and arguments, rather than bash people, but I might have gone too far somewhere. Let me know.

However, if you mean to say that you disagreed with ACuriousFellow's link/document about calling on the Lord, and that you consider my response to you a bashing, what part of it is bashing? I'm genuinely confused by your response where you seem to disregard what it is the Bible clearly says, and so I asked if that is really what you are doing. And I'm genuinely confused by your lifting your experience over the Bible even when it contradicts the Bible. I'm genuinely confused that you consider hearing what the Bible teaches "an attack". As a Christian, who by definition is one who is supposed to hold to the Word of God, if the Word of God gets disregarded, what's the point?

I did ask you several clarifying questions, though, which you did not respond to in favor of saying what you said above. My questions were serious ones, and concerned ones, not bashing ones. If you want to answer those questions and explain further what you meant, I'm listening.

Trapped

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm not aware of a post where I, Trapped, have bashed you, Jay. Can you give me an example? If so, I am happy to apologize. Generally I try to make it a point to deal with the teachings and arguments, rather than bash people, but I might have gone too far somewhere. Let me know.

However, if you mean to say that you disagreed with ACuriousFellow's link/document about calling on the Lord, and that you consider my response to you a bashing, what part of it is bashing? I'm genuinely confused by your response where you seem to disregard what it is the Bible clearly says, and so I asked if that is really what you are doing. And I'm genuinely confused by your lifting your experience over the Bible even when it contradicts the Bible. I'm genuinely confused that you consider hearing what the Bible teaches "an attack". As a Christian, who by definition is one who is supposed to hold to the Word of God, if the Word of God gets disregarded, what's the point?

I did ask you several clarifying questions, though, which you did not respond to in favor of saying what you said above. My questions were serious ones, and concerned ones, not bashing ones. If you want to answer those questions and explain further what you meant, I'm listening.

Trapped

Also it's funny to note that you guys are contradicting yourselves. Earlier someone was saying that the LC is not the only place where they practice calling on the Lord. But now you're claiming that calling on the Lord is a cult practice lol. So are you saying that the LC is not the only "cult" to call on the Lord? That anyone who calls on the Lord is practicing cult behavior?

But then you'll say "oh no it's HOWWWW they do it." Dude you're just bashing because you hate the LC. It's fine, but it would be better if you just admitted it instead of going around in circles contradicting yourselves. I'd bet that if another church that wasn't the LC chanted "ohhhh Lorrrdd Jessssuusss" you would have no issue with it because you're selectively outraged aren't you lol

I'm sure you think that I'm bashing you right now huh? lol, now YOU'RE the victims aren't you? lol. Pretty soon that's what it'll turn into. You accuse others of the very behavior you exhibit. I love it dude, good stuff. Just move the goalposts whenever it benefits you and your angle

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

In the book of Acts when Paul was persecuting the Christians, he identified them by hearing their calling on the Lord in their houses. How would he be able to do that if they weren't calling over and over? Doesn't seem logical

At any rate, you can dissect and break it down any way you like, it doesn't and won't ever erase millions of people's experience practicing it. Sorry, we tried it, we liked it, we practice it. You're certainly welcome to attack and cry about it though.....

Yes. I could also very clearly identify Elijah calling on the Lord, yet he did not make a mantra/chant out of it. If Paul walked by a house where the saints were praising and heard the name of Jesus invoked even once, that is all he needed to know that every word of praise or petition that came before and afterwards was the saints calling out to God's Anointed, Jesus. There is no reason to believe that they had to be repeatedly saying his name over and over and over again. That is just more assumption and eisegesis from Witness Lee.

As for "millions of people's experience practicing it," I do not intend to "erase" such experiences, but you must also be mindful that millions of Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, and Hindus have experiences as well. There may even be real spiritual forces that they are interacting with, but this does not mean that I will subscribe to, support, or approve their theology or practices. These "experiences" do not mean that they are approved by God. Be careful with such an argument, Jay.

Also it's funny to note that you guys are contradicting yourselves. Earlier someone was saying that the LC is not the only place where they practice calling on the Lord. But now you're claiming that calling on the Lord is a cult practice lol. So are you saying that the LC is not the only "cult" to call on the Lord? That anyone who calls on the Lord is practicing cult behavior?

Once again, you're putting words in our mouths. It's a shame that you continue to engage in this kind of behavior, Jay. Let's point out the words you put in my mouth again (along with many others since you were referring to several).

1) "The LC is not the only place where people call on the Lord." This is a false claim. I never said that the LC is not the only place. I said that other places call on the Lord. This is an important distinction because I had not yet determined whether or not the LC is calling on the Lord. If I had carelessly used these words, I would be implying that there are other places that call on the Lord the way that the LC believe you should call on the Lord, but that was not my focus. I was not defending the other denominations by saying "they call on the Lord like the LC does." I was defending them by claiming "they call on the Lord."

2) "Now you're claiming that calling on the Lord is a cult practice." This is a false claim. I never said that calling on the Lord is a cult practice. I made the argument that the LCs' definition of "calling" is incorrect and that the LCs' very specific, particular, and scripturally unsupported practice of "calling" is cult-like. Never did I claim that anyone who invokes the name of the Lord is acting like a cult. There are many who call on the name of the Lord in the very same way that Elijah, Jesus, the apostles, and the other saints did without making the Lord's name into a chant/mantra to stir themselves up into a spiritual fervor. These people are not acting like a cult, nor have I ever claimed such ones do.

But then you'll say "oh no it's HOWWWW they do it." Dude you're just bashing because you hate the LC. It's fine, but it would be better if you just admitted it instead of going around in circles contradicting yourselves. I'd bet that if another church that wasn't the LC chanted "ohhhh Lorrrdd Jessssuusss" you would have no issue with it because you're selectively outraged aren't you lol.

It's not a contradiction because there is a clear distinction between what Witness Lee calls "calling" and what the bible clearly portrays as "calling." They are two different things. To claim that Witness Lee "calling on Lord" is cult-like while some others "calling on the Lord" is not does not make for a contradictory statement because they are two very different practices. One of them, Witness Lee's, is not scripturally sound, and the other, what many other denominations already practice and have been practicing for hundreds of years, is more scripturally sound.

I'm sure you think that I'm bashing you right now huh? lol, now YOU'RE the victims aren't you? lol. Pretty soon that's what it'll turn into. You accuse others of the very behavior you exhibit. I love it dude, good stuff. Just move the goalposts whenever it benefits you and your angle

It would be an insult to the struggles of the many saints in The Lord's Recovery who are being pressured and oppressed and abused by their shepherds to claim that I am your victim right now. It would be giving you altogether too much credit to say that you have such power over me right now.

Jay, you have succeeded in providing enough scriptural support to claim that "calling on the Lord" is a thing. You have even provided ample scriptural support to argue that it is crucial. Further still, you have provided scriptural support to claim that it is something that should ideally be audible. I'm certain that just about everyone here was already convinced of these things before you came along.

However, you have utterly failed in providing explicit or even implicit scriptural support for "calling" having to look like a chant-like mantra that we do for hours on end, much less that failing to do so means that you do not call on the Lord at all. You are once again prescribing something that the bible does not prescribe, and unlike the matter of church naming, the bible does not even de-scribe such calling.

This is what you base your judgement on, Jay? This is what you critique the other denominations besides your own for? An unscriptural assumption made by Witness Lee on a whim? You're going to judge the other denominations and claim that they NEVER call on the Lord simply because they don't make a chant/mantra out of his name like you do? You're simply going to disregard all the hymns of praise they sing to the Lord? All the petitions they make in his name out loud? All the blessings they bestow upon each other in his name? The thanks that they give to their Lord? This is not the righteous judgement that the Lord calls us to make. This is a wicked, foolish, and prideful judgement that is based on the desires of men rather than of God. Do not let yourself fall into such things, Jay.

I would not say you are bashing. You have provided no solid scriptural support for your very particular doctrine of calling as a mantra/chant, and you clearly remain unable to do so. Now you've veered away from any attempt to properly defend your position, though really I would say you did not make a great effort to begin with. Not with this particular doctrine. Now you are thrashing, which is understandable. You've reached a point that many of us had to reach in the past. You are experiencing the slow and painful realization that LC doctrine is nowhere near as solid and sound as you once believed. This is a supremely painful and frustrating experience, and this is largely due to the fact that in the LCs no one ever tries to challenge their doctrines. You don't get the kind of crucial "iron sharpens iron" experience in which you learn to really contend for the faith through the use of scriptural analysis, interpretation, and application. These kinds of things are often a bit of a culture shock for those who have been in The Lord's Recovery for an extended period of time.

[ACuriousFellow]

Jay, perhaps it would be good for you take a break and reflect on the discussions you've had here. You're making quite an effort to engage in multiple doctrinal debates at once, and this with multiple people, too. It's clear that you feel outnumbered here, and your exasperation shows.

Perhaps it would be best to create a thread where only you and one other person engage in a particular debate and the rest of us watch. I am uncertain if the admins would allow/enforce such a thread, but I'll put the idea out there anyways. You could also consider private messaging so as not to feel so overwhelmed by this many opposing voices coming at you all at once. It would also be beneficial to spend some time on your own praying over the scriptures and really reading and studying them. Consider the context: culture, history, setting, etc., and use this to guide your understanding and interpretation of the text and develop your arguments.

After this, you could return and provide more solid scriptural arguments to defend your positions. Most of the arguments I've presented here are the result of extensive prayer and study that I did after leaving The Lord's Recovery.

I suppose the choice is yours in the end. I can't really stop you if you wish to keep engaging like this, and I will keep answering your false or misguided claims along with everyone else here. There are still quite a few things that you claim that other denominations "NEVER" do that deserve a proper response, but I am unsure if you are really ready to hear them.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

Also it's funny to note that you guys are contradicting yourselves. Earlier someone was saying that the LC is not the only place where they practice calling on the Lord. But now you're claiming that calling on the Lord is a cult practice lol. So are you saying that the LC is not the only "cult" to call on the Lord? That anyone who calls on the Lord is practicing cult behavior?


But then you'll say "oh no it's HOWWWW they do it." Dude you're just bashing because you hate the LC.

You are right, the sticking point is how the LC does it. Exactly. And the reason it's a sticking point is not because we love bashing the LC. The reason it's a sticking point is because the Bible condemns how the LC does it. The chanting, vain repetitions is condemned by the Word of God.

The Word of God condemns how the LC does it. That's why people have a problem.

Originally Posted by Jay

It's fine, but it would be better if you just admitted it instead of going around in circles contradicting yourselves. I'd bet that if another church that wasn't the LC chanted "ohhhh Lorrrdd Jessssuusss" you would have no issue with it because you're selectively outraged aren't you lol

If another church that wasn't the LC chanted, I would also have a problem with it. Because it's the chanting/repetition part that's the problem, not the fact that it's the LC that does it that is the problem.

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm sure you think that I'm bashing you right now huh? lol, now YOU'RE the victims aren't you? lol. Pretty soon that's what it'll turn into. You accuse others of the very behavior you exhibit. I love it dude, good stuff. Just move the goalposts whenever it benefits you and your angle

No, I don't think you are bashing me. No, I don't think I'm the victim.

I actually think you are the victim. You are the victim of the deception in the local church. Everyone here has been through the same thing and we are full of understanding and empathy for you.

Your reactions are very normal and very expected, honestly. What you're experiencing is something called cognitive dissonance. You want to hold to and defend this teaching/practice of Witness Lee's, but you also want to be a Christian who follows the Bible. When the two contradict, you are left with an impossible situation - you have to choose what the Bible teaches or what Witness Lee teaches. And making the choice means a major shift in what you believe.

It's extremely difficult, Jay. But this is the kind of thing mature Christians have to do. Our muscles for this kind of stuff are left largely unused in the local church. I went through a period of extreme turmoil as I had to face this in teaching after teaching of Witness Lee's. I would encourage you, as a fellow believer in Christ, to choose what the Bible teaches and avoid what the Bible condemns.

Trapped

Originally Posted by Nell

It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

I was a member of the LC for many years. I unfortunately was fooled when I was young, by the LC recruiters. I came to realization that what the LC teaches and promotes, is the same concept of evolution that’s promoted by secular society to deny God. I understood that just like in the theory of Darwin, monkey couldn’t possibly become a human being with soul and spirit, nether in the theory of Lee a men could never become God, or same in life and nature.

I could be wrong, but I feel like Lee just used the same analogy and the Big Bang became the event when “God became a men”, therefore through the process of evolving and some dispensing, one can become God. I love the Lord, and I believe that God is amazing and loving. But one thing that I understood, that something that was created can never ever be equal to or of the same as something that was not created. God has no beginning and no end, He absolutely not ever changing or evolving, or ever needed to do anything that I was taught in LC. Jesus came into this world to redeem His creation, reuniting it with the Father. That’s the love, grace, care, and the ultimate resolve that most of us will never grasp or understand until we see Him face to face! I’m so glad today that those things that I was exposed to in LC are no longer part of my life in any shape or form. It’s liberating and feels like you actually experiencing a real loving God, after years of some systematic destruction by Lee and his successors.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Jay, perhaps it would be good for you take a break and reflect on the discussions you've had here. You're making quite an effort to engage in multiple doctrinal debates at once, and this with multiple people, too. It's clear that you feel outnumbered here, and your exasperation shows......You could also consider private messaging so as not to feel so overwhelmed by this many opposing voices coming at you all at once.

Excellent advise by our friend ACuriousFellow! Things are getting a little too repetitive and unnecessarily argumentative, and as a result have become hard for our readers to follow. As far as I can tell, everyone here is posting in good faith. And while healthy confrontational dialogue is part and parcel of an open forum like this, I think it might be a good idea for everyone to slow down just a bit. Let's keep our posts as short and compact as possible. Same with our friend Jay's retorts.

Fair enough?
-

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excellent advise by our friend ACuriousFellow! Things are getting a little too repetitive and unnecessarily argumentative, and as a result have become hard for our readers to follow. As far as I can tell, everyone here is posting in good faith. And while healthy confrontational dialogue is part and parcel of an open forum like this, I think it might be a good idea for everyone to slow down just a bit. Let's keep our posts as short and compact as possible. Same with our friend Jay's retorts.

Fair enough?
-

How crafty of you, UH. I do not share some of your particular concerns. Much of what is being said here needs to be said and read, both for the sake of those who remain in The Lord's Recovery and those who have left.

But at the end of the day this is your house, is it not? You may make it as neat and tidy as you please. Do give us a heads up if you choose to clean house once more. I'm sure many here would appreciate the courtesy.

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Jay

How can one be transformed by the spirit if one doesn't actually exercise their spirit?

Also where's Neil at? The other day I got reprimanded for being half as condescending as you are being now. Or is it only the people who totally bash the LC and Lee are able to get away with blatant mocking like this?

Hi Jay,

I think I can understand to some degree how strongly you feel about this.
I am have to admit exercising my spirit as taught by Witness Lee was new to me and I find it strange but still attempted it for the sake to learning something new. Just in case I was too narrow or bias.

After many years of it, I concluded its function and the way it was practice and encourage in the meetings was limited and its effect on me was very short lived. Though others kept doing it, I just let them be.

It did not transform me. At best it prevent me from loosing my temper, from sighing, it saves me from fear and anxieties, more of a stress reliever, a form of self restriction, a boost of strength and motivation to get through a situation I don't like. But it did NOT transform me to be like Christ in His attributes. Its more of a behaviour modification tool to me.

I cannot see anywhere in the bible that the transforming power of God comes from the exercise of our human spirit. Some may be drawn tp some interpretation and conclude in it, but I don't see it.

Paul taught in Romans that the mind set on the spirit leads to life.

The Bible teaches us that God desires our heart to be turned back to Him. This is consistent throughout the whole bible.

Though I do know that the exercise of the human spirit whether a person believes in the Lord or not is a very powerful and effective tool in that it helps people overcome their fear and anxieties from the negative thoughts that are in their minds. It is used in competitive sports, in pre-battle cries, multi-level marketing, etc. It makes us feel strong and motivated to face certain challenges.

But note that this tool is only a coping method and not a transforming work of the Holy Spirit. to me it is still a form of "natural" strength.

The transforming work of the Holy spirit come from our willingness to reflect and respond to the Word of God, and being able to verbalize our offences to Him (a confession). It is what genuine repentance looks like and is a big part our transformation.

I hope this is of some help to you.

I pray that you can find real rest and be able to discern and trust in the Word of the Lord!

-Sunshine.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I think I can understand to some degree how strongly you feel about this....

Thank you for your kind words

Much of my learning about transformation (most of which has been from Nee and Lee and their expoundings on the Bible and the footnotes), I've learned it is multifaceted. Our environment transforms us, our sufferings in particular, but also how much we turn to him, both in our heart and in our spirit. All of it makes sense to me. If we turn to our spirit then we are connected and God's life can flow into us and transform us. Much like how a bottle is filled with a substance and then becomes the carrier/container of that substance. Then Lee would go on to talk about the mingling which a good example is tea and his anaology of "tea-ification." Which I always felt was solid and I understood the point. Which is also biblical (2 Corinthians 3:18, John 6:57)

So idk maybe more semantics here. I believe from the Bible that God wants to live in us and transform us into his image and I see a biblical precedent to do this through his dispensing of the spirit. But that's not the only way either. Like I said, environment, sufferings, traumas, etc. God works and works to get into us and transform us

[aron]

What's missing from recent posts is a simple but important question: what does any of this have to do with God's economy? Suppose for the sake of argument that going "Oh, Lord Jesus - Oh, Lord Jesus - Oh, Lord Jesus!" all day long was what was shown in the NT text as calling on the name of the Lord. Suppose that "with those who call on the Lord in every place" of 1 Cor 1:2 meant those who were calling ''in the kitchen, in the shower, in the car" all day long, and not "in Corinth, in Jerusalem, in Laodicea" as a point of salvation, and so forth.

In other words, give all the arguments Witness Lee's teaching of "calling on the name of the Lord" their face value, which is giving a lot. But my question is, what does any of that have to do with the economy of God?

It seems to me that the WL-promoted and LC-encouraged practice as an integral part of God's economy rested on two foundational assumptions, neither of which has any textual support that I can see. The first is that "calling" is "drinking" and "pray-reading" is "eating". There is no verse that connects these concepts. It does say to call, and to drink, but it doesn't say that calling is drinking. It does say to pray, and to read, but not to pray-read, and certainly not that pray-reading is eating.

(In fact, Jesus taught clearly what eating was to him, at least -- "My food is... 'X' " which is pretty close to a definition that I can see (John 4:34). Not once have I seen this addressed by a LSM apologist. It's as if the verse doesn't exist.)

The second outright fabrication is that "eating and drinking" is "God's economy". Again, no scriptural basis whatever, except that WL wished it so. God's economy as taught by Paul and Timothy could very well have been "Give to those who can't repay you in this age", there's certainly enough support in both the gospels and the epistles. Or it could be something else entirely. Yet none of that is ever considered, and when I helpfully bring it up, it's ignored.

The whole thing was manufactured in a sense of heightened suggestibility, when "this means that" was taken as if it were so, and never questioned. Later, if anyone cautiously raised any of these issues, they would be called troublemakers, ambitious and divisive, destroyers of God's building and whatnot, and marked for destruction (or at least 10 centuries of unbearable torment).

[aron]

Following my last post (#560), let's say the formula "calling ("ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus!") is actually drinking the Spirit, and drinking the Spirit fills us with the Spirit, and being filled with the Spirit makes us transformed into the same image, from glory to glory. Suppose that is your premise.

Then, "Just keep eating, just keep drinking" means "that is all you need to do". The "just" part is critical. And the "simple" part. "It's so simple and easy". God's economy has been reduced to a performance, where if you do this, you get that. Simple, and easy.

But any part of that "simple and easy" formula for becoming filled with all the fullness of God can be interpreted other than what WL said it was. When Jesus said, "Blessed is the one who gives a cup of cool water" in Matthew 10:42 may really refer to giving cold water to a thirsty one who's given up their livelihood, and gone out preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Absolutely not referring to calling, at all. Perhaps it isn't so "simple and easy" as WL said.

And even if, and to some extent, that "calling" can be equated to "drinking" and "drinking" to the "filling of the Holy Spirit" and that to "transformation", there is not one verse to support the idea that any of this is connected to what Paul and Timothy and others were teaching the gentile churches as God's economy. Nothing.

And even moreso, what if you sit around all day, going "Ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus!" and you don't give a cup of water to the thirsty one? Are you really a disciple, according to Matthew 10? When I was with the FTTA I distinctly remember this being taught - "don't waste your time" on actual good works, just get the good building materials and get them to call "ohlordjesus" with you.

So WL's teaching of God's economy is wrong on several levels. First, it lacks actual basis, then it doesn't have internal coherence, and lastly it requires ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus and Paul.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

Following my last post (#560), let's say the formula "calling ("ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus!") is actually drinking the Spirit, and drinking the Spirit fills us with the Spirit, and being filled with the Spirit makes us transformed into the same image, from glory to glory. Suppose that is your premise.

Then, "Just keep eating, just keep drinking" means "that is all you need to do". The "just" part is critical. And the "simple" part. "It's so simple and easy". God's economy has been reduced to a performance, where if you do this, you get that. Simple, and easy.

But any part of that "simple and easy" formula for becoming filled with all the fullness of God can be interpreted other than what WL said it was. When Jesus said, "Blessed is the one who gives a cup of cool water" in Matthew 10:42 may really refer to giving cold water to a thirsty one who's given up their livelihood, and gone out preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Absolutely not referring to calling, at all. Perhaps it isn't so "simple and easy" as WL said.

And even if, and to some extent, that "calling" can be equated to "drinking" and "drinking" to the "filling of the Holy Spirit" and that to "transformation", there is not one verse to support the idea that any of this is connected to what Paul and Timothy and others were teaching the gentile churches as God's economy. Nothing.

And even moreso, what if you sit around all day, going "Ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus!" and you don't give a cup of water to the thirsty one? Are you really a disciple, according to Matthew 10? When I was with the FTTA I distinctly remember this being taught - "don't waste your time" on actual good works, just get the good building materials and get them to call "ohlordjesus" with you.

So WL's teaching of God's economy is wrong on several levels. First, it lacks actual basis, then it doesn't have internal coherence, and lastly it requires ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Ephesians 5:18 says 'do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in spirit'

And we all know the passage of Jesus turning water into wine and later likening himself to the true vine (John ch. 2 & 15)

These and plenty more verses imply that when we are connected to God we are filled and we drink of him. Really it all makes perfect sense. It's like plugging into the wall to get the electricity. There's no better way to live the Christian life. Should we live in our good behavior? Or our following the law? Or our works? Or should we live by the very life of God? How poor of a gospel is anything else. How poor of a life to have the electrical outlet but not ever actually use it. This is most Christians today. They have the outlet and the plug but they never connect the two. Very sad

And for sake of balance I will say now as I've said elsewhere that no, just calling on the Lord alone is not sufficient. Even the Bible tells us this alone is not sufficient. It says WALK by the spirit (Gal 5:16, Rom 6:4, Rom 8:4). Which means to move around in and by the spirit in our ordinary daily life. This is not just my word, it's also Lee's word-

The Greek word here means to tread all around, to walk at large; hence, to deport oneself, move, and act in ordinary daily life, implying a common, habitual daily walk (cf. Rom. 6:4; 8:4; Phil. 3:17-18). Rcv Footnote Gal 5:16

He says in the next footnote-

According to the context of the chapter, the Spirit here must be the Holy Spirit, who dwells in and mingles with our regenerated spirit. To walk by the Spirit is to have our walk regulated by the Holy Spirit from within our spirit. This is in contrast to having our walk regulated by the law in the realm of our flesh. See note Gal. 3:32

The flesh is the uttermost expression of the fallen tripartite man (Gen. 6:3), and the Spirit is the ultimate realization of the processed Triune God (John 7:39). Because of Christ's redemption and the Spirit's work of regeneration, we who have received God's dispensing can walk by the Spirit, by the processed Triune God, instead of by the flesh, by our fallen being. Paul wrote this book not only to rescue the distracted Galatian believers from the law, on the negative side, but also, on the positive side, to bring them into the realization that the believers have the all-inclusive life-giving Spirit in their spirit that they may live, walk, and have their being in this Spirit. Rcv Footnote Gal 5:16(2)

So obviously this means we still live normal ordinary lives and we don't just sit around all day chanting "oh Lord Jesus"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

So obviously this means we still live normal ordinary lives and we don't just sit around all day chanting "oh Lord Jesus"

But the LC hymns used those very words: "just keep eating, just keep drinking" as if it was to the exclusion of other activities. It seems quite unbalanced in retrospect. Who could call louder, longer, with accompanying clenched-fist thrusting would "win the race". The word "just" seems to be used in exactly the same meaning that you say was not done. You say, "We don't just do this" but the hymn says "Just do this".

Originally Posted by Jay

These and plenty more verses imply that when we are connected to God we are filled and we drink of him. Really it all makes perfect sense.

Connected to God can be by helping your neighbor. Being filled with the Holy Spirit may be caring for those who are sick. "When I was sick, you visited me..." Was this visiting then self-effort, devoid of Godly connection? Doesn't seem so, from the text.

[aron]

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is a commonly cited verse. But it also says, If you believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead you shall be saved. So, to believe, to confess, and to call are placed in the same context. If I confess Jesus as Lord, this means that I believe that God raised him from the dead, that he is Saviour of the world, that my sins are forgiven, and that I am one who calls upon the name of the Lord, and that I am saved. All of these are used interchangeably. And nowhere does Paul define any of this as God's economy.

I believe that what follows believing is then God's economy, and is not the basis for our salvation, which I've briefly outlined above. No, our participation in God's economy is a sign of our election, just as surely as Jesus changing water to wine or healing the lepers was a sign to the world that he was Messiah. Jesus "went around doing good works" per his closest companion (Acts 10:38) not to curry approval, but to show that he was already approved. The Father had done it, and Jesus manifested this.

Likewise, the selling of things in Acts 4 and 5 were not attempts to gain favor and providence, but as signs of faith. "God will take care of you", per Jesus (Matt 6:33). The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was to fake the sign. They pretended to believe, but secretly doubted. Keeping half was not a sin - Zacchaeus kept half, also (Luke 19:8). But they were faking their degree of participation in God's economy, and got exposed.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

Being filled with the Holy Spirit may be caring for those who are sick. "When I was sick, you visited me..." Was this visiting then self-effort, devoid of Godly connection? Doesn't seem so, from the text.

I'm definitely not saying works aren't needed, necessary, helpful, important, etc. Surely works express God, and frankly I think the LC is very very short in the works department. And I will say that they lack the humanity of the Lord himself a great deal from my experience with them in the Western Washington region

But we can't go too far one way or the other. Works outside of the spirit become dead works- Isaiah 64:6, Hebrews 9:6, 1 Corinthians 3:12, John 15:5. On the flip side I think if we just have the spirit without the works then that's short also. Which I believe brother Lee is guilty of promoting. Many times I've read him say that all we need is the spirit and all we need to do is take care of the spirit. In a sense this is sorta true, but clearly there's much more to the Christian life than just that. It's certainly indispensable and vital. Without the spirit the Christian life is done, it's shipwrecked. But certainly there is more to it than that. And for Lee to simplify it and distill it to that degree is pretty dangerous in a sense and venturing into misleading territory. He himself has said that the main focus of his ministry was Christ dispensed and the spirit in relation to the economy of God. However I find his ministry to be hyper focused on those aspects, while to a great deal neglecting many other aspects of the bible and the Christian walk

For instance in the past I used to totally ignore the book of James. However recently I have been appreciating this passage from James 2:14-18, which I think touches on this matter nicely....


2:14 What is the profit, my brothers, if anyone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and lacks daily food,
2:16 And any one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, yet you do not give them the necessities of the body, what is the profit?
2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.
2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works


So taken as a whole the Bible is balanced on this. But I think the LC and denominations are not balanced on this point. I think they're both too much one way or the other. The denominations neglect the exercise of the spirit to contact God, and the LC neglects the works which glorify God

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

...in the past I used to totally ignore the book of James. However recently I have been appreciating this passage from James 2:14-18, which I think touches on this matter nicely....

2:14 What is the profit, my brothers, if anyone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and lacks daily food,
2:16 And any one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, yet you do not give them the necessities of the body, what is the profit?
2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.
2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works


So taken as a whole the Bible is balanced on this. But I think the LC and denominations are not balanced on this point. I think they're both too much one way or the other. The denominations neglect the exercise of the spirit to contact God, and the LC neglects the works which glorify God

And to your point, "Cry out, and shout, O inhabitant of Zion" is a command and surely on Pentecost they were, else the city would not have gathered (Acts 2:6). But the feeding of the poor followed. They are integrated into a whole experience.

Paul writes in Roman's 4:11, that circumcision was a sign of faith, not a dead work of human good intentions. "He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being circumcised..." Likewise, Paul expected some sign from the gentile churches that their faith had some substance or merit. But the works themselves were never the point. Faith was the point. It always was, and remains the same

Originally Posted by Jay

.. Many times I've read him say that all we need is the spirit and all we need to do is take care of the spirit. In a sense this is sorta true, but clearly there's much more to the Christian life than just that.

That's right. "All we need to do is 'x'" is oversimplification. You can end up specializing in obscurity and missing the basics.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is a commonly cited verse. But it also says, If you believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead you shall be saved. So, to believe, to confess, and to call are placed in the same context. If I confess Jesus as Lord, this means that I believe that God raised him from the dead, that he is Saviour of the world, that my sins are forgiven, and that I am one who calls upon the name of the Lord, and that I am saved. All of these are used interchangeably. And nowhere does Paul define any of this as God's economy.

When it comes to "Pray-Reading", rather than taking a biblical term and twisting and contorting until it was beyond recognition (like Lee did with "Calling on the Lord") in this instance he made up his own term out of whole cloth. And this would not have been so bad, or so dangerous and harmful, if it was not established as part of some "God-ordained" set of beliefs and practices, neatly proclaimed as "God's Economy".

Over the years I was in the Local Church, I invited many of my friends and family to a meeting. Most were practicing Christians. And almost without exception, they were confused at best, and many were deeply disturbed at the practices of Calling on the Lord and Pray-Reading. Some were so bothered they walked out of the meeting as soon as the monotonous chanting and staccato/repetitive type of Scripture reciting started. And it seemed to me that the more aged and mature Christian they were, the more they were bothered and disturbed. If God really did have an economy, I don't think that the teachings and practices of a group that claims to have invented/discovered/recovered such a thing, would be so offsetting, alarming and disturbing to other Christians.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

.... If God really did have an economy, I don't think that the teachings and practices of a group that claims to have .. recovered such a thing, would be so offsetting, alarming and disturbing to other Christians.
-

The novelty & shock value drew in the young ones & alarmed the more cautious ones. "Don't lay hands quickly on any new believer" is a good warning, and it speaks to what happened to many of us, myself included.

And yes, I'd argue that God does have an economy. Jesus also used the word that translated as "stewardship" and Paul told Timothy that right teachings would result in it.

But what is the practice of God's economy? Certainly not calling, which I've shown is the equivalent of: repent and believe; confess Jesus as Lord; be baptized; be saved; etc. It is what WL would call "the initiation of the mingling" where people are transferred from darkness to light. And yes, "It is not of works, it is all of grace".

While God's economy, which follows, can also be said to be a further demonstration of God's sovereign grace, and I believe it is, it involves more than calling. If you read Paul's epistles to the gentiles, he wanted some issue, some fruit, and not merely the fruit of yet more lips calling on the name (though that was involved as well).

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

The novelty & shock value drew in the young ones & alarmed the more cautious ones. "Don't lay hands quickly on any new believer" is a good warning, and it speaks to what happened to many of us, myself included.

I can ditto this sentiment.

Originally Posted by aron

While God's economy, which follows, can also be said to be a further demonstration of God's sovereign grace, and I believe it is, it involves more than calling. If you read Paul's epistles to the gentiles, he wanted some issue, some fruit, and not merely the fruit of yet more lips calling on the name (though that was involved as well).

I was watching the video from the Unchained YouTube channel about Lee’s teachings on the mind, and realized few things. I read this comment from someone in the comments section, and it just reminded me of a lot of things in LC.

Great video I once studied Zen Buddhism and a
Chinese Taoism and in both there is the doctrine of
"wu-hsin" which stands for "no-mind". No opinions
no beliefs. If you clear your mind you will be in your
"shen" which in Chinese means spirit. So emptying
your mind opens the way to your inner self which is
your spirit which in turn is one with the Cosmic Self,
and filled with the energy of the high Spirit.
In Pure Land Buddhism we find the repetition or
invoking of the name of the Lord ( Buddha). By
emptying the mind and invoking the holy name you
will be saved both in this world and the next's. This
resembles a hindu mantra in every way.
They systematically teach to reject your personal
ideas of good and evil, right and wrong to overcome
self and a sense of self. After all there is no real self
they say, and any ideas of right and wrong come
from your deluded mind.

Witness Lee's authoritarian and autocratic approach
borrowed heavily from Chinese indigenous religions
to create a. CCP type cult. Not even Chinese
religions use those teachings for group control but
several new Chinese and Korean cults have
borrowed from these ancient teachings found in
Buddhism and Taoism to build huge mass brain
washing cults that use the practice to enforce mass
conforming, mass formation brainless and blind
followers with totally suppressed and oppressed
individualities in order to become accepting
puppets of the regime or cult through fear of social
rejection and condemnation. See what happened in
China in 2020-22 to see how total control works
once the individual self is reduced to zero.
The Asian peoples come from highly authotitarian
societies and I would always be weary of any
"Christian" burch from the Far East as they all tend
to replicate their authoritarianism based on
Confucianism and now Communism. This is partly
why the Chinese have fallen easily into total
conformity to the most outrageous tyranny for over
half a century now.

The Local church is a typical Chinese new religion
that bears all the imprints ot the highly robot like
society it comes from. Asians have historically never
developed a sense of an independent self as
distinct from the herd like mentality that still
dominates them. That is what makes any religious
or political idea from the Far East VERY dangerous
to us westerners. See the Moonies for instance.
Social control by a small group of psychopaths is all
these cults and political regimes aim to do.
The Local Church fits perfectly in this category.
I was a local church activist and started local
churches in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil between
1977 to 1981. Then I was red pilled and left for good
along with hundreds of others in Brazil never to
come back. Fortunately I was only 24 years old in
1981 and I could restart my life anew with little
psychological damage.

Best to you and keep up the good work of exposing
this oppresive cult.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Jay

How can one be transformed by the spirit if one doesn't actually exercise their spirit?

I'm curious about where the Bible tells us "to exercise our spirits" that involves psychic, yelling, repetitive, and mindless mantras like those practiced in the LC?

I believe W. Lee often mentioned 1 Timothy 4:7, where Paul tells Timothy to "train yourself to be godly" (NIV). I think he meant to focus on prayer, reading the Holy Scriptures, avoiding wrongdoing, living righteously and in obedience to God, practicing charity, being filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I'm curious about where the Bible tells us "to exercise our spirits" that involves psychic, yelling, repetitive, and mindless mantras like those practiced in the LC?
I believe W. Lee often mentioned 1 Timothy 4:7, where Paul tells Timothy to "train yourself to be godly" (NIV). I think he meant to focus on prayer, reading the Holy Scriptures, avoiding wrongdoing, living righteously and in obedience to God, practicing charity, being filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.

I think you're taking something, distorting it, and then running with the distortion you've created. If you actually attend LC meetings they don't just chant mindlessly over and over. Certainly they call on the Lord, but it's not ALL they do and it's not mindlessly repetitive like you're painting it as. No, it's to exercise the spirit

The Bible constantly mentions the practice of calling on the Lord- https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...-THE-LORD.HTML

Does it say that they chanted over and over repetitively for hours on end? No, but the LC doesn't do that either. They call, they praise, they sing, they prophesy, they fellowship. Again calling on the name of the Lord is exemplified many times over in the Bible and yes it's audible and yes those who did it said the name of the Lord in a spirit touching way

Maybe there are some examples of people in the LC who do do it mindlessly and repetitively idk. But I've been around the LC for many years in my life and I never got the impression is was a weird repetitive chant that was lifeless and meaningless, like a cult practice or something. It's a definite thing with a real meaning. When you call on the Lord you are touching your spirit Otherwise what would be the point of it?

Hey Jay,

Just an FYI, Biblically speaking, to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, is a one time event that happens in a believers life. Once you are born, you don’t need to be born everyday. It’s done, it’s accomplished! Nowhere in scriptures does the Bible instruct a born again believers to go through the rebirthing process everyday, nor does it tells a Christian in order to grow spiritually to practice the Witness Lee regiments and prescriptions.

It more looks like WL distorting scripture and ran with it, and unfortunately you swallowed it as some reality of truth. The link you posted gives nothing Biblical to the prescription of the local church, other than compiling verses that say they called on a Lord. Remember, please read in context and understand the difference between the obvious description of a person recognizing God vs taking things to suit your or Lees ideologies to claim some wild recovery that he supposedly brought back from the first century. I highly doubt that you can even read a Bible without Witness Lee notes and his supposed recoveries, so unless that changes and there is some personal time before the Lord, I highly doubt there is anything anyone on this forum can show you, or communicate it in any way.

[Ohio]

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality, rather merely vain repetition, taking His name in vain as we are commanded not to in the 3rd Commandment. This was most unfortunate, but I, and you, cannot deny that it really happened. I talked about this in that lengthy ITERO Midwest quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC.

This is the unavoidable consequence of that public practice. Calling on the Name of our dear Lord should never have become some cheap and commonplace, very PUBLIC, very programmed, very coerced, very loud and repetitive, yet distorted, mechanical practice. I cannot remember any exhortation in scripture for this PUBLIC display commonly seen in LC meetings. On the contrary, what is seen in scripture and referred to as “calling on the Lord,” could only be described as needy, private, genuine, unscripted, and personal prayer from the believer to the Lord.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively...

There are plenty of verses in the Bible where calling on the Lord publicly happened. I think you're chasing after windmills here sir

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

There are plenty of verses in the Bible where calling on the Lord publicly happened…..

Maybe you should read Ohio’s post again. He didn’t say there were no verses.

Here’s a good one…a command.
Exodus 20:7
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality, rather merely vain repetition, taking His name in vain as we are commanded not to in the 3rd Commandment.

As I was told and taught in my early years of LC, calling on the Lord as according to Lee has prerequisites, which was that I needed to get out of my mind. It’s kind like a hand and a glove, one cannot happen without the other.

If you question the practice, you are in your natural state, and can’t understand spiritual matters. I was also told that unless I pray the way that I did before, as in normal human speaking without any repetitions of Lords name, or allowing others to interrupt and insert amens or some sort of approval, my prayer is very individualistic and soulish without touching God. Go figure where these seers discovered such things, all I know now it’s not anywhere in the Bible.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe you should read Ohio’s post again. He didn’t say there were no verses. Here’s a good one…a command.
Exodus 20:7
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Why would calling on the name of the Lord to contact him be in vain?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

Why would calling on the name of the Lord to contact him be in vain?

Honestly I love being connected to the Lord in my spirit. It's like having continuous access to the well of life. If I don't turn to my spirit by opening up deep within, which is accompanied by calling on his name, then I feel dry and dead. I feel disconnected. I like to stay plugged into God idk about anyone else

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Why would calling on the name of the Lord to contact him be in vain?

I think Ohio was clear on this. Read it again.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality, rather merely vain repetition, taking His name in vain as we are commanded not to in the 3rd Commandment. This was most unfortunate, but I, and you, cannot deny that it really happened. I talked about this in that lengthy ITERO Midwest quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC.

This is the unavoidable consequence of that public practice. Calling on the Name of our dear Lord should never have become some cheap and commonplace, very PUBLIC, very programmed, very coerced, very loud and repetitive, yet distorted, mechanical practice. I cannot remember any exhortation in scripture for this PUBLIC display commonly seen in LC meetings. On the contrary, what is seen in scripture and referred to as “calling on the Lord,” could only be described as needy, private, genuine, unscripted, and personal prayer from the believer to the Lord.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Honestly I love being connected to the Lord in my spirit. It's like having continuous access to the well of life. If I don't turn to my spirit by opening up deep within, which is accompanied by calling on his name, then I feel dry and dead. I feel disconnected. I like to stay plugged into God idk about anyone else

Good for you, and thank you for acknowledging that you don't know about anyone else.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

As I was told and taught in my early years of LC, calling on the Lord as according to Lee has prerequisites....

Onlooker, I think everyone is enjoying your helpful and thoughtful posts. Could you please take a minute and register for membership by shooting an email to Reg4LCD@Gmail.Com - I'm certain that the UserName "Onlooker" is available!
-

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Jay

Again calling on the name of the Lord is exemplified many times over in the Bible and yes it's audible and yes those who did it said the name of the Lord in a spirit touching way

In both the Old and New Testaments, calling upon the name of the Lord was a genuine prayer directed towards God. This truth is evidenced by numerous instances recorded throughout the Bible, where saints interacted intimately with God.

Book of Psalms is a great resource. For instance, we see how king David, in over 70 Psalms called on the name of the Lord none of which was in a form presented by WL. Other psalms attributed to Moses, Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, and more also demonstrate how they called on the name of the Lord none of which was mere repetition of the name of Jehovah.

In the New Testament, we encounter recorded prayers from Jesus himself, the early church, and the apostle Paul, further demonstrating that the calling upon Lord’s name is simply our prayers, our meaningful and sound conversations with God.

However, it's concerning that within the LC, there appears to be a departure from this biblical sound practice of calling on the name of the Lord by replacing it with emotionally charged and mind suppressing chanting.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Onlooker

I was also told that unless I pray the way that I did before, as in normal human speaking without any repetitions of Lords name, or allowing others to interrupt and insert amens or some sort of approval, my prayer is very individualistic and soulish without touching God. Go figure where these seers discovered such things, all I know now it’s not anywhere in the Bible.

On a side note, it’s a big red flag to me that the saints in LC rarely direct their prayers to the Father, except for a brief period following the breaking of bread. I rarely heard that saints in LC would address their prayers to the Father before meals, during home meetings, conferences, etc. This deviation from New Testament practice raises some concerns. Addressing the Father in prayer should be a natural and foundational aspect of Christian prayer, yet it seems to be regarded as superficial or overly religious within the LC. This reluctance to pray to the Father directly contradicts Jesus' own instructions to approach God the Father through him.

Furthermore, there is a notable avoidance of the phrase "I pray in the name of Jesus," which is viewed as formal or religious despite its biblical basis. Jesus himself instructed his disciples to pray in his name, indicating its importance in prayer.

Additionally, there seems to be a lack of emphasis on the Holy Spirit within the LC. Instead of referring to the Holy Spirit directly, terms like "Life-giving Spirit" or "Seven-fold Spirit" are often used.

It's apparent to me that the presentation of the whole Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the LC deviates from the Bible. I wonder if anyone else noticed this or have any further thoughts?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

On a side note, it’s a big red flag to me that the saints in LC rarely direct their prayers to the Father...

Now that you point it out, it becomes apparent. Of note also is a heavy emphasis on the human spirit which would seem to direct attention away from God and all he is, to man. That is, man "being somewhere" ("in his spirit") to have a walk with God. Your walk seems to rely on phrases like "exercise your spirit" (with a fist pump or two which is interpreted as "enjoyment") or you are falling short of the Lee's interpretation of scriptures.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

It's apparent to me that the presentation of the whole Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the LC deviates from the Bible. I wonder if anyone else noticed this or have any further thoughts?

I think that many of us who have been "out" of the LC for more than just a year or two understand this dynamic quite well. I believe that it is almost a universal thing - that when a Christian group or movement deviates from the orthodox teaching/doctrine/understanding of the Trinity (That God has revealed himself as one Being, and within this one Being there are three Persons who share their divinity, divine nature, character and attributes within the Godhead) these groups also become dangerously aberrant in other teachings and practices as well. And it is also nearly universal that these groups/movements move further and further away from orthodoxy as time goes on. To be sure, we see this in the current iteration of Local Church of Witness Lee movement.
-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality...

Nothing wrong with the practice calling on the Lord, It should not be a mechanical exercise. It should not be a competition display of who can do it the loudest.
If the intent of calling on the Lord is to set our mind on our spirit, that can be done quietly as well. In my post-LSM/LC church experience those that choose do so take time prior to the services to set their minds on their spirit.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't remember any exhortation in scripture for this PUBLIC display commonly seen in LC meetings. On the contrary, what is seen in scripture and referred to as “calling on the Lord,” could only be described as needy, private, genuine, unscripted, and personal prayer from the believer to the Lord.

There is one very public and very tumultuous meeting which Christian groups have tried consciously or unconsciously to emulate and follow, ever since. That was the gathering in the large upper room on Pentecost.

But nowhere in the NT is that prescribed as the model Christian meeting. At some point, when we whip ourselves into a frenzy, Paul says this will stumble visitors, as we can attest in the LC. Immature ones will lay hands quickly and with unmerited enthusiasm. But Paul seems to address this tendency toward unmerited enthusiasm and unbalance in his word to the Corinthians, summing up that God is not a God of disorder but of peace. (I Cor 14 v. 33).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

Nothing wrong with the practice calling on the Lord, It should not be a mechanical exercise. It should not be a competition display of who can do it the loudest.
If the intent of calling on the Lord is to set our mind on our spirit, that can be done quietly as well. In my post-LSM/LC church experience those that choose do so take time prior to the services to set their minds on their spirit.

Even this so-called justification to “get into your spirit” or to “set your mind on your spirit” is seriously wanting when some self-titled “Blended” instructs the ITERO attendants at Whistler Resort to “all stand and call on the Lord 5 times.” What was that? I’m serious here. What was that?

That was a pathetic attempt to justify unrighteousness. That was a whitewashing of pathetic power politics. That was a public lynching of a perceived rival, perhaps the lone truth-teller. That was a form of godliness while denying its power. Paul told Timothy (2 T 3.5) to avoid such people.

Calling on the name of our dear Lord is a precious gift of faith for every true lover of God. From the dawn of mankind. I can imagine every true martyr of the Hebrews 11 kind expired with His name on their lips, their final words on planet earth. Was this not “worshiping in spirit and in truth?” Does not our heavenly Father demand such worship? (Jn 4.24)

But what I saw watching that TC Quarantine debacle was akin to a “seventh inning stretch.” That charade dragged on for h-o-u-r-s. Half the attendants were half asleep. So the Blended on stage makes an urgent announcement, “let’s all stand up and call … 5 times.” Except there was no “Lord” there. One day He may tell them, “I never knew you.” (Mt 7.23)

[Nell]

In the "early days" there was a road trip to another locality. Two young single sisters and one single brother were assigned to my car.

The single brother began screaming at the Lord as soon as we pulled out of the parking lot. He was not only annoying and obnoxious but a distraction to my driving. The SB was alone in his screaming. We three sisters were in an eye-roll at this display of .... whatever that was.

When there was a pause in the action I commented:

"OK. Now that you are in your spirit, could you please lower the volume?" He finally gave it a rest. He may have been trying to impress us with his spirituality. We were all very impressed.

Nell

[Ohio]

A brother I once knew told me about his church life in those “early days” out in the Bay Area of NoCal how they would scream to the Lord in order to get into their spirit. He mentioned how one time he even climbed into a dumpster to “call on the Lord.” Apparently it was the fleeting desire to reenact that initial high he once enjoyed. I understood that feeling. I used to get these great “head rushes” in those first meetings I went to. They were great. Better than a concert or sporting event. And completely drug-free. This was like heaven on earth. I smiled ear to ear. Joy ineffable and full of glory.

But like all drug attics, there is no high as good as those first ones. Sadly our body can get addicted to those feelings of euphoria. Sometimes the joy of the Spirit visits us in like manner. Kind of like the overwhelming feelings that filled the disciples in the upper room as aron recently mentioned. None of these wonderful spiritual feelings is wrong, far from it, but unfortunately they can establish a wrong standard for our faith. These feelings are like milk from a nursing mother. Good for a season of time, yes, but deadly if demanded life-long. I once met with some dear Christians whose greatest hope was to relive the experience of Pentecost. ”Revival!” they loved to say.

Such as our human life, so our spiritual life. We need solid food in order to mature, and the Bible speaks of such matters as faithfulness, perseverance in prayer, obedience and work of faith, suffering for righteousness sake, the labor of love in loving our enemies, etc. as descriptions of solid food for healthy growth. Many times when I finally surrendered and obeyed the Lord’s command, I felt nothing at all. Perhaps only shame that I was so stubborn for acting so slowly. Yet that is the obedience of faith that God demands of us. Recently I had to apologize to my wife. It was all so unreasonable I thought. Like I said, “obedience.” Real and mature faith is not in feelings.

Back to the discussion about “calling on the Lord” in order to carry out “God’s Economy.” We cannot yank verses out of scripture to justify what other verses condemn. I see this often on this forum. How sad that many LC members and ex-members are just unable to transition from the feelings of screaming at God unto maturity. Sadly the brother I mentioned could not, and ended his life.

[aron]

There's been some consensus here, on what is not God's economy. It's not calling on the Lord, which is seen in the same vein as confessing Jesus as Lord. It's an instrumental sign of faith. at it's initiation: the charge to -- Confess, repent, believe, call, be baptized, be saved -- are all put apace in the conversion process. Calling is neither seen nor recommended anywhere as a continual process of "absorbing God" or any such, certainly not seen as God's economy.

Pray-reading is simply made-up. Paul never uses the phrase, nor does any other.

But what is God's economy? Paul, writing Timothy, encourages teachings that result in God's economy. Because he never defines it, we must take a broad view of Paul. In the beginning, I see the Jerusalem cohort sending him off, reminding him to "only remember the poor", which he claims to be eager to do. And at the end, he returns to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation".

In between, are numerous written and oral demonstrations in numerous forms, for the collection for the poor of Jerusalem. I therefore see his "God's economy" as his outworking of the Jesus charge: "Give to those who cannot repay you, and your reward in heaven will be great." Paul is bringing this teaching to the Nations.

I believe that one of Paul's few direct quotes his Master Jesus is this: "It is better to give, than to receive". Jesus also had said, "Give, and it will be given to you", and this theme of sharing with one another is nearly continual.

Then in Paul's epistles and the Acts there is the continual care for the ones who lack. Those who have, share with those who don't. Those who gather much, share with those who lack. Salvation is a gift of God, and giving is the sign, the "proof" of the love of God manifesting in humanity: "Therefore show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it." (2 Cor 8:24)

If there's a more pervasive theme in Paul's acts and his letters, I don't see him teaching it. Certainly its not pray-reading, which doesn't seem to even exist...Paul was a Jewish Pharisee (Acts 23:6) who was appointed apostle to the nations (Gal 1:16; 2:7,8; Rom 1:5). And his message was that Christ's substitutionary death for us, opened up the path of eternal life, and that on this path, we should allow the love of God in Christ Jesus which brought us here, to flow out through us to our fellows. This was an instrumental part of Paul's gospel message, woven throughout every epistle to every church.

"For you are recognizing [more clearly] the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (His astonishing kindness, His gracious generosity, His undeserved favor and spiritual blessing) in that though he was [so very] rich yet for your sake he became [so very] poor in order that by his poverty you might become rich (abundantly supplied)." 2 Cor 8:9 (AMP) And Paul wanted Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus and make sure this message got taught, so that God's economy would come forth there, as well.