Titus Chu Conference at "Chicago Gospel Hall" (April 9-10, 2016)

[Koinonia]

Those in Chicago inclined toward following Titus Chu have recently purchased a disused church facility at 5518 West Gettysburg Street, three miles northwest of the Local Church buildings on West Irving Park Road. The group is referring to themselves as the "Chicago Gospel Hall" and also as "The Church of the Chicagoans." The following are links:

• http://www.chicagogospelhall.org
• http://www.thechurchofthechicagoans.org

Their websites announce a class for new believers with a book by Titus Chu as course material, as well as a "special gathering to open our new meeting hall" on April 9-10, with Titus Chu speaking. A letter states that "The Responsible Brothers in Chicago" "trust and pray that in the coming days the Lord will greatly use this hall for His own glory, to raise up His testimony in this city and beyond."

In the LC, people are very concerned with names. The name "The Church of the Chicagoans" is reminiscent of the name used by the LSM people in Toronto ("Church of the Torontonians") after their most recent church split. "Chicago Gospel Hall" is somewhat more interesting. This is a designation that would be familiar almost only to "Exclusive Brethren" types or to "Open Brethren" with more exclusive leanings. The former manager of the LC bookstore in Chicago once tried to woo into the LC mold members of two ex-Exclusive Brethren groups meeting in the Chicago area.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Those in Chicago inclined toward following Titus Chu have recently purchased a disused church facility at 5518 West Gettysburg Street, three miles northwest of the Local Church buildings on West Irving Park Road. The group is referring to themselves as the "Chicago Gospel Hall" and also as "The Church of the Chicagoans." .

Perhaps a little ironic that the notable "oneness" church in Chicago would now have a second location on Gettysburg St. following such a nasty civil war.

[Freedom]

It always interests me to read about what some of these groups have chosen after severing ties with LSM. Obviously some have gone back to their Exclusive Brethren roots, and while I don’t say that to criticize, it is essentially what you get when Lee/LSM are removed from the equation.

[Ohio]

This section stood out to me ...

Why Doesn’t Our Church Have a Name?

In the New Testament, the believers simply came together wherever they lived to be the church in that place, e.g., the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1), or the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess, 1:1). We do refer to ourselves as “the church in Chicago” or “the church of the Chicagoans,” but we do not take these terms as a name; we are only using them to describe who we are. We are incorporated as “The Church of the Chicagoans,” but that is only for legal purposes, or for practical matters such as designating this website. Again, we don’t take such descriptions as our actual name.

To “denominate” literally means “to give a name to; designate” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition). Christians today are so divided in part because they are denominated; that is, they want to be called by some name other than the name of Christ, e.g., Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. In fact, the apostle rebuked the early believers for this very thing:

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
– First Corinthians 1:11-13

I wish current LC members would think about what they are saying. They love to promote their "no-name" oneness, as if they are onto something special. Actually Paul never rebuked them for names per se, but that they had divided themselves from one another by selecting who they wanted to follow exclusively.

Now what in the world do they think just happened in Chicago?

Greater Chicago formerly was "of Titus," and now they are "of Lee" ... again. Are they so naive as to think this is not so? Do I really have to walk around wearing a sandwich sign reading "I am of Titus," and parroting the phrase repeatedly, for this to occur???

I went thru the recent divisions and quarantines first hand. My LC elders told us repeatedly, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Titus and by Titus and of Titus. Some of the others in my LC disagreed and said the same thing, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Lee and by Lee and of Lee.

Then there were a few oddballs like me who said, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are the church, and we don't have to take sides when ministries decide to fight. Few people listened to me.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This section stood out to me ...

I wish current LC members would think about what they are saying. They love to promote their "no-name" oneness, as if they are onto something special. Actually Paul never rebuked them for names per se, but that they had divided themselves from one another by selecting who they wanted to follow exclusively.

Now what in the world do they think just happened in Chicago?

Greater Chicago formerly was "of Titus," and now they are "of Lee" ... again. Are they so naive as to think this is not so? Do I really have to walk around wearing a sandwich sign reading "I am of Titus," and parroting the phrase repeatedly, for this to occur???

I went thru the recent divisions and quarantines first hand. My LC elders told us repeatedly, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Titus and by Titus and of Titus. Some of the others in my LC disagreed and said the same thing, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are for Lee and by Lee and of Lee.

Then there were a few oddballs like me who said, "we have to stand for the truth!" which really meant that we are the church, and we don't have to take sides when ministries decide to fight. Few people listened to me.

"The church in..." (or "church of the...") is a name. Because it defines the group that LCers believe to be the actual "practicality" of church in any given location. Witness Lee had it right when he taught that "the church in" describes the spiritual reality of all of the believers in a given location being in God's eyes the church in that place. But over time this phrase, instead of being a mere "description," become a name, used to define their group.

It is the spiritual equivalent of proclaiming to be "I am of Christ," in the very passage quoted.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

"The church in..." (or "church of the...") is a name. Because it defines the group that LCers believe to be the actual "practicality" of church in any given location. Witness Lee had it right when he taught that "the church in" describes the spiritual reality of all of the believers in a given location being in God's eyes the church in that place. But over time this phrase, instead of being a mere "description," become a name, used to define their group.

Exactly, it is a name. Whenever I go to the department of revenue website for Washington state, I can look up any local church and the localities' name will show. Which clearly indicates there is a name. Whether a church calls itself First Presbyterian Church or their next door neighbor, The Church in Bellevue; it's taking a name.
If a group of Christians were really strong about not taking a name, they wouldn't register for a name and just come together as Christians meeting as an expression of the church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It always interests me to read about what some of these groups have chosen after severing ties with LSM. Obviously some have gone back to their Exclusive Brethren roots, and while I don’t say that to criticize, it is essentially what you get when Lee/LSM are removed from the equation.

What's really ironic is Nee/Lee never really abandoned their Exclusive Brethren roots. Similar practices, but different terminology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It is the spiritual equivalent of proclaiming to be "I am of Christ," in the very passage quoted.

Can you elaborate?

Lee likewise condemned those that declared this, saying they rejected the apostles, and thus were similarly divisive.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you elaborate?

Lee likewise condemned those that declared this, saying they rejected the apostles, and thus were similarly divisive.

Yes, Lee taught that to declare "I am of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is just a more spiritual-sounding way of dividing oneself from the other believers (instead of saying "I am of Paul," "I am of Peter," etc.). Basically, I find this to be a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Yet, to make a similar point over calling yourself "the church" (instead of any other name) shows exactly the same attitude.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, Lee taught that to declare "I am of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is just a more spiritual-sounding way of dividing oneself from the other believers (instead of saying "I am of Paul," "I am of Peter," etc.). Basically, I find this to be a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Yet, to make a similar point over calling yourself "the church" (instead of any other name) shows exactly the same attitude.

I think Lee was trying to say that it was like being the "Church of Christ" which he rejected. Of course Paul did not actually say that. Neither did he say that having a name was wrong. Only that fighting over leaders was.

And even using Christ as the cause for separation was invalid. Christ should be the reason for unity.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think Lee was trying to say that it was like being the "Church of Christ" which he rejected. Of course Paul did not actually say that. Neither did he say that having a name was wrong. Only that fighting over leaders was.

And even using Christ as the cause for separation was invalid. Christ should be the reason for unity.

Lee's footnote on "I am of Christ" reads:

To say "I am of Christ" in the way of excluding the apostles and their teachings or of excluding other believers is as divisive as to say "I am of" this or that.

The very next verse (1 Corinthians 1:13) begins, "Is Christ divided?"

The issue is believers separating themselves from one another through self-identification. Even when it is not intended to be divisive, such self-identification inherently is (or has that result). Yet, ironically, the more spiritual-sounding "I am of Christ" serves the very same purpose. And my point is--that to say "we are 'just the church'" does exactly the same.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, Lee taught that to declare "I am of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is just a more spiritual-sounding way of dividing oneself from the other believers (instead of saying "I am of Paul," "I am of Peter," etc.). Basically, I find this to be a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Yet, to make a similar point over calling yourself "the church" (instead of any other name) shows exactly the same attitude.

I just can not accept Lee's interpretation of I Cor 1.12 any longer. Here are my reasons ...

• Paul never once elaborated that "I am of Christ" was negative in any way
• The entire intro (1.1-10) to this matter of division pointed them to God calling them into the fellowship of His Son
• Paul immediately chided them for uplifting his own name, asking the Corinthians who was crucified for them? Into whose name were they baptized? (1.13)
• Paul then went on a long discourse about Christ as God's wisdom (1.18-2.16)
• Paul came right back to this point (3.4) "whenever one says I am of Paul ... Apollos, are you not men?" Here "I am of Christ" is not included.
• Lee's interpretation of these scripture are entirely self-serving. Paul diminished himself, exalting Christ, and only Christ. Lee, however, exalted himself as MOTA. Paul recommended other ministers to the saints in Corinth, Lee recommended no one.
• Paul said, "all are yours." (3.23) Lee and his minions made it clear that "we are all his."
• Paul concludes, "we are Christ's." In other words, "we are of Christ." Amen!

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just can not accept Lee's interpretation of I Cor 1.12 any longer. Here are my reasons ...

• Paul never once elaborated that "I am of Christ" was negative in any way
• The entire intro (1.1-10) to this matter of division pointed them to God calling them into the fellowship of His Son
• Paul immediately chided them for uplifting his own name, asking the Corinthians who was crucified for them? Into whose name were they baptized? (1.13)
• Paul then went on a long discourse about Christ as God's wisdom (1.18-2.16)
• Paul came right back to this point (3.4) "whenever one says I am of Paul ... Apollos, are you not men?" Here "I am of Christ" is not included.
• Lee's interpretation of these scripture are entirely self-serving. Paul diminished himself, exalting Christ, and only Christ. Lee, however, exalted himself as MOTA. Paul recommended other ministers to the saints in Corinth, Lee recommended no one.
• Paul said, "all are yours." (3.23) Lee and his minions made it clear that "we are all his."
• Paul concludes, "we are Christ's." In other words, "we are of Christ." Amen!

I may not be expressing myself clearly; if not, I apologize for that. In the main, I agree with you. I'm not agreeing with Lee's point about the believers cutting themselves off from the apostles. I am saying that Lee's idea that making a distinction that "You say you're of Paul; well, I'm of Christ," can be similarly sectarian. Even Paul lists that among his other "I am of"s.

In any event, whether you or I agree with that or not, I'm simply saying that LC people do exactly the same thing that Lee condemns in his interpretation of "I am of Christ" when they "we are just the church (and you're not)."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yet, ironically, the more spiritual-sounding "I am of Christ" serves the very same purpose. And my point is--that to say "we are 'just the church'" does exactly the same.

I seem to recall some sort of self-serving, overly defensive statement from the Local Church minions that went something like: "We are not saying that 'We are THE ONLY Church', only that 'We are only just the Church'.". Although I don't believe this is something Witness Lee ever quoted himself, it smacks of the kind of double-talk that Lee used quite a bit.

I think Koinonia has pretty much nailed the very same point. By the way, WELCOME to the Forum Koinonia!

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I may not be expressing myself clearly; if not, I apologize for that. In the main, I agree with you. I'm not agreeing with Lee's point about the believers cutting themselves off from the apostles. I am saying that Lee's idea that making a distinction that "You say you're of Paul; well, I'm of Christ," can be similarly sectarian. Even Paul lists that among his other "I am of"s.

In any event, whether you or I agree with that or not, I'm simply saying that LC people do exactly the same thing that Lee condemns in his interpretation of "I am of Christ" when they "we are just the church (and you're not)."

OK. Agreed.

This topic faced me head-on during the recent quarantine of TC. The Blendeds forced us all to decide whether we were of TC or WL/BB. Why did I need to choose sides? I am of Christ! I dont need to choose between ministers! But, of course, that option was not made available to me! So I left.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. Agreed.

This topic faced me head-on during the recent quarantine of TC. The Blendeds forced us all to decide whether we were of TC or WL/BB. Why did I need to choose sides? I am of Christ! I dont need to choose between ministers! But, of course, that option was not made available to me! So I left.

I'm sure the LSM justification of not allowing neutrality is based in the first part of Matthew 12:30

"He who is not with Me is against Me"

Twisted to mean, if you're not for LSM and the local churches, you're against them and against the Lord's move.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. Agreed.

This topic faced me head-on during the recent quarantine of TC. The Blendeds forced us all to decide whether we were of TC or WL/BB. Why did I need to choose sides? I am of Christ! I dont need to choose between ministers! But, of course, that option was not made available to me! So I left.

Just wondering how long after you left did you suffer and feel that you were in the wilderness, if you felt that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure the LSM justification of not allowing neutrality is based in the first part of Matthew 12:30

"He who is not with Me is against Me"

Twisted to mean, if you're not for LSM and the local churches, you're against them and against the Lord's move.

LSM can always twist some verse to justify their directives.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering how long after you left did you suffer and feel that you were in the wilderness, if you felt that way.

Not sure what about a "wilderness" you were referring to. The LC at the end of my tenure was already a "wilderness" in many ways.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure the LSM justification of not allowing neutrality is based in the first part of Matthew 12:30

"He who is not with Me is against Me"

Twisted to mean, if you're not for LSM and the local churches, you're against them and against the Lord's move.

Do you think that Luke 9:49-50 would be a good example of the co-existence of different groups of Christian ministry, even in Jesus' time.

⁴⁹ “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
⁵⁰ “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Do you think that Luke 9:49-50 would be a good example of the co-existence of different groups of Christian ministry, even in Jesus' time.

⁴⁹ “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
⁵⁰ “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I believe that Jesus was addressing the disciples' heart and attitude. I don't believe that He was making a point of condoning ministries or groups of disciples other than His own.

And this goes along with something I'm realizing more and more--that in matters of Christian faith, the most important thing is usually the heart-attitude and not whatever "issue" is at hand.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And this goes along with something I'm realizing more and more--that in matters of Christian faith, the most important thing is usually the heart-attitude and not whatever "issue" is at hand.

-

[Koinonia]

They appear to have closed down the "Chicago Gospel Hall" version of the website (which was different) and redirected it to "The Church of the Chicagoans."

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. Agreed.

This topic faced me head-on during the recent quarantine of TC. The Blendeds forced us all to decide whether we were of TC or WL/BB. Why did I need to choose sides? I am of Christ! I dont need to choose between ministers! But, of course, that option was not made available to me! So I left.

Ohio,

But you did choose a side!

You chose your own side...I AM (of Christ)...

Let me explain. I think perhaps that we have traditionally gone about the interpretation of this verse all wrong. It appears to me that Paul was inferring to the Corinthian believers that in their saying that "I am of (whoever it may be...Christ, Paul, Lee, or whoever else), they were also INVERSELY saying "I am (NOT) of (you other brothers and sisters and whoever you lot are "of"). This is the real point! i.e. the Corinthians dividing themselves not necessarily on the basis of who they were "of", but on the basis of who they were "not of". This way of looking at Paul's discourse on this subject travels a long way in adequately explaining his seeming condemnation of even those that claimed that they were "of Christ"! They were inadvertently saying "we are not of you other believers" Yet, Paul admonishes them by saying that those other believers who follow Apollos, and Cephas, etc, ..Christ was also CRUCIFIED FOR! ..They were also baptized into His name! (there is no claim here that anybody was baptized into the names of any of the apostles).

And so, Ohio, when you state that you chose not to choose a side, but left, because you were "of Christ", what is it that you REALLY mean? Really?

Furthermore, Paul, to the Romans, writes that "..and so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" [Romans 12:5]. And Paul's rhetorical cry "is Christ divided?" bears direct relation with this view. There is no room in this view for "I am of so-and-so and therefore NOT of you". There is no poor, poor Christianity here! No degraded Christendom! The person who thinks otherwise has Paul pointing the finger of condemnation at him as one having his sentiments rooted in the flesh; sentiments that reflect an attitude vainly puffed up by the flesh. "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" [1 Cor 3:4]. (Oh, by the way; Cephas -as well as Christ- was not mentioned here EITHER; nevertheless, the point and the principle remains intact).

Which brings me on to my final point. Paul's admonition of the Corinthians in these verses honestly, in my humble opinion, has next to nothing to do with 'nomenclature' or 'denomination'. And it is truly interesting to see how the word 'Denomination', in the LSM culture, was and has been absolutely demonized into a "boogeyman" meant to keep the saints in line. Is Paul really warning the Corinthians never to use 'names'? Such an interpretation is both superficial and preposterous: superficial, as I've shown by my argument above that Paul's polemic implied much deeper issues; and preposterous, as seen in the farce and the fallacy it has exposed in spawning churches whose names are the churches with no names. The doctrine reflects an ignorance of the origins of nomenclature in general. For example, historically, many people's names indicate either the areas they originally came from, or what their professions were, or whose children they were e.g. MacDonald was the son of Donald; Richardson was the son of Richard; Jamie O'Brien was the son of Brian; Daniel the blacksmith in medieval times became Daniel Smith; John the butcher became John Butcher; And Henry from Sutton gradually became known as Henry Sutton (yes that's right, many people were named after the geographical centers i.e. towns, cities, and districts they hailed from that they might be identified more easily, which is the main function of naming). So, how is it that someone wakes up one day and says because we shall call ourselves just "the church in town A" we, therefore, have no name??? I beg to disagree, sir. That is...your name!!!

And how is it that the same person can traipse over to the local government offices to have themselves registered in order to be identified (which is the main function of being named), then swivel around on the pulpit and boldface say, "you know that's just for legal purposes (like that doesn't matter!!!), but we actually don't have a name"...? As a matter of fact the legal registration of the local churches was something I was not aware of for a long time, and I suspect, was deliberately kept in the dark about by the powers-that-be. In fact, such a thing was something that my mind had completely ruled out because I had so wholeheartedly bought into the farce and fallacy of the doctrine of denomination. Am I in support of 'denomination'? No, I'm not. I'm merely declaring it a non-issue and a red herring almost cunningly intended to distract the saints from the real issue at heart. At worst, it has been a powerful political tool that has proved effective in keeping the saints isolated, herded, and mooing together in the theological and ideological cattle-kraal of the so-called "Recovery" (like that's not a name...a duck is a duck).

Brother Ohio, I may have seemed to come off too abrasive with you and I apologize for that, because actually I really do understand where you are coming from and what you must have had to bear with. I do empathize. I, however, felt that I had to adopt a confrontational tone with you in order not just to make my point and stand more lucidly but also so that I might jerk you out of your reverie and invite you to take a more incisive look at things.

...And that's just my two pieces-of-eight on the matter...

...harr, harr, harrr...

God's grace be with you all

Jack.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Ohio,

But you did choose a side!

You chose your own side...I AM (of Christ)...

Let me explain. I think perhaps that we have traditionally gone about the interpretation of this verse all wrong. It appears to me that Paul was inferring to the Corinthian believers that in their saying that "I am of (whoever it may be...Christ, Paul, Lee, or whoever else), they were also INVERSELY saying "I am (NOT) of (you other brothers and sisters and whoever you lot are "of"). This is the real point! i.e. the Corinthians dividing themselves not necessarily on the basis of who they were "of", but on the basis of who they were "not of". This way of looking at Paul's discourse on this subject travels a long way in adequately explaining his seeming condemnation of even those that claimed that they were "of Christ"! They were inadvertently saying "we are not of you other believers" Yet, Paul admonishes them by saying that those other believers who follow Apollos, and Cephas, etc, ..Christ was also CRUCIFIED FOR! ..They were also baptized into His name! (there is no claim here that anybody was baptized into the names of any of the apostles).

And so, Ohio, when you state that you chose not to choose a side, but left, because you were "of Christ", what is it that you REALLY mean? Really?

Hi Jack,

I did not choose my side, I chose His side, and by choosing His side, I separated myself from that minuscule divisive sect with their petty quarantines, and attached myself to the greater body of Christ. I actually took the same position that Apostle Paul took, and wrote about in Corinthians. Paul was for Christ and His body. That is what I REALLY meant. The "traditional interpretation" you mentioned above is one manufactured by exclusives, and promoted by Witness Lee, which actually reinforces the problems exhibited in Corinthians. No where did Paul condemn them for being "of Christ." It was Lee who added to scripture by asserting that these ones who were "of Christ" had rejected all the apostles. Not so!

If declaring that being "of Christ" was wrong, then why did Paul go on to extol Christ, who died for us, and exalt Him throughout the entire epistle, especially in the detailed account between first mentioning their divisions (1.10) and his conclusion to the matter (3.23)? Where did Paul accuse the Corinthians of rejecting the apostles in order to be "of Christ?" I think you may be reading things into the epistle that are not there.

Regarding the "real point," the matter of being against those we are not "of," once again exclusive bias is all too evident. I spent 30 of my best years hearing Lee and company bash every minister outside of the Recovery. If these claims are true, Anaheim is the first place that should hear this message. They have always rejected all outside ministers in the entire body of Christ! They even rejected Billy Graham, the most fruitful evangelist of our time. I now have the liberty to receive from every gifted member in the body of Christ, without being "of" any of them.

Brother Jack, I understand your points all too well. I lived, breathed, believed, and even taught them myself. That was because I was ignorant of the hypocrisy of LC leaders. Remember the admonition of our Lord Jesus, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." The quarantine of Titus Chu and the GLA caused me to re-examine everything. Then I learned the true history concerning other so-called "storms" in our past. I encourage you to read further on this forum, and learn "the rest of the story" which LSM has kept from its members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Which brings me on to my final point. Paul's admonition of the Corinthians in these verses honestly, in my humble opinion, has next to nothing to do with 'nomenclature' or 'denomination'. And it is truly interesting to see how the word 'Denomination', in the LSM culture, was and has been absolutely demonized into a "boogeyman" meant to keep the saints in line. Is Paul really warning the Corinthians never to use 'names'? Such an interpretation is both superficial and preposterous: superficial, as I've shown by my argument above that Paul's polemic implied much deeper issues; and preposterous, as seen in the farce and the fallacy it has exposed in spawning churches whose names are the churches with no names.

The doctrine reflects an ignorance of the origins of nomenclature in general. For example, historically, many people's names indicate either the areas they originally came from, or what their professions were, or whose children they were e.g. MacDonald was the son of Donald; Richardson was the son of Richard; Jamie O'Brien was the son of Brian; Daniel the blacksmith in medieval times became Daniel Smith; John the butcher became John Butcher; And Henry from Sutton gradually became known as Henry Sutton (yes that's right, many people were named after the geographical centers i.e. towns, cities, and districts they hailed from that they might be identified more easily, which is the main function of naming). So, how is it that someone wakes up one day and says because we shall call ourselves just "the church in town A" we, therefore, have no name??? I beg to disagree, sir. That is...your name!!!

I surely agree with this. As someone once said, "Tell me again about that church with no name suing their brothers in court over the rights to a name."

Thanks, Jack. Please write more.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As someone once said, "Tell me again about that church with no name suing their brothers in court over the rights to a name."

How exactly does that work Ohio?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

How exactly does that work Ohio?

It is a witch's brew of equal parts hypocrisy, pride, and blindness in the leaders, and a dash of naivety on the part of their members. It tastes good for a while, but produces a nasty hangover when one wakes up.

Hi all,

I have to say that I'm inclined to see the merit on both sides of the discussion on this issue of who is of who, and who is right, and who is in the wrong. Now, Captain Sparrow, clearly, clearly, it is not wrong to be of Christ. Aren't we all 'of Christ'? Are you yourself not of Christ, I hazard to ask? How can you say, then, that the apostle Paul condemned those who took such a position? Does that even make sense? However, you do not appear to be a novice in these things and therefore I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and humor you. Let me go so far as to say that if the point you're laboring to make is that what the apostle was actually nitpicking at was not the actual stance per se, but the attitude and mindset with which it was put forward, then, I begin to see what you are driving at.

Reading through your thesis again, I begin to see that if that group of believers of whom each claimed to be 'I am of Christ' had, instead, declared, "We are all of Christ", and had agreed by extension that "those of Apollos are of Christ" and "those of Cephas are equally of Christ", etc, it possibly might have been more politically correct (if that is the right phrase) to put it that way...because as Ohio quoted from Romans 12, "so in Christ we who are many form on body, and each member belongs to all the others". One who is able to comprehend the awful import of those words cannot just idly announce that he is "I am of Christ...(whilst implying) and to hell with the rest of you.." but would rather loudly proclaim that "We are all of Christ!". I can well imagine that this would have been most gratifying to the apostle Paul. For he himself encapsulated this attitude of mind later on in the epistle when concluding the issue when he wrote,

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

Amen

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

These scriptures are quite fitting for all LC members ...

But our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. -- I Cor 12.24-25

Both in Corinth, throughout church history, and in the Recovery, divisions were repeatedly caused by not heeding these verses. Where was the "same care" for one another? Where was the "more abundant honor" to the less comely, less gifted members? Just the opposite was the Recovery norm. So it's no wonder we were constantly warring and dividing over Lee and Chu, or Max and Dong. Every LC sooner or later, or both sooner and later, was fighting over whether we were of Lee or of Chu. They were not "ours," but we were "theirs." We did not own them, rather they owned us.

In Romans, Paul exhorted us to "Love one another warmly in brotherly love, vying with one another in showing honor." (12.10) But in Kangas' book A Response to Recent Accusations (p.68) he says, "If the saints have honored Witness lee excessively, who can condemn them? The Bible will not." Obviously Kangas has changed his Bible to read, "Love one another warmly in Brother LEE love, vying with one another in showing him honor."

I'm not just playing with words here. Examine the facts of history. Read the side of history hidden from LC members. Compare our sordid history with the Apostles' teachings to Corinth. The reason for all of our 10-year "storms" was never due to "ambitious men," but because faithful men of God spoke their conscience in the face of ministry exaltation and corruption.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

I have to say that I'm inclined to see the merit on both sides of the discussion on this issue of who is of who, and who is right, and who is in the wrong. Now, Captain Sparrow, clearly, clearly, it is not wrong to be of Christ. Aren't we all 'of Christ'? Are you yourself not of Christ, I hazard to ask? How can you say, then, that the apostle Paul condemned those who took such a position? Does that even make sense? However, you do not appear to be a novice in these things and therefore I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and humor you. Let me go so far as to say that if the point you're laboring to make is that what the apostle was actually nitpicking at was not the actual stance per se, but the attitude and mindset with which it was put forward, then, I begin to see what you are driving at.

Reading through your thesis again, I begin to see that if that group of believers of whom each claimed to be 'I am of Christ' had, instead, declared, "We are all of Christ", and had agreed by extension that "those of Apollos are of Christ" and "those of Cephas are equally of Christ", etc, it possibly might have been more politically correct (if that is the right phrase) to put it that way...because as Ohio quoted from Romans 12, "so in Christ we who are many form on body, and each member belongs to all the others". One who is able to comprehend the awful import of those words cannot just idly announce that he is "I am of Christ...(whilst implying) and to hell with the rest of you.." but would rather loudly proclaim that "We are all of Christ!". I can well imagine that this would have been most gratifying to the apostle Paul. For he himself encapsulated this attitude of mind later on in the epistle when concluding the issue when he wrote,

..."So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God"...1 Cor 3:21-23

Amen

Dear Unregistered,

I thank you for your contribution and I acknowledge that there is absolutely no point of contention between us whatsoever .

And of course I did not mean that there is anything wrong with being "of Christ". How could I? But there is a problem with believing and confessing that one is 'of Christ' while not accepting others who are equally 'of Christ'. I believe that this is what Paul was condemning in his inclusion of that small sect of Corinthian believers in his admixture of divisive ones. I'm pretty sure that those particular Corinthians in declaring that they were 'of Christ' must have believed they were incontrovertibly standing on sound Scriptural ground, but unfortunately, they had also missed to see the blessed and functional reality of the Body of Christ.

In illustration, if you are a healthy arm or a leg and the other leg or arm is diseased or disabled, don't you think it would be ridiculous for that good arm or leg to celebrate its good condition and go about its ordinary business without caring a hoot about the unhealthy part of the body? Would that body be able to function at optimum par? Would the head of that body be pleased with that smug arm or leg? I think not. So it is with the church.

...and that's just my two pieces-of-eight, me mateys!

God's grace be with you all,

'Jack'

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Romans, Paul exhorted us to "Love one another warmly in brotherly love, vying with one another in showing honor." (12.10) But in Kangas' book A Response to Recent Accusations (p.68) he says, "If the saints have honored Witness lee excessively, who can condemn them? The Bible will not." Obviously Kangas has changed his Bible to read, "Love one another warmly in Brother LEE love, vying with one another in showing him honor."

Ron should go back and re-read 1 Corinthians. Condemn would be too strong to say, but definitely there's a sense of rebuke in Paul's first epistle to Corinth.

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

And of course I did not mean that there is anything wrong with being "of Christ". How could I? But there is a problem with believing and confessing that one is 'of Christ' while not accepting others who are equally 'of Christ'.

Not that it matters, but I'm with Sparrow on this one. And I thought his first post made it clear. To be "of Christ" is not wrong, but to be "of Christ, and NOT like those so-and-so's over there" is actually not "of Christ". Because Christ died for all.

If Christ is for us, who can be against us? And how can we be against (or 'not of') each other?

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

Christ doesn't care about ecumenicalism. Or shaking hands over fences. Or agreeing to disagree. Christ cares about love. The Father loved us so much that He gave us His only-begotten Son. This practical expression of love outpoured cannot be matched by any doctrinal position, however carefully parsed.

Or so I think, anyway. My own two shillings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

So true Aron...

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Say what one wants about "the high peak teachings". "speaking positively", or "speaking the New Testament ministry", if there's no love all I hear is "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The issue is believers separating themselves from one another through self-identification. Even when it is not intended to be divisive, such self-identification inherently is (or has that result). Yet, ironically, the more spiritual-sounding "I am of Christ" serves the very same purpose. And my point is--that to say "we are 'just the church'" does exactly the same.

This is the sort of gem that needs to be occasionally brought back to the fore and re-examined. "Separating ourselves from one another through self-identification"... how carefully Nee tried to avoid this, and how thoroughly it was accomplished nonetheless!

The only one who truly succeeded, (so I argue here) was Christ. The rest of us wander in and out, on the fringes where imitation meets failure.

Originally Posted by John 10:16-18

"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.…"

According to Jesus' narrative here, the Father loves Him because He lays down and loses self, even physical life itself, per the Father's will. In so doing, Jesus draws all to Himself and thus back to the Father. In this drawing together, the Father's love is realized, and centered eternally in the Son.

But in getting there, there must be obedience, surrender, and loss. Loss of will, life, self, and even identity. Only then, according to Jesus' word, is the Father's love apprehended and realized. And thus (through our faith in this divine act of obedience of the Son to the Father) the divine will gets transferred: "I have given them Your Name"... (John 17:6, cf vv. 12,26).

Temporarily, we're allowed to take other names: I may go on Tuesday night to the prayer meeting in John Johnson's house on 18 Willett Street in Avondale New York. On Sunday I may gather with others at the Podunk Corners Full Gospel Church, and listen to Pastor Bob. All those terms of nomenclature are acceptable, even necessary. But the LC of Lee, like Nee's Little Flock before it, spun through name after name, all the while proclaiming they had no name but Jesus, and condemning all for being "denominations".

-Lord's Move to Europe
-Continuing Steadfastly
-Amana Bible Trust
-Affirmation and Critique
-Defense and Confirmation Project
-Bibles for America
-Living Stream Ministry
-Christians on Campus
-Rhema Literature Distributors
etc etc etc

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

-Lord's Move to Europe
-Continuing Steadfastly
-Amana Bible Trust
-Affirmation and Critique
-Defense and Confirmation Project
-Bibles for America
-Living Stream Ministry
-Christians on Campus
-Rhema Literature Distributors
etc etc etc

As I've been told, these are not organizations, but organisms.
Yeah, whatever.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I've been told, these are not organizations, but organisms.
Yeah, whatever.

I remember hearing, When others do it, it's organizational, but when WL & LC do it, it's organic. And, When others do it, it's a hierarchy, but when we do it, it's not a hierarchy.

Okay, whatever.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember hearing, When others do it, it's organizational, but when WL & LC do it, it's organic. And, When others do it, it's a hierarchy, but when we do it, it's not a hierarchy.

Okay, whatever.

The thing that LC leaders do not understand is that so many members don't even believe this stuff anymore. They just go along with it because they know not what else to do.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I've been told, these are not organizations, but organisms.
Yeah, whatever.

Yeah. Like leaches, lice, West Nile, and H1N1.

Originally Posted by aron

Not that it matters, but I'm with Sparrow on this one. And I thought his first post made it clear. To be "of Christ" is not wrong, but to be "of Christ, and NOT like those so-and-so's over there" is actually not "of Christ". Because Christ died for all.

If Christ is for us, who can be against us? And how can we be against (or 'not of') each other?

In this light, the LC is "on the ground" and "not of" the denominations, and has built itself upon narrow sectarianism, smug self-righteousness and universal condemnation of "everyone else". They can spend an hour telling you what they are not: the darkened, divisive, fallen, satanic, devilish and worldly Christianity. So their "of Christ" is not of Christ at all. There is no love whatsoever, that I can see.

Christ doesn't care about ecumenicalism. Or shaking hands over fences. Or agreeing to disagree. Christ cares about love. The Father loved us so much that He gave us His only-begotten Son. This practical expression of love outpoured cannot be matched by any doctrinal position, however carefully parsed.

Or so I think, anyway. My own two shillings.

Well, as for me and my house (and you should too, Ohio) we stand with those... "of Chloe's household"... whom the Apostle did not castigate because they, in contradistinction to everybody else, were concerned about the division of Christ in Corinth and the attendant, appalling exaltation of mere men's ministries.

Just one more shilling...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This section stood out to me ...

Why Doesn’t Our Church Have a Name?

In the New Testament, the believers simply came together wherever they lived to be the church in that place, e.g., the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1), or the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess, 1:1). We do refer to ourselves as “the church in Chicago” or “the church of the Chicagoans,” but we do not take these terms as a name; we are only using them to describe who we are. We are incorporated as “The Church of the Chicagoans,” but that is only for legal purposes, or for practical matters such as designating this website. Again, we don’t take such descriptions as our actual name.

To “denominate” literally means “to give a name to; designate” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition). Christians today are so divided in part because they are denominated; that is, they want to be called by some name other than the name of Christ, e.g., Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The thing that LC leaders do not understand is that so many members don't even believe this stuff anymore. They just go along with it because they know not what else to do.

"Conform or be cast out." That's the dilemma one meeting in the local churches is faced with.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

Legal purposes? Really! Why not say for tax benefits? Quite easily Christians can come together in His name without resorting to taking a name.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, as for me and my house (and you should too, Ohio) we stand with those... "of Chloe's household"... whom the Apostle did not castigate because they, in contradistinction to everybody else, were concerned about the division of Christ in Corinth and the attendant, appalling exaltation of mere men's ministries.

Just one more shilling...

Amen!

You truly are the brother with "no name."

The church with "no name" could learn a lot from you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Church of the Chicagoans says they only take a name because they have to. But they assert that the "denominations" take names because they want to. It's right there in black and white, folks - the difference between the LC church and "fallen Christianity" is that the LC, while doing the same thing, has a good heart, and doesn't want to do it, but the "denomination" has a bad heart and wants to do it.

On this ground your church is built? By peering into the hearts of others?

Only Brother Lee could truly know a man's heart, or so the loyals believe.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only Brother Lee could truly know a man's heart, or so the loyals believe.

I once heard RK say he could "read" the saints. Must have learned it from WL.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I once heard RK say he could "read" the saints. Must have learned it from WL.

RG also could, so they called him "X-Ray."

It basically works like this -- walk into a room of brothers, and tell them they are all in the flesh. They then think he is on to something.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The issue is believers separating themselves from one another through self-identification. Even when it is not intended to be divisive, such self-identification inherently is (or has that result). Yet, ironically, the more spiritual-sounding "I am of Christ" serves the very same purpose. And my point is--that to say "we are 'just the church'" does exactly the same.

I considered starting another thread, since Koinonia's point is so good as a starter for discussion, and since the discussion thus far has had little to do with the actual conference presided over by TC. But we've enough threads already.

So here's my thought, entitled "Identification, segregation: the legacy of Protestantism". In Luther's Europe, the RCC dominated the spiritual landscape. Luther wasn't considering the Eastern Orthodox, or the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) church. The pope was the antichrist, and Luther & Co were getting out.

In the years since, many, many more have gotten out. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Seventh-Day Adventists. So along comes Nee, and says we can re-form "The Church" in the original glorious vision of God. Sectarianism was declared to be wrong, and "the present truth" of the NT church should instead guide the collective testimony of Christ on the earth (See e.g. WN's "What are we?").

And Koinonia's point was that this process of self-identification leads to segregation. Again and again, believers have been led apart from each other by this process. Along with justification by faith, I think that this is one of the enduring legacies of Protestantism. WN segregated himself and his fellows from Protestant "sectarianism", a process which was in itself sectarian. Eventually WN's disciples got a name, the Little Flock, just like everyone else had before them.

What follows is an example, from the myriads of Protestant splinter groups, for illustrative purposes; we could probably find a dozen or twenty or even fifty different sects with similar story arcs.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Christadelphians are a millenarian Christian group who hold a view of Biblical Unitarianism. There are approximately 50,000 Christadelphians in around 120 countries. The movement developed in the United Kingdom and North America in the 19th century around the teachings of John Thomas, who coined the name Christadelphian from the Greek for "Brethren in Christ".

Basing their beliefs solely on the Bible, Christadelphians differ from mainstream Christianity in a number of doctrinal areas. For example, they reject the Trinity and the immortality of the soul, believing these to be corruptions of original Christian teaching. They were initially found predominantly in the developed English-speaking world, but expanded in developing countries after the Second World War. Congregations traditionally are referred to as 'ecclesias' and would not use the word "church" due to its association with mainstream Christianity, although today it is more acceptable.

The Christadelphian religious group traces its origins to John Thomas (1805–1871), who emigrated to North America from England in 1832. Following a near shipwreck he vowed to find out the truth about life and God through personal Biblical study. Initially he sought to avoid the kind of sectarianism he had seen in England. In this he found sympathy with the rapidly emerging Restoration Movement in the United States of America at the time. This movement sought for a reform based upon the Bible alone as a sufficient guide and rejected all creeds. However this liberality eventually led to dissent as John Thomas developed in his personal beliefs and started to question mainstream orthodox Christian beliefs. Whilst the Restoration Movement accepted Thomas's right to have his own beliefs, when he started preaching that they were essential to salvation, it led to a fierce series of debates with a notable leader of the movement, Alexander Campbell. John Thomas believed that scripture, as God's word, did not support a multiplicity of differing beliefs, and challenged the leaders to continue with the process of restoring 1st-century Christian beliefs and correct interpretation through a process of debate...

During this period of formulating his ideas John Thomas was baptised twice, the second time after renouncing the beliefs he previously held. He based his new position on a new appreciation for the reign of Christ on David's throne. The abjuration of his former beliefs eventually led to the Restoration Movement disfellowshipping him when he toured England and they became aware of his abjuration in the United States of America.

The Christadelphian community in Britain effectively dates from Thomas's first lecturing tour (May 1848 – October 1850). His message was particularly welcomed in Scotland, and Campbellite, Unitarian and Adventist friends separated to form groups of "Baptised Believers". Two thirds of ecclesias, and members, in Britain before 1864 were in Scotland. In 1849, during his tour of Britain, he completed (a decade and a half before the name Christadelphian was conceived) Elpis Israel in which he laid out his understanding of the main doctrines of the Bible.

Since his medium for bringing change was print and debate, it was natural for the origins of the Christadelphian body to be associated with books and journals, such as Thomas's Herald of the Kingdom.

In his desire to seek to establish Biblical truth and test out orthodox Christian beliefs through independent scriptural study he was not alone and, amongst other churches, he also had links with Adventist movement and with Benjamin Wilson (who later set up the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith in the 1860s). In terms of his rejection of the trinity, Thomas' views had certain similarities with the unitarianism which had developed in a formal way in Europe in the 16th century (although he formally described both Unitarianism and Socinianism as "works of the devil" for their failure to develop his doctrine of God-manifestation).

Although the Christadelphian movement originated through the activities of John Thomas, he never saw himself as making his own disciples. He believed rather that he had rediscovered 1st-century beliefs from the Bible alone, and sought to prove that through a process of challenge and debate and writing journals. Through that process a number of people became convinced and set up various fellowships that had sympathy with that position. Groups associated with John Thomas met under various names, including Believers, Baptised Believers, the Royal Association of Believers, Baptised Believers in the Kingdom of God, Nazarines (or Nazarenes) and The Antipas until the time of the American Civil War (1861–1865). At that time, church affiliation was required in the United States and in the Confederacy in order to register for conscientious objector status, and in 1864 Thomas chose for registration purposes the name Christadelphian.

Through the teaching of John Thomas and the need in the American Civil War for a name, the Christadelphians emerged as a denomination, but they were formed into a lasting structure through a passionate follower of Thomas's interpretation of the Bible, Robert Roberts. In 1864 he began to publish The Ambassador of the Coming Age magazine. This was renamed The Christadelphian in 1869 and continues to be published under that name. Roberts was prominent in the period following the death of John Thomas in 1871, and helped craft the structures of the Christadelphian body.

Robert Roberts was certain that John Thomas had rediscovered the truth. Robert Robert's life was characterised by debates over issues that arose within the fledgling organisation; some of these debates can be found in the book Robert Roberts—A study of his life and character by Islip Collyer.

Initially the denomination grew in the English-speaking world, particularly in the English Midlands and in parts of North America. In the early days after the death of John Thomas the group could have moved in a number of directions. Doctrinal issues arose, debates took place and statements of faith were created and amended as other issues arose. These attempts were felt necessary by many to both settle and define a doctrinal stance for the newly emerging denomination and to keep out error. As a result of these debates, several groups separated from the main body of Christadelphians, most notably the Suffolk Street fellowship and the Unamended fellowship.

I note that, like WN later, this group tried to assemble according to "the Bible alone". Unfortunately, "the Bible alone" was a post-Protestant Bible shorn of the preceding Christian discussion. So it effectively became, "my (self-educated) understanding of the Bible alone", absent the guiding voices of those Christians who'd come before. Whatever the founder's "revelation" (read: logic) said the Bible meant, it became the guiding and even controlling stricture of the group's discussion from thenceforth on. Those who couldn't follow this received view would split into further fragments.

Second, note that they saw that taking names other than Christ was unscriptural error; yet like the LC a hundred years later they said they were "required by the government" to register a name. So they condemned names as wrong, and separated themselves from all these groups; subsequently they also took a name because they "had to".

In Witness Lee's case, he told us that people who didn't affiliate with others, or take another name, were useless "free groups" who did nothing to build the Body of Christ; he also said that those who did affiliate with others were divisive and sectarian. So the "recovered truth" of the LC was, essentially, that whatever WL did was right, and whatever anyone else did was wrong. Ultimately, this became the basis of LC identification and segregation: affiliation (and abject submission) to the ministry of WL. For example, if you see the "splash pages" of the group websites created in the 1990s under LSM oversight, the headers at the top say, "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee."

Ultimately, this affiliation became the group's self-identification, and the basis of its segregation. The "present [LC] truth" was stated as, "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong, he's right." Anyone who didn't get this were "out" of the group, and those who grasped this ''present truth'' were "in".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

In Witness Lee's case, he told us that people who didn't affiliate with others, or take another name, were useless "free groups" who did nothing to build the Body of Christ; he also said that those who did affiliate with others were divisive and sectarian. So the "recovered truth" of the LC was, essentially, that whatever WL did was right, and whatever anyone else did was wrong. Ultimately, this became the basis of LC identification and segregation: affiliation (and abject submission) to the ministry of WL. For example, if you see the "splash pages" of the group websites created in the 1990s under LSM oversight, the headers at the top say, "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee."

Ultimately, this affiliation became the group's self-identification, and the basis of its segregation. The "present [LC] truth" was stated as, "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong, he's right." Anyone who didn't get this were "out" of the group, and those who grasped this ''present truth'' were "in".

Self-identification we've seen in the LSM/LC fellowship can also be regarded as "making distinctions among yourselves" (James 2:4). Of course the pattern and means to make distinctions is not much different than we see in political advertisements. Putting down your competition in order to make yourself appear a preferred alternative. No difference from what has been uttered by LSM leadership and local elders. It's gone unchecked and unhindered that it's become normal in local church Lord's Day meetings to put down Christians outside LSM fellowship in order to make themselves appear better. It becomes popular to put down Billy Graham, Greg Laurie, Rick Warren, etc.

The practice of segregation is essentially the local churches cutting themselves off from the rest of the Body of Christ. This is contrary to the apostle's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:14-21.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Self-identification we've seen in the LSM/LC fellowship can also be regarded as "making distinctions among yourselves" (James 2:4). Of course the pattern and means to make distinctions is not much different than we see in political advertisements. Putting down your competition in order to make yourself appear a preferred alternative...

The practice of segregation is essentially the local churches cutting themselves off from the rest of the Body of Christ. This is contrary to the apostle's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:14-21.

Nigel Tomes in his "Witness Lee sanitized" post talks about how Lee essentially put all other Christians under a curse. Denominations were children of the Whore of Babylon, and free & independent groups were "incestuous children of Lot". So if you weren't in the LC of Lee, you were at best on the fringes of God's will.

Lee's self-identification tactics brought in condemnation of all who weren't identified with (i.e. subject to) his ministry. I find this to be reprehensible coming from a supposedly Christian minister. It's the opposite of the Spirit of Christ: Christ died for all, and brought all the scattered people together in His name (John 11:52; cf 10:16). Why presume that all but you and your acolytes have missed the boat entirely? What kind of self-identification process creates this mind-set of self exaltation?

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=HDJCUEBH5ATBZ

Lee had hard words for Christianity, calling them "lawless" and "drugged", "improper" and "not approved". He'd have done well to look in the mirror, once or twice. It might have done him and his followers some good.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Nigel Tomes in his "Witness Lee sanitized" post talks about how Lee essentially put all other Christians under a curse. Denominations were children of the Whore of Babylon, and free & independent groups were "incestuous children of Lot". So if you weren't in the LC of Lee, you were at best on the fringes of God's will.

Lee's self-identification tactics brought in condemnation of all who weren't identified with (i.e. subject to) his ministry. I find this to be reprehensible coming from a supposedly Christian minister. It's the opposite of the Spirit of Christ: Christ died for all, and brought all the scattered people together in His name (John 11:52; cf 10:16). Why presume that all but you and your acolytes have missed the boat entirely? What kind of self-identification process creates this mind-set of self exaltation?

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=HDJCUEBH5ATBZ

Lee had hard words for Christianity, calling them "lawless" and "drugged", "improper" and "not approved". He'd have done well to look in the mirror, once or twice. It might have done him and his followers some good.

This is absolutely pathetic.

In the ears of his faithful followers, Lee basically twists the Lord's words in the Gospel of Matthew 18.20 into something like this, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, they are Moabites and Ammonites, the incestuous kids of Lot."

If you think I am exaggerating, or made this up, then read what Lee said in that Life-Study link, and think about the implications.

[aron]

I remember RK telling us he'd never build bridges to Christianity. It was worldly, fallen, and corrupt. The church was supposed to be pure and spotless.

Okay; then if that's so, I've met with groups that had a much stronger collective expression. They didn't take names, didn't incorporate and register a name with the government, met in the homes absent a professional clergy, etc.

"Oh, we don't look at the condition of the church. God sees no iniquity in Israel."

Huh?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

"Oh, we don't look at the condition of the church. God sees no iniquity in Israel."

Huh?

Which is why God never sent Israel into the wilderness or into exile, right?