LSM Suppression of Individuality, a Chinese Trait?

[Cal]

Chinese government revs up another kangaroo court.

For discussion: Are the Blendeds expressing China more than Christ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_re_as/as_china_online_dissent_5


China to try critic of government's quake response
By AUDRA ANG, Associated Press Writer Audra Ang, Associated Press Writer
24 mins ago

BEIJING – A Chinese court on Monday abruptly scheduled a trial for an activist who criticized the government's response to last year's devastating Sichuan earthquake, giving his lawyer only one day to prepare and prompting him to mount an immediate legal challenge.

Huang Qi's lawyer Mo Shaoping said the judge told him Monday that the trial would start Tuesday morning, leaving less than 24 hours for Mo to look through the indictment and build a defense against the charge of possessing state secrets.

"This is a totally illegal process," Mo said. "They are intentionally creating difficulties."

He said the law requires that the defendant be informed 10 days before the trial starts, while lawyers need to be told at least three days ahead. His assistant has gone to the Wuhou District Court to see if the trial date can be changed.

"If it cannot be changed, we will lodge a strong protest because this is unfair and it deprives Huang Qi of his right to a defense," Mo said.
According to Mo, the judge said he had difficulty reaching Huang's lawyers and family.

Both Mo and Zeng Li, Huang's wife, said their telephone numbers and addresses are recorded in court documents.

"I've been trying to reach the court for weeks but no one would give me the time of day," said Zeng. She said she was also told of the trial Monday morning and was not sure if she would be allowed to attend.

Telephones at the court in Chengdu, Sichuan's capital, rang unanswered Monday.

Huang, one of the country's most outspoken dissidents, posted articles on his Web site 64Tianwang.com criticizing the government's response to the May 12 quake after visiting affected areas and meeting parents who lost their children.

While independent reporting was allowed right after the magnitude-7.9 temblor, access was shut down within days and public complaints by parents who blamed corruption and shoddy construction on school collapses that killed their children became an extremely sensitive issue.
Zeng said Huang's arrest was a result of his work in the quake zone.
"This is because he went to the disaster area a couple of times. He reported on the shoddy schools and reported about the appeals of the parents of the students. So he was arrested and charged with possessing state secrets," she said.

The ill-defined charge is often used to clamp down on dissent and send activists to prison.

Human rights groups said Huang was forcibly taken away by three unknown men on June 10 and police informed his mother six days later that he had been detained.

Zeng said police told Huang in October that if he stopped his activist work, he would be released.

Mo said police made no mention of the earthquake in their indictment proposal, adding that he was not allowed to reveal the contents of the document.

Earlier this decade, Huang, 45, served a five-year prison sentence on subversion charges linked to politically sensitive articles posted on his Web site.

Since his release in 2005, Huang has supported a wide range of causes from aiding families of those killed in the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Beijing, to publicizing the complaints of farmers involved in land disputes with authorities.

[OBW]

“You can't recreate the past, you can only apply timeless principles.”

But that is not entirely true. The victors write the histories and therefore the past is often recreated, sometimes permanently. I read about a year ago that the claim that the church thought the world was flat before Columbus sailed to America is not true. While sailors had interesting myths about what might be out there, the world was generally thought of as a sphere ─ and that everything revolved around it. It was not until sometime centuries after the successful navigation of the whole world that someone started the claim, almost as a rumor, that the church had taught the earth as flat. It was for the purpose of discrediting the church relative to science. Since it was in reference to centuries past, and there had never been a reason to make a strong statement about it in those remote times, there was nothing that obviously contradicted the claim and we went forward thinking that our Christian ancestors were scientific fools.

No the truth of the past cannot be recreated. But it can be lied about so thoroughly that no one would believe the truth if it managed to surface.

Unfortunately, if the lie is good enough, the truth sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Chinese government revs up another kangaroo court.
For discussion: Are the Blendeds expressing China more than Christ?

Igzy please tie in the article to what the Blendeds are expressing?

Terry

[tasteslikegold]

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

TLG,

This is an interesting question. But it seems to presume that individuality = 1 Corinthians division. Nowhere are the problems in 1 Corinthians described as the result of individuality. Instead, they are described as the result of taking sides and excluding others over leaders and teachings and also about an attitude of self importance.

Individuality does not equal self importance. Neither does it equal exclusiveness. It merely denotes differences.

Actually, Jesus called people to be followers and believers. Those who follow/believe are defined as being the body of Christ. They are the called-out ones. Someone did write that it was important enough to meet with other followers/believers that they said to not forsake assembling together.

When I read passages that mention all the parts that are not the same yet all work together, I realize that there is something wonderfully different about us all. And there is nothing in those passages that makes those differences so exclusively spiritual that there is nothing of the differences of our personalities, experiences, struggles, victories, etc., included in those wonderful differences.

But where is it that scripture actually says that we are called into a “corporate Person?” Can you find such a scripture, or at least tie a few together in a way that clearly prescribes such an idea. I do not think it exists, but you must have some basis for your statement. Rather than make me read the entirety of scripture hoping to find the one or more passages and create the link, can you provide it?

I have found that there are many things that I learned from years of learning from Lee that sound wonderful, sound higher than what common Christians talk about, but that are not actually found in scripture. It took more years after my last LC meeting to realize this than the total number of years I spent learning it.

And the fact that Paul strove against division does not mean that he strove to avoid the existence of anything that could lead to division, but only the actual division that arose. In other words, the fact that we could divide over something does not make that something evil or wrong. It only means that some potential for division exists and we should be on guard against that possibility. If we presume that Paul strove against things that tend to cause division, then he would have to strive against the fact that some are Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, masters, slaves, etc. But he did not. He said that whatever you are, you should not think more highly of yourself than you ought to. He did not tell the rich to give their wealth to the others until they all became equal. He did not tell masters to free all their slaves or tell Jews to simply drop everything Jewish and be just like the Greeks or whoever were the Gentiles in their area. He simply said to realize that there is something uniting that is higher than the natural differences that exist.

I await your response.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom.
..............
Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

Welcome to the forum tasteslikegold. Nice handle.

You actually addressed a lot in this one post. I'll try to just hit on a couple of the points real quick.

Here is my take. We were called by God as individuals. We were saved as individuals. We were baptized as an individuals (although others may have been baptized with us) We received the Holy Spirit as individuals. We grow in grace and life and mature as individuals (although we usually take this venture with others, our growth is not necessarily dependent or in parallel with others) Finally, we will all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ as individuals. So as you can see much of our spiritual journey is, in fact, taken as an individual. This does not mean others are not there with us, or that others play no part - in fact much of the journey could not take place without others.

So individuality is not really a "trait" per se, it is who we are. Our individuality is part and parcel to being a living, breathing human being...and when we get saved we do not stop being an individual. The Word clearly states that we are "members of the body". The apostle Paul even makes the point "If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?" (1Cor12:17) Looking back now, in retrospect, it seems as if Witness Lee wanted to make all the members an eye. He wanted to force the other members to drop their individuality and take up one certain person's individuality. It was couched in the spiritual terms, such as "the one new man" and "the oneness of the body" and such, but in practice it really ended up looking and feeling a lot like what Igzy has posted here in the opening.

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

Boy, this is a biggie. Hard to address this right here and now. The short answer is I don't see a lot of biblical evidence that we were called "into a corporate person", at least not in the sense as it was taught by Witness Lee. When this kind of teaching is taken too far it ends up looking like this:
"Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God.' These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."
(Witness Lee, A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing pg. 203)

Also I would point us to last footnote in the Recovery Version:
"...According to the entire revelation of the complete Bible, the New Jerusalem, the conclusion of the complete Bible, is a divine mingling of the process Triune God with the redeemed and transformed tripartite man, a mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person."
(Footnote 3 Revelation 22:21 RV)

I do not believe the New Testament speaks of a "four-in-one God", nothing even close. The Body of Christ is NEVER elevated to this status, and in fact I think most Christians would consider this kind of teaching extremely unbiblical, if not out and out heresy. Of course knowing what we know now (in terms of the history of the Local Church), the real danger in this kind of teaching is the wiping out of the individual person. "No opinion" was one of Lee's constant mantras. "The Body" was to dominate and overrule every hope and dream of every brother and sister. I have much more to say here but I'll just leave it at this for now.

"a mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person"

When I read and review the end of Revelation I don't see "a universal, corporate, mysterious person". What I see is God and the Lamb upon the thrown, getting the glory, the nations getting healed, and His servants serving Him forever. Notice that at the end there is still individuals... "Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy.." not blessed are they"....."Let him who does unrighteousness do unrighteousness still"...not "let they who do unrighteousness.." "Behold, I come quickly, and My reward is with Me to render to each one as his work is". So at the end we see the individual still remains.

Good questions tasteslikegold. Keep it up! Let's explore God's Word.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom

Because God didn't want us to be CLONES... A hand does not look like a nose, a nose does not look like a foot..and neither do they have the same function..but they all are fitly framed together in the body...and that is how the Body of Christ ought to be. No one needs to be told to act like a foot, a nose or hand. Neither is a hand better than a foot or a nose.

In the body of Christ, we have ONE HEAD...Christ Jesus...we are led by the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit and the WORD of God, the Holy Bible. We are to exhort one another, to teach one another, to build up one another that the world would see we are ONE in CHRIST JESUS...one with each other as the Son is ONE with the Father.

We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait.

It depends on your perception TLG. In truth, there ought not to be any denominations or non-denominations..no "local church / Living stream Ministry". We ought to be breaking bread from house to house.

Yet we read about the offices in the New Testament...some apostles, some deacons, some Shephards (pastors), some prophets, some evangelists. In a perfect world, as each believer matures in Christ, we ought to just begin to function in the office we've been called to.

In Christendom, people are ordained for the most part. In the LC, Lee was the 'apostle of the age'. He selected the elders. Perhaps there was a meeting/discussion on who qualifies/qualified to be an elder/leading 'one'. He considered himself an apostle..and so did everyone in the LC consider him to be an apostle..THE apostle. But to my knowledge,he overlooks the other offices noted in 1 Corinthians 12:28 for instance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how the LC selected the elders and 'leading ones'. And why can't they just call them PASTORS for crying out loud!

Everyone else uses the Bible's terminology except Lee and the LC....talk about divisive !

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

And from the Amplified Version, here's what Ephesians 4: 11-12 has to say

And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock, and teachers)

His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that they should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church),

Never is there a PASTOR in the LC..or a PROPHET spoken of..there is also more than ONE apostle in the NT. Yes.it does look like Paul took the lead among the other apostles. He planted quite a few churches for sure.

In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division.

Yes...you may be correct. And the LSM/LC with everyone reading the same HWMRs, reading the footnotes...NEVER questioning the footnotes..for that would be considered divisive even if a particular teaching or view Lee held is incorrect.

We, as mature believers, ought to be at a point in our lives where we are relying on the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus in us.

We ought to be learning from one another..not solely from ONE MAN'S point of view!

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities.

Hmm..ministries? Very little discernment of those diversities? What makes you an expert?

Can you explain 1 corinthians 12:5, please?
I don't have an RcV in front of me..but here is what the NASB has to say about ministries:
And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

The KJ puts it like this:
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

In Christ, we ought to be in one accord..by 'osmosis' if you will...we ought to know each other by the Fruit of the Spirit in us. When we're at the grocery store, we ought to be recognizing believers. We are the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. We should be able to see each other Glow in the dark.

The way you are presenting your question..however, sounds very close to Socialism, to Communism..and to what will soon be the ONE WORLD ORDER...where everyone is "one". Everyone will pay homage to the ONE World Leader..there will be ONE world government..ONE world currency. ONE mark on the hand or the forehead. No individuality.

This isn't conspiracy junk..this is what is written in the book of Revelation...and we're right at the edge of this new world order. Be careful what you wish for friend.

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

CORPORATE????? ....uhhhhhh..where does it say THAT in the BIBLE?

My bible talks about the One New Man..one new people.

The KJ puts it like this:

For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

The New Living Translation's wording is much easier to comprehend:

For Christ Himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in His own body on the cross, He broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in Himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as One body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

An addendem to my post TLG...
When we stand before the Son of Man at the Bema seat..that is the Judgment seat of Christ, and give account, we are not going to stand as a 'Corporate' person. We ain't going w/our husbands/wives..kids, brothers & sisters in Christ...

We stand before HIM..the JUDGE individually...not 'corporately'.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

TLG,
This is an interesting question. But it seems to presume that individuality = 1 Corinthians division. Nowhere are the problems in 1 Corinthians described as the result of individuality. Instead, they are described as the result of taking sides and excluding others over leaders and teachings and also about an attitude of self importance.

Actually this was not my presumption. There are obviously divisions in the church which are the result of personal preference to persons, as in 1 Corinthians. However, all division - that is purposeful division is the direct result of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5).

Individuality does not equal self importance. Neither does it equal exclusiveness. It merely denotes differences.

My understanding of the term "individuality" as it relates to the topic, however, is that is is something more than merely wearing a different colored hat on Sundays.

Actually, Jesus called people to be followers and believers. Those who follow/believe are defined as being the body of Christ. They are the called-out ones. Someone did write that it was important enough to meet with other followers/believers that they said to not forsake assembling together.

When I read passages that mention all the parts that are not the same yet all work together, I realize that there is something wonderfully different about us all. And there is nothing in those passages that makes those differences so exclusively spiritual that there is nothing of the differences of our personalities, experiences, struggles, victories, etc., included in those wonderful differences.

Paul used the practical example of a person's physical body to impart certain truths about the Body of Christ. I think it's perfectly acceptable, then, to take such an example and show how, although the members distinct they are not separate, they are not individual. My hand cannot survive without my body, and also my body cannot be considered complete without my hand. The fact that one of my hands may have "more experience" in handling tools (ie. my dominant hand will be used more than my non-dominant hand) does not mean that it is individual. However, what if my right hand decided that it's importance in the further advancement of my physical health, and so decided that it would function of its own accord? It would be completely bizarre for such a thing to happen. It would cease to become a functioning member of my body and, because of its independence, become a foreign element.

But where is it that scripture actually says that we are called into a “corporate Person?” Can you find such a scripture, or at least tie a few together in a way that clearly prescribes such an idea. I do not think it exists, but you must have some basis for your statement. Rather than make me read the entirety of scripture hoping to find the one or more passages and create the link, can you provide it?

There are actually a few which "link up" this way:

Rom. 12:5 - many members being one in the Body, and members of one another.

1 Cor. 12:12 - is the term "yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

Eph. 3:16 - connects the Jews and gentiles into the body of Christ.

Col. 1:24 - uses the term "His Body" in relation to the church.

Col. 2:17 - says that the Body "is of Christ," meaning it "consists of Christ" rather than merely belonging to Him.

Also, there are examples which we can pull from regarding the corporate aspect of God's people. The children of Israel were called such because they were God's people. On the one hand they were the literal descendants of Jacob ( Israel ), and on the other hand they were referred to as a corporate person (the language being singular). Then after Jerusalem was established God called His people by that name - Jerusalem . Jesus also referred to Jerusalem in the "corporate" aspect when He lamented over them - God's people. Also, Paul alludes to there being a corporate person when he talks about the children of Abraham by faith.

In terms of the church being a corporate "person" we are such by virtue of the fact that we are "in Christ." In terms of our having the same life, the same eternal life, as Christ, we are called a "new creation," of which Christ is the head. Well, He's not just the head, but the "life blood" all who are in the new creation as well. We all know, of course what He said to Paul as Saul, when He said, "when you do this to one of these you do it also to me" (paraphrase). There are other examples which I'm sure I could cite, but I believe this makes enough of an argument.

I have found that there are many things that I learned from years of learning from Lee that sound wonderful, sound higher than what common Christians talk about, but that are not actually found in scripture. It took more years after my last LC meeting to realize this than the total number of years I spent learning it.

Actually the subject of the Body of Christ has been commented on by many others. The fact that Lee also did so should be no surprise, and frankly I don't know why someone would have to "unlearn" it simply because he sees it as being extra-Biblical. Many of us who have experienced debates from the anti-Trinitarian groups are familiar with the idea that the Trinity, while not explicitly defined in Scripture, is nevertheless present in concept (And certainly through the revelation in Scripture). However, such a concept, while not clearly delineated in Scripture, has been widely accepted as Biblical truth and established as a basis for orthodoxy in the church for literally centuries. I believe this answers a question above, "Where does it say THAT in the Bible?" Well, where does it say "Trinity" or "Triune" or "Communion" in the Bible?

Some may disagree with the term "corporate Person" because it appears on the surface to remove the individual aspect of the believer's participation in salvation. However, the Bible relates salvation itself to the participation in a corporate "person," or "Body." So one cannot escape either individual salvation or the "corporate salvation" (In relation to essence and time) of the Body of Christ. At one time the Body of Christ, the church, or whichever term you wish to use to describe the totality of God's people, will be resurrected and saved. And it will be in this totality, the house of God, in which God will execute His judgment first (1 Pet. 4:17).

And the fact that Paul strove against division does not mean that he strove to avoid the existence of anything that could lead to division, but only the actual division that arose. In other words, the fact that we could divide over something does not make that something evil or wrong. It only means that some potential for division exists and we should be on guard against that possibility. If we presume that Paul strove against things that tend to cause division, then he would have to strive against the fact that some are Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, masters, slaves, etc. But he did not. He said that whatever you are, you should not think more highly of yourself than you ought to. He did not tell the rich to give their wealth to the others until they all became equal. He did not tell masters to free all their slaves or tell Jews to simply drop everything Jewish and be just like the Greeks or whoever were the Gentiles in their area. He simply said to realize that there is something uniting that is higher than the natural differences that exist.

Interesting concept. And I happen to agree with the idea that the mere existence of classes, nationalities, etc. in and of themselves are not evil, but only that we should be on guard for those things to become potential sources of division. However, what of those "factions, divisions, sects"? These are clearly related to various teachings and sidings with varying schools of thought, aren't they? Certainly, unless a certain teaching or school of thought is outright heretical, it is not evil in itself. But the potential for division is there. Yet it is these that Paul identified as being sourced in the flesh; and to Timothy he wrote explicitly that certain ones in his charges aught not to teach "different things." So I think it is a fair assessment to say, yes, Paul did strive against

That's all I have for now. It appears that my first posting here prompted a few responses. I hope that with yours, and at least on other, I have been able to answer, to give you my perspective. I hope to respond completely to the other posts directed toward me in the next day or so. It's getting quite late now and I've run out of gas.

TLG

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

An addendem to my post TLG...
When we stand before the Son of Man at the Bema seat..that is the Judgment seat of Christ, and give account, we are not going to stand as a 'Corporate' person. We ain't going w/our husbands/wives..kids, brothers & sisters in Christ...

We stand before HIM..the JUDGE individually...not 'corporately'.

That would be one side of the coin, yes. Of course there is the individual aspect and responsibility of salvation. I have not denied that here. However, the other side of that coin reflects a definite connection to, and salvific relation to, the house of God, a "corporate person" or entity if you like.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom. We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division. Certainly the pattern was picked up and followed (no matter how selfishly) in the early centuries of the Roman Church's reign.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

HI TLG, Welcome to the forum

I think your statement above implies presumptions and conclusions that are not supportable in the light of the Word, history and creation.

Let me start at the end with your statement "Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?"

The short answer is you could put it that way, but being able to do so doesn't imply the conclusions you seem to want to draw--that all our individual traits including our opinions need to be swallowed up in this corporate Person. That's taking the metaphor of the Body and the Head, and the corporate aspect of the Church to a suppressive (Chinese?) extent, which was my point with this thread.

God obviously loves diversity. Just look at creation, which we are told by the word declares the glory of God. Did you know there are over 10,000 types of birds in the world? Do all those birds have to look and act exactly alike to declare God's glory? Or is God's glory more declared by the rich diversity? Did you know that every single one of the billions and billions of snowflakes that have ever existed are unique? What does that tell us about God?

God created individuality and it is clearly a good and useful thing. He didn't just create it for the fun of watching it be crushed into the mass of the "corporate Person." God has used individuals throughout history when he needed to move the masses. Look at the prophets in the OT. Do you think God wanted them to go along with the crowd? There surely is glory to God in our learning to cooperate and submit and serve one another. God also gets glory when we let go of our preference when he wants us to accept a common wisdom. But God does not get glory when we subsume our will as a rule to some corporate mass. All that leads to is lemmings going off a cliff. (Note: See local church movement.)

I see very little in the Bible that suggests the kind of mindset preached in the local churches--that God wants us all to go along with the Baaady as if he would never suggest we do otherwise. Obviously, God wants us to push back against conventional corporate opinion sometimes. As the prophets did, as Jesus did, as Paul did, as Martin Luther did, as most of the great spiritual pioneers of history did. All of them acted as individuals being led by God "against the tide" of corporate opinion.

[tasteslikegold]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any correlation between diversities in various plant, and animal species and diversities of opinion in the church. The fact that God created a number of plant and animal species does not necessitate His blessing upon any number of varying opinions in the Body of Christ which tend to cause divisions. Paul, did, after all, exhort the Corinthian believers that they should be of the same opinion (1 Cor. 1:10, that which is rendered "judgment, thought" in some translations being the GreeK "gnōmē" which is given by Strong's to mean "the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason...view, judgment, opinion) , and I have yet personally to see in the New Testament where varying opinions are desirable.

[Cal]

Well, I'm sorry you don't see it. TLG. But I see it. I suggest you pray about it. Ask the Lord why all the snowflakes are different. See what he tells you.

Besides, if we are only to have one opinion, which one is the right one? Who decides? How do we know they are right?

You can't enforce this stuff, TLG. If you try you are just going to end up lording it over the saints. Trust the Holy Spirit to lead people as he wishes. He knows what's needed. He will use the diversity of the saints to meet all the needs of the church and the world. That's what he's doing now. Human leadership can't orchestrate what God is doing. No one has that kind of wisdom. One size fits all is man's way, not God's way.

[OBW]

TLG,

I do not disagree with your analysis of the body. But my question was not whether there are verses on the body, but whether there are verses which can be construed as limiting individuality. Nothing in the verses you mention, or in your own comments, says that individuality ceases, or should cease.

You mention God referring to the children of Israel as “Jerusalem.” I’m really not sure where that happened, but even assuming it did, that does not limit the fact of individuality. That there is a corporate aspect of the body does not remove individuality and diversity. To say that is to say something that the verses, in or out of context, do not say.

Then you mention that scripture does not say “Trinity” or “Triune.” This is correct. Man uses those terms in reference to what scripture actually says. And the nearest thing to scriptural references to individuality does not suggest that it should be squelched. So the similarity to "Trinity" is limited to only the fact that it is not specifically stated in scripture. Even when talking about ministry, while Paul does make reference to the whole of ministry in broad terms, he also makes reference to the ministry of others. Besides unnamed persons, he mentions Peter, and the rest of the NT effectively tells of various ministries, including John, Philip, and others.

As to the charge not to teach different things, what exactly does that mean? Is it contextually about refraining from bringing in OT Jewish practices as teachings, especially in gentile locations since that is to add a requirement that scripture does not put on them? Is it about teaching things that are contrary to the very teachings of Jesus? (Lee was notorious for teaching so many different aspects of the same verse that if it had come from different speakers, you might be saying that they are teaching differently.) But when we talk about different ministries, there are many aspects of what is a ministry. Some feel lead to preach to the homeless in inner cities. Others to go and evangelize remote parts of the earth. Others take the advice about the sons of Issachar that understood the times and take a pointed message to certain subcultures in society. (Paul used a different tactic in Athens than he did in Ephesus.) These could all be referred to as different ministries, yet all are within God’s working. (Hey. That’s God’s economy.) So these differences are not really differences except that they are not all doing the same thing. And since not all the body is the eye, or the foot, or the nose, I would expect that the functions of each and how that works out practically in ministry would likewise be different, but still within one body.

“One body” and “don’t teach differently” do not define beige, homogeneous, everything is on the same page uniformity. The only uniformity is the unity in Christ. It is not in words, teachings, worship styles, even doctrines. (I’m not opening the door for contrary/heretical teachings, just variety.)

Concerning the statement about all the sects of Christianity (including the LC), you are absolutely correct that we do not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of doctrine. So who is right? Who gets to be the one with whom everyone else must join even if they do not drop their different opinions? And if they do join, are the required to go along with the new doctrinal statement anyway? What makes that one right?

But more importantly, do you think that just understanding scripture different was really what Paul was attacking the Corinthians about? Or was it that they were fighting over those understandings and excluding each other over them? When I look at the whole of the discussion by Paul, I see a group of people who had become effectively enemies. Do you think that all of today’s sects are enemies? Do you think that each one believes that its way is the superior way in such a manner that they would exclude others who do not see it quite their way? Maybe a few would, but in America most would not. (I note that you questioned UntoHim on this very issue. I would tend to believe what I can see (which is little true exclusion or animosity) rather than some hypothetical that just having a name makes you divisive with respect to others.)

Or should I decide that I have to join with the group with which I have serious problems with their doctrines just because they say that they stand only as Christians? Aren’t they just one more group in a sea of many? They are free to meet with my group and partake of the Lord’s table without dropping their doctrinal beliefs. But ultimately I would not be afforded the same from them. Why? Because they proudly proclaim that they “are of Lee” and have proven that they will not tolerate any open display that is not in line with that statement.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any correlation between diversities in various plant, and animal species and diversities of opinion in the church. The fact that God created a number of plant and animal species does not necessitate His blessing upon any number of varying opinions in the Body of Christ which tend to cause divisions. Paul, did, after all, exhort the Corinthian believers that they should be of the same opinion (1 Cor. 1:10, that which is rendered "judgment, thought" in some translations being the GreeK "gnōmē" which is given by Strong's to mean "the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason...view, judgment, opinion) , and I have yet personally to see in the New Testament where varying opinions are desirable.

TLG:

Howdy. We haven't interacted before. I appreciate your enagement and thoughtfulness here (as much as I've read).

I hope I'm not too terse to respond to your above quote with this:

It is true that Paul exhorted the Corinthians to be of the same opinion.

But doesn't that just beg the question: what opinion?

One centralizing opinion could, very well, be "love the diversity in the Body."

Paul writes his share of appreciating and exhorting "each one" and "every member". (the extent to which Paul, or the rest of the scripture, does this, is a great discussion itself- we should have it).

So, just because Paul exhorts believer to be of the same opinion is not really a retort to someone saying the Bible advocates or appreciates diversity in the Body.

I could simultaneously believe that God desires diversity in the Body as well as desires uniformity of opinion on the most important aspects of the Body. They are not mutually exclusive. So, I think your response to Igzy's well made point needs to be more extensive - that is, if you disagree with him. In short, your response didn't really respond on the central issue: that is, what "opinion" should be shared among the members of the Body?

Just some food and questions for thought.

In Love,

Peter

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

TLG:

It is true that Paul exhorted the Corinthians to be of the same opinion.

But doesn't that just beg the question: what opinion?

and a post script to your thoughts Peter...we must be careful that being of the SAME OPINION doesn't include ERROR. If we're of 'the SAME OPINION'..and it's ERROR, we're in trouuuuuuuuuble!

That's why we pray, study, in our private time with the LORD..then we pray and study together in fellowship. That's how we become of one mind..in one accord..because we FIRST spent 'quality' time with the LORD HIMSELF, seeking His Guidance, His LIGHT to shine upon us so we can gather understanding from His WORD.

Then, when we come together, we can fellowship together, teaching ONE ANOTHER, praying together, giving Thanks together..breaking Bread together.

That is also how we avoid falling prey to the Nicolaitan system, that is the clergy-laity system...and also avoid becoming the Laodacian church.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's what he's doing now. Human leadership can't orchestrate what God is doing. No one has that kind of wisdom. One size fits all is man's way, not God's way.

Then why did God choose man to carry out His purpose on the earth? It is clear that God chose men like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. to orchestrate what He wants to accomplish on the earth. Even today in Christendom every believer follows a ministry headed up by one or more persons. Ask yourself why there are literally thousands of various types of ministries on the earth today. Is it because of "diversity," or is it because of man's preferences? Were I Korean I could attend a Korean denomination. Were I African or African American I could attend a denomination composed of mostly or all African Americans. Were I homosexual.......Well, I could attend an all gay church or a denomination that supports my decision to live that lifestyle. From the moderate to the extreme, Christianity holds in store for me whichever denomination best suits my personal preference or lifestyle choice.

Do you believe that God honors such things?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

and a post script to your thoughts Peter...we must be careful that being of the SAME OPINION doesn't include ERROR. If we're of 'the SAME OPINION'..and it's ERROR, we're in trouuuuuuuuuble!

Don't you know, CMW, that Lee is right even if he's wrong!? Error from Witness Lee can't lead to trouble, it's the pointing out the error that leads to the trouble. Just look at the rebellious prophet Nathan, when he rebuked David all his hair and teeth fell out. Didn't you know that?! Do you want to suffer the same fate?

When you disagree with Lee you just need to suppress that urge and pray-read an MHMR, or whatever they are called. Sign up for a training. Arrange some chairs. Something.

Just look at all the reprobates on this board. Sniveling bellyachers. What got them here? Disagreeing with Lee that's what! I rest my case.

[OBW]

CMW,

Overall, I agree with you. I do note that this idea of having your private time preceding your corporate discussion is not specifically stated in scripture, but if you expect to have any valid input to the discussion, it is important that something comes before it.

But the LC rule of "Lee says it, so it's settled" is quite contrary to the scripture. There were surely a lot of things that were often accepted because the apostles and evangelists taught it. But the example is that when something of controversy arose, they did not look to Peter, or James, or whoever to tell them what to think and do. Instead they hashed it out, they prayed, and they stood in one accord. It does not say that they each individually fully agreed with the decision. But it does indicate that they were agreed that it would be the way. There is nothing that says anyone ruled the discussion. Even the fact that James spoke the decision does not make him the one who ruled, but only the one who stood as spokesman.

So I do agree with you concerning how they came to a oneness of position.

Off topic, but we have pretty well disposed of "Nicolaitan" as being likely to mean anything about hierarchies or clergy/laity. If the name Nicolaitan actually means something like "conqueror of the people" there are two ways to understand this name. It either means one who conquers people, or one who conquers on behalf of people. The first is like saying "bully" and the second like saying "hero." Do you think that anyone named their kid "bully" or was it more likely "hero?" Even if we accept the name as being key, it would not be saying anything about positions. It would be talking about being a "lord it over" kind of person. The fact of position does not create a "lord it over" or "conqueror" situation. That is a complete misstatement by Lee. (I've seen people bully their bosses.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Then why did God choose man to carry out His purpose on the earth? It is clear that God chose men like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. to orchestrate what He wants to accomplish on the earth. Even today in Christendom every believer follows a ministry headed up by one or more persons. Ask yourself why there are literally thousands of various types of ministries on the earth today. Is it because of "diversity," or is it because of man's preferences? Were I Korean I could attend a Korean denomination. Were I African or African American I could attend a denomination composed of mostly or all African Americans. Were I homosexual.......Well, I could attend an all gay church or a denomination that supports my decision to live that lifestyle. From the moderate to the extreme, Christianity holds in store for me whichever denomination best suits my personal preference or lifestyle choice. Do you believe that God honors such things?

Some of the diversity is of God and some is not. But if someone feels to minister to the homeless, for example, who am I or you to say it's not of God just because it's not what we choose to focus on?

The questions you should ask are: Are they preaching Christ, are they teaching the Bible, are they exemplifying godly lives, are people getting saved and discipled. If so then what's your beef? That everyone isn't doing exactly the same thing and lining up under the same hierarchy? If not that, then what?

What you need to come to grips with and admit to yourself, TLG, is that God is working through many, many of these diverse ministries. If he is, who are you or I to question that?

And I don't understand what the rest of you post has to do with your first sentence: "Then why did God choose man to carry out His purpose on the earth?" He is doing that. What in the current situation says he is not?

You seem to want to see a perfect human organization reflecting the spiritual reality of oneness. But God does not intend to have an organization to contain what He is doing. An organization will always eventually limit Him if you try to place one over all. The leaders will eventually become suppressive. History has proved that over and over and over.

[countmeworthy]

Overall, I agree with you. I do note that this idea of having your private time preceding your corporate discussion is not specifically stated in scripture,

HUH? What do you think Paul was doing when he was first struck down on the road to Damascas & was blind for 3 days?

Go back and read Acts 9:6-11

6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8) And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9) And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10) And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11) And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Unless I'm missing something here OBW, don't you go telling me/us we're supposed to only have fellowship with the LORD in a group setting!

Each and everyone of us should be spending alone time reading, praying and studying the Word of God...without the group setting...so that when we DO get together we will be filled with the Joy of the LORD, we will be filled with the Word of God and do as we're told in Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16 speaking to one another, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with the Word of Christ dwelling richly (in us) with Wisdom.

but if you expect to have any valid input to the discussion, it is important that something comes before it.

And I think the same goes for you. I have already given you how many scriptures to back up my statements? And you have told me there is NOTHING specifically stated in scripture about spending private time before corporate time? How do you think PAUL was able to speak to the church like he did if HE DIDN'T SPEND PRIVATE TIME with the LORD? Btw, we read in Galatians 3:17 & 18, Paul spent 3 years in Arabia, then returned to Damascus, then to Jerusualem where he spent 15 days with Peter.

You think he was wandering aimlessly in the desert for 3 yrs?

But the LC rule of "Lee says it, so it's settled" is quite contrary to the scripture.

Right...that's where the LC screwed up. Who was LEE accountable to? Certainly not his co-workers. His co-workers were accountable to LEE though. If Lee saw something wrong, he made sure it was 'corrected' but when his co-workers went to him with problems..serious problems the church was having because of his teachings or his son's problems, he wouldn't hear of it. At least that's my understanding and one major reason why the LC has split up like it has.

As members of the body of Christ, we are accountable to the LORD first and foremost but we should also be accountable to one another...obviously we can't be accountable to every single person but we have spiritual mentors. Even Paul had companions in the LORD.

There were surely a lot of things that were often accepted because the apostles and evangelists taught it.

They accepted it not merely because THEY taught it...but what they taught was confirmed by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

the example is that when something of controversy arose, they did not look to Peter, or James, or whoever to tell them what to think and do. Instead they hashed it out, they prayed, and they stood in one accord

Yes..but they certainly prayed about it privately too..

It does not say that they each individually fully agreed with the decision

I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to convey in my original post. I hope by now you understand what I have been conveying.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't you know, CMW, that Lee is right even if he's wrong!? Error from Witness Lee can't lead to trouble, it's the pointing out the error that leads to the trouble. Just look at the rebellious prophet Nathan, when he rebuked David all his hair and teeth fell out. Didn't you know that?! Do you want to suffer the same fate?

When you disagree with Lee you just need to suppress that urge and pray-read an MHMR, or whatever they are called. Sign up for a training. Arrange some chairs. Something.

Just look at all the reprobates on this board. Sniveling bellyachers. What got them here? Disagreeing with Lee that's what! I rest my case.

I stand 'corrected' wink-wink

[OBW]

CMW,

You completely missed my point. I simply said that scripture does not reveal a specific “get it separately then talk about it together” pattern. After saying that, I agreed that it is practically so by saying that “you” (meaning generically anyone who wanted to join in such a discussion) would need to have something to bring to that discussion. That would predicate that they had something to offer besides their filling of space in the room. Therefore, it indicates that somehow they did just what you said. (As I started, I do agree with you, just noting that a prescriptive formula is not so readily found in scripture.)

I absolutely did NOT tell you that you are only supposed to have fellowship with the Lord in a group setting.

And with respect to “but if you expect to have any valid input to the discussion, it is important that something comes before it” it does go for me. I was making exactly that point, not saying anything about you particularly.

So when you say “unless I am missing something” the answer is that I think you did. It's probably just a matter of my way of writing. Are we OK now?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

CMW,

You completely missed my point. And with respect to “but if you expect to have any valid input to the discussion, it is important that something comes before it” it does go for me. I was making exactly that point, not saying anything about you particularly.

So when you say “unless I am missing something” the answer is that I think you did. It's probably just a matter of my way of writing. Are we OK now?

Yes...we're OK now, OBW...and I did miss your point initially..& thus got all worked up. I took some of your post personally...

But by the end of my post, I concluded we got our wires crossed.

Instead of erasing it all, I thought I'd send it so that people can see I can be a little firecracker. I sometimes wonder if I come across as beinga a Ms Pollyanna or Shirley Temple..'cause I ain't !

Ok...let's carry on. There are some good threads I want to throw my .02 worth into today...before I go to a prayer meeting tonight.

[tasteslikegold]

Brothers/sisters,

Please note that I am attempting to keep within the confines of this discussion as possible, and that I am also attempting to respond to numerous comments. Please forgive me if my responses here are not in keeping within the current scope of discussion. When I began posting in this thread I had a goal in mind, but had not anticipated that the discussion would lead me in so many directions all at once. If I do not directly address any person's comments, please do not suspect that I had purposefully ignored them. At this point I am basically trying just to keep up.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Because God didn't want us to be CLONES... A hand does not look like a nose, a nose does not look like a foot..and neither do they have the same function..but they all are fitly framed together in the body...and that is how the Body of Christ ought to be. No one needs to be told to act like a foot, a nose or hand. Neither is a hand better than a foot or a nose.

I understand this point, but it is not how I understand the term "individuality" in context with this discussion.

In the body of Christ, we have ONE HEAD...Christ Jesus...we are led by the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit and the WORD of God, the Holy Bible. We are to exhort one another, to teach one another, to build up one another that the world would see we are ONE in CHRIST JESUS...one with each other as the Son is ONE with the Father.

Actually, the oneness of which you speak is not related to exhortation, teaching or building up. It is an essential oneness in both spirit (with the Spirit), and in "harmonious agreement" without division. How is such a oneness accomplished? It cannot be accomplished by a varying degree of opinions over doctrine, practice, or through culture, politics, or any number of items which are sourced in the soul of man.

It depends on your perception TLG. In truth, there ought not to be any denominations or non-denominations..no "local church / Living stream Ministry". We ought to be breaking bread from house to house.

I think this is more related to the other thread, the one concerning the ground of oneness. There appears to be no practical solution to the matter of our division. Therefore, it appears that all believers simply accept our divisions as inevitable products of humanity. This, to me, appears as a grand exercise in fatalism. If one group branches off from another it is received as somewhat problematic, but then again, "What the heck, they're Christians just like us, so we'll just accept the division as inevitable and continue as if God approves." Well, when one group stands on a particular tenet of oneness and claims that it is proper to meet in this way, they are labeled "sectarian." Both Nee and Lee made a standing in such a way. Of course, in so doing they fell to the same type of fatalism, but in a way that was clearly unpopular.

Yet we read about the offices in the New Testament...some apostles, some deacons, some Shephards (pastors), some prophets, some evangelists. In a perfect world, as each believer matures in Christ, we ought to just begin to function in the office we've been called to.

Actually these are not "offices" within the church, but functions within the Body of Christ. Technically the only three offices in the church are apostle, elder, and deacon. These offices may function in the Body according to one or more of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12, however. For example and apostle may also be a teacher or gifted in administrations, etc.; and even an apostle may also be an elder of a church locality (cf. Nee's "The Church and the Work"). The gifts, the functions in the Body are not exclusive, as they were given to the Body as whole. Therefore one member may actually function in the Body with more than one gift. However, in terms of "offices," offices carry out the practical needs of Body. An apostle "plants churches," and elder heads up or leads a local church, and a deacon serves the local churches in their practical needs.

In Christendom, people are ordained for the most part.

Ordained by whom?

In the LC, Lee was the 'apostle of the age'. He selected the elders. Perhaps there was a meeting/discussion on who qualifies/qualified to be an elder/leading 'one'. He considered himself an apostle..and so did everyone in the LC consider him to be an apostle..THE apostle.

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

But to my knowledge,he overlooks the other offices noted in 1 Corinthians 12:28 for instance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how the LC selected the elders and 'leading ones'. And why can't they just call them PASTORS for crying out loud!

Why must they be called "pastors"? Actually, according to many denominations an elder is an office below a pastor. Then again, there are "bishops" who are above the pastors. I've rarely heard any Christian denomination refer to the leader of a region as an apostle, even though the office is clearly defined in Scripture. In some denoms there are "reverends." Where are the reverends in the Bible?

Everyone else uses the Bible's terminology except Lee and the LC....talk about divisive !

Actually, as I've just written, not everyone uses the Bible's terminology. And what translation are you referring to? The term in 1 Timothy 3:1 in the King James is "bishop," whereas in the NIV it's "overseer." Then in the NLT (as well as RcV) it's "elder." In fact, that I am aware, no English version renders the term "pastor."

...Never is there a PASTOR in the LC..or a PROPHET spoken of..there is also more than ONE apostle in the NT. Yes.it does look like Paul took the lead among the other apostles. He planted quite a few churches for sure.

Many of the original apostles set off for other countries, and then some settled in Jerusalem and functioned as elders there. Paul is generally viewed as being the leading apostle by virtue of his writings having been canonized. Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Yes...you may be correct. And the LSM/LC with everyone reading the same HWMRs, reading the footnotes...NEVER questioning the footnotes..for that would be considered divisive even if a particular teaching or view Lee held is incorrect.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

We, as mature believers, ought to be at a point in our lives where we are relying on the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus in us.

We ought to be learning from one another..not solely from ONE MAN'S point of view!

I agree. We don't have "one man's point of view" in the local churches.

Hmm..ministries? Very little discernment of those diversities? What makes you an expert?

I don't claim to be an expert. I only observe, consider and report what I believe to be true. Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

Can you explain 1 corinthians 12:5, please?
I don't have an RcV in front of me..but here is what the NASB has to say about ministries:
And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

The KJ puts it like this:
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.In Christ, we ought to be in one accord..by 'osmosis' if you will...we ought to know each other by the Fruit of the Spirit in us. When we're at the grocery store, we ought to be recognizing believers. We are the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. We should be able to see each other Glow in the dark.

Literally glow in the dark?

The term "ministries" is diakonia in the Greek. It means "to minister, to carry out an administration." It is a form of the word diakonia which means, "to execute the commandments of a master or king." According to the context of 1 Cor. 12, "ministries" is related to the functioning in the Body for the furtherance of the divine commission (the spreading of the Gospel). It is generally not understood by today's standards of "my ministry, his ministry, the prison ministry, the biker's ministry," etc.

The way you are presenting your question..however, sounds very close to Socialism, to Communism..and to what will soon be the ONE WORLD ORDER...where everyone is "one". Everyone will pay homage to the ONE World Leader..there will be ONE world government..ONE world currency. ONE mark on the hand or the forehead. No individuality.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

The content of the rest of your post I believe I responded to in my answer to another.

Grace,

TLG

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Brothers/sisters,

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

You should be aware that most in evangelical Christianity do not believe that apostles with the authority of the twelve and Paul and possible James existed or exist after the death of the Apostle John. Certainly there are missionaries and church planters and recognized leaders. But there are no apostles with the apostlistic authority held by those in the early days. Our "apostles teaching" is the New Testament. We have no one these days with the authority to come into a city and appoint elders in an existing group of Christians. Lee might have acted as an apostle, but it was only because people submitted to him as such, not because he actually held the authoritative office.

Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Please be honest. The LC deemphasizes these gifts because either they don't want to emphasize miracles or they don't want anyone to rival the speaking of Lee and the BBs. The reason the LC doesn't mention the gift of being a prophet is because prophets can rebuke leaders, if the OT examples mean anything, and the LC wants to downplay that as much as possible.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

This is probably true. However, it is only half the story. If a member of a group has enough problem with the direction of the church he can go in peace. In the LC, he is simple a reprobate who must repent or be condemned to wander the earth without a home. Big difference. But you forgot to mention that, I guess.

Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

This is ancient history and very misleading as a tempertature gauge of today's situation. I think you need to get out and visit more. Christians are more sophisticated now than you seem to think.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

No, all property was not given to the community. It says they had "all things in common." There is a difference. If I share my home it is in common, but it's still mine. Someone had to own the homes. Some are called to poverty, but not all are.

The chuch is not socialistic at all. Enforcement of giving by man is socialism. Enforcement of giving by conscience is libertarianism. So, actually we are closer to libertarianism. Everyone is free to give, and urged to give, but no giving can be enforced except by God.

[OBW]

TLG,

Quotes are from post #25

I understand this point, but it is not how I understand the term "individuality" in context with this discussion.

So what is the individuality that you think is not within the context of what Paul wrote and is specifically precluded in scripture? You have made a statement about ministries. You have made some references to the "New Testament ministry" which is not defined as a limited and singular thing, but by description seems to be quite broad. You have made references to doctrines and divisions. But are these “individuality” or are they stances taken with respect to beliefs about truth? And then we return back to the oft-repeated question “who has the authority to say what is right and what is wrong?”

I think this is more related to the other thread, the one concerning the ground of oneness. There appears to be no practical solution to the matter of our division. Therefore, it appears that all believers simply accept our divisions as inevitable products of humanity. This, to me, appears as a grand exercise in fatalism. If one group branches off from another it is received as somewhat problematic, but then again, "What the heck, they're Christians just like us, so we'll just accept the division as inevitable and continue as if God approves." Well, when one group stands on a particular tenet of oneness and claims that it is proper to meet in this way, they are labeled "sectarian." Both Nee and Lee made a standing in such a way. Of course, in so doing they fell to the same type of fatalism, but in a way that was clearly unpopular.

While I understand the notion that these divisions are somehow problematic, I honestly believe that what are actually small differences of opinion result in a demonstration in how strong the unity in Christ is. We are willing to admit that we do not see everything in the same way, yet we are strong to state that all are fully Christian in faith and are our brothers and sisters. We are mostly open to accepting of each other for fellowship and the Lord’s table. In many cases, we even accept teaching, speakers, etc., from groups with differing thoughts on certain doctrines. We are quite comfortable with this. If that is not unity, then I do not know what is.

Paul is generally viewed as being the leading apostle by virtue of his writings having been canonized.

When we consider “apostle” in the NT to be some relatively small group, primarily those who were with Jesus while He was on earth, then Paul is one of those. When you use any expanded definition, then Paul was a leading apostle by virtue of being considered with that smaller group. Beyond that, I do not have any knowledge of Paul being considered “the leading apostle.” In no case does the volume of his writings included in the NT give him a superior status. His writings are heavily aimed at implementing what was otherwise a Jewish religion among gentiles, and was therefore both somewhat prolific and important. But it does not make him somehow higher in stature among the apostles.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Then why did God choose man to carry out His purpose on the earth? It is clear that God chose men like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. to orchestrate what He wants to accomplish on the earth. Even today in Christendom every believer follows a ministry headed up by one or more persons. Ask yourself why there are literally thousands of various types of ministries on the earth today. Is it because of "diversity," or is it because of man's preferences? ... Do you believe that God honors such things?

tasteslikegold, I held thoughts like this for decades. I was taught that God was disgusted with all Christianity as hopelessly divided. Hence, He had left them and was now "outside the door" waiting for individual believers to open the door to Him. I was taught that the LC's alone were special to God because we alone had forsaken all division, and returned to the ground of oneness, where the Lord was pleased to dwell and place His name. For many years, I bought into the whole package.

That is until my conscience and the simple scriptures persuaded me otherwise. I learned that WL and LSM were able to manipulate saints, workers, and churches by imposing their own "translation" of items such as oneness, the one accord, being of one mind, speaking the same thing, etc. What sounded lofty and appealing in public ministry was accompanied by unrighteousness and politicking in private. The blatant contradictions became much too troubling for me to ignore.

Since we should be so blessed due to our holy stand for the Lord's unique testimony, I spent many a time wondering why we were not. Why were we not blessed? At various times we were, but why were we no longer blessed once we began to "closely follow the ministry?" Why did we struggle so hard to labor faithfully, yet with so little fruit? All the answers I was given, eventually over time had to evaporate into thin air. One time I heard a Christian say, "If you are not under God's blessing, then maybe you are under a curse." That caused me to reconsider many things. How many broken promises was I believing in vain?

Then on the flip side, I was forced to wonder why many Christians I encountered were being blessed by the Lord. They were all so "diverse." Some were members of denominations, yet with living congregations. Some congregations were more independent, yet they all had "names." Names which were supposedly so offensive to the Lord. Names which indicated they were all "divisions" of the body. Names which indicated they all were "divisive" Christians. But ... the Lord didn't seem to be that bothered. And they were not bothered either. If they were bothered by division, it was because they were experiencing a present conflict in their church, for which they were praying.

I was taught that diversity was displeasing to the Lord. In the New Jerusalem we all would have the appearance of jasper. Consequently I and others developed a critical heart towards all things which "differ." Eventually, I had concluded, that if something didn't originate at LSM, then by definition it must "differ." LSM owned the "dictionary." They defined our "vocabulary." They alone defined what was proper and pleasing to the Lord.

Today, I am a recovering "judgaholic." I marvel at the diversity among God's people. We are all created uniquely, and all specially talented at regeneration. It's a shame I am just now learning to enjoy this.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

TLG,
Actually, this is not true. If you read Witness Lee's "Vision of the Age," he specifically states that God uses "one man" in every "Age." He even pointed to Madame Guyon as that "one man" during her "age." Go figure.

He emphasizes "one man" throughout the book, while pointing to a line of people who were supposed to be that "one man" in their respective "ages." In that long line, he ends up with Watchman Nee.

Now he doesn't come out and say that he himself is/was that man, but he certainly brings it right up to his toes, and strongly implies it. It's been a while since I read the book (two times) but he says something to the effect that he alone is qualified to bring forth the "vision" of Watchman Nee.

I know this is off topic, but it caught my eye, and I couldn't let it go.

Roger

YES WITNESS LEE and THE LOCAL CHurch Members referred to Lee as "The Apostle" of this present age. I was there at a conference in Anahiem in the early 80's and this was on more than one occassion. All members just swallowed this as gospel.

[aron]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I am interested to know why individuality is generally supposed to be a virtuous trait for any group in Christendom.

I am not sure if this generalization holds very strongly in "Christendom". I have been a Christian for some years and have traveled a lot and met with different groups, from ultraliberal Unitarians to fundamentalists who said "Women can't speak in church: it's in the Bible". And I've seen a lot of groups in between. I generally don't see individualism being held up as a virtuous trait in any group.

Instead, what I usually see trends more toward what I call "groupthink": to some degree or another, everyone somewhat submerges their individuality to try and fit in. That's why, by definition, it's a group, not merely a temporary collection of individuals in shared space. Some common denominator, if only faith in Jesus Christ, calls us together out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and socio-economic class to gather together and celebrate God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and to look together towards His soon return.

Now, having said that, I really loved my initial "Lord's recovery" meetings because it was a free-for-all. Not chaos, though a few times it bordered on that. But what I loved was that everyone was allowed to share whatever portion of "Christ" they thought was relevant to the group experience. You had truck drivers sharing, then PhD's; you had some old Chinese woman who knew Watchman Nee back in China speaking right after some young blonde college student who just got saved last week. Somehow it all worked, and marvelously. God wasn't threatened by our "individualism" - hardly. Rather you got the sense of the Father rejoicing in all His children. More than once I got a glimpse of wide eyes and astonished face of some incredulous visitor, as if they were thinking, "Who's in charge here?"

We certainly do not find any evidence in the history of the early church that individuality - the individual expression of a "ministry" within the context of a local church - was a desired trait. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Paul strove against such things as this that tend to cause division.

Au contraire. I would recommend listening to an audio Bible sometime, and listen for the "voice" of Paul versus that of John. The two styles could hardly be more different. Yet Christ was pleased to reveal Himself in each one. Then Peter, James, etc. Each one brimming with a unique voice; with "individuality". None of them "the apostle of the age", to which all others must slavishly submerge their thoughts and identities. More on this later.

Today in the denominations there are various "ministries" and various opinions, most of which are praised by believers as being "wonderfully diverse." Yet I believe that most can agree that there is no regulation or at least very little discernment of those diversities. So why would it be inherently wrong to suppress individuality, especially in consideration of the fact that there is no Biblical pattern for individuality?

Didn't God call all individuals into a corporate Person?

I know that tlg may no longer be posting and this conversation may have run its course, but I just wanted to comment to this post, especially the bolded part, above. The problem with trying to "suppress individuality", as tlg puts it, is that it ultimately becomes a cover for one personality, one individuality, to dominate everyone else. In this present case the individuality was of Witness Lee. We aped his mannerisms, his speech inflections, his language (I quit saying something was the 'best'; instead it was now the 'top'), and his hermeneutics. So if WL said that Christ didn't inhabit the bulk of the Psalms, contrary to the NT's repeated indications, then we all agreed: they were just "natural" expressions of the "fallen sinner" king David. We were no longer to ''eagerly search the scriptures'' daily seeking Christ; He is not there, says ''God's present oracle''. Instead just stick with ''the interpreted word'', stick with the "daily food".

By our trying to "suppress individuality" we actually foster the individuality of someone who is not Jesus Christ. In this case we begin to express WL, not Jesus Christ. I am not blaming WL; if it had been "the church of ARON" it would have been much, much worse!

I just think tlg has been caught by a bad idea, that's all. I was there; eventually I saw the result of this idea bearing fruit. You suppress your "individuality" to be a part of the group, and both you and the group begin to express something that is not Jesus Christ. You may have "one trumpet" but it is not from heaven. It is the trumpet of suppression, of conformity, of domination, of Babylon. It is a veneer of unity, with confusion lurking within. As I've said before, look at the 'unity' described in Revelation 13:8. Hardly our goal.

Contrast that to the repeated praises in Revelation 19. Verse 6, for example, says "Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns..." John, attempting to characterize what he hears, uses several dissimilar terms (multitude, waters, thunder), each of which has its own modifiers to highlight its inherent complexity, and the combination of all three together recollects in my mind the very "local church" meeting I remember so well, of various individual, unique personalities uninhibitedly expressing corporate thanks and praise and glory to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Why suppress that? Why submerge that? What "body" over-rules that marvelous noise? That is, rather, the "body" of a corpse. Any life it once possessed has long since gone.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Instead, what I usually see trends more toward what I call "groupthink": to some degree or another, everyone somewhat submerges their individuality to try and fit in. That's why, by definition, it's a group, not merely a temporary collection of individuals in shared space. Some common denominator, if only faith in Jesus Christ, calls us together out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and socio-economic class to gather together and celebrate God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and to look together towards His soon return.

Now, having said that, I really loved my initial "Lord's recovery" meetings because it was a free-for-all. Not chaos, though a few times it bordered on that. But what I loved was that everyone was allowed to share whatever portion of "Christ" they thought was relevant to the group experience. You had truck drivers sharing, then PhD's; you had some old Chinese woman who knew Watchman Nee back in China speaking right after some young blonde college student who just got saved last week. Somehow it all worked, and marvelously. God wasn't threatened by our "individualism" - hardly. Rather you got the sense of the Father rejoicing in all His children. More than once I got a glimpse of wide eyes and astonished face of some incredulous visitor, as if they were thinking, "Who's in charge here?"

There's a thread with an attached article on groupthink
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=394

Those free-for-all days of brothers and sisters testifying of their daily experience of Christ are long gone. Typically now they are referred to as See stories. Back then as a high school brother, I received much encouragement from these "See stories".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Those free-for-all days of brothers and sisters testifying of their daily experience of Christ are long gone. Typically now they are referred to as See stories. Back then as a high school brother, I received much encouragement from these "See stories".

That is, "Sea stories", with an "a". As in "ocean stories", as in sailors returning from travels and recounting adventures. The problem with a "sea story" is that it may include such personal impressions as to render facts into fables. A sailor may briefly glimpse the back of a whale, while at sea, and come back with tales of giant sea monsters that eat ships. Or may get caught in a storm, but as the story is retold the waves increase from 8 feet high to 20 feet high.

So the subjective nature of "sea stories" is always a peril. But again, who or what was to guard against the subjective nature of "Uncle Witness' story time"? So we still got subjective impressions, "sea stories", and yes, fables, but just from one source. Everyone else got a piano note banged unceremoniously, with a "thank you, brother, thank you, brother".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So the subjective nature of "sea stories" is always a peril. But again, who or what was to guard against the subjective nature of "Uncle Witness' story time"? So we still got subjective impressions, "sea stories", and yes, fables, but just from one source. Everyone else got a piano note banged unceremoniously, with a "thank you, brother, thank you, brother".

I'll be the first to admit that not every word of every testimony from every brother and sister was full of the life-giving anointing from the throne of God and truth-enlightening riches from the word of God.

So what!?!

Is a little bit of the speaker's personality added to their testimony all that bad?

At least there was the chance of getting something fresh, tasty, and inspiring from the numerous testimonies in the ministry meetings. Also, and this is a before-now-unmentioned-fact, it actually forced the brother who ministered to have something real that incited genuinely refreshing testimonies.

I was part of three churches, two via migrations, and in those early days, nearly every testimony was refreshing. Some were exciting! Some were answers to prayer. Some were gospel opportunities. Some were just the amazing things God does for us. But all that came to a screeching halt.

Why? Sea stories! Of course! Brother Lee said it was so.

I had never heard of a "sea story" before, and wondered how in the world what we had could be considered a sea story. So I assumed at the time that all the SoCal churches were dying, and that even though we were still living, since Brother Lee "sees things we don't," we had better do what he says, or we will be "dead" like the SoCal churches.

It turned out I was right. What happened in SoCal, happened to us.

Soon we were all speaking the ministry of Witness Lee and we were all dying. Attendance gradually went down. The excitement dwindled, except for the occasional novelty of some new program from headquarters. Ministers became so steeped in Witness Lee teachings, that they forgot what real experiences of Jesus even looked like, except for those old "sea stories" about when they first "saw the church."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is a little bit of the speaker's personality added to their testimony all that bad?

No, as long as the speaker's name happens to be Witness Lee; then, personality is okay. Otherwise, fuggetaboutit! Only WL, we understood, had a personality sufficiently sanctified that it expressed the heart of the Triune God. Everyone else's personality was, altogether now, "not so good".

Originally Posted by Ohio

At least there was the chance of getting something fresh, tasty, and inspiring from the numerous testimonies in the ministry meetings. Also, and this is a before-now-unmentioned-fact, it actually forced the brother who ministered to have something real that incited genuinely refreshing testimonies.

The danger to any speaker was that anyone in the audience could rise and blow you away. You had to be on top of your game. Yes, there were clunkers, occasionally even runs of clunkers. But when it worked it was unbeatable. Anyone could stand and speak and be "God's present oracle".

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was part of three churches, two via migrations, and in those early days, nearly every testimony was refreshing. Some were exciting! Some were answers to prayer. Some were gospel opportunities. Some were just the amazing things God does for us. But all that came to a screeching halt.

It reminds me of George Orwell's book "Animal Farm", in that the beginning you have "All can prophesy, one by one", and at the end you have, "No sea stories. Just repeat, verbatim if possible, what the 'oracle' just said."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ministers became so steeped in Witness Lee teachings, that they forgot what real experiences of Jesus even looked like, except for those old "sea stories" about when they first "saw the church."

I remember the dispirited looks on some of the old-timers faces when the latest move from Anaheim blew in. A few tried some half-hearted "Praise the Lord for the latest speaking" comments but mostly it was quiet, with blank faces. Then one of the more lively sisters brightened up. "Well", she said, "It's the church!"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll be the first to admit that not every word of every testimony from every brother and sister was full of the life-giving anointing from the throne of God and truth-enlightening riches from the word of God.

So what!?!

Is a little bit of the speaker's personality added to their testimony all that bad?

At least there was the chance of getting something fresh, tasty, and inspiring from the numerous testimonies in the ministry meetings. Also, and this is a before-now-unmentioned-fact, it actually forced the brother who ministered to have something real that incited genuinely refreshing testimonies.

I was part of three churches, two via migrations, and in those early days, nearly every testimony was refreshing. Some were exciting! Some were answers to prayer. Some were gospel opportunities. Some were just the amazing things God does for us. But all that came to a screeching halt.

For me as a 9-11th grade high school brother (83-85) before the door-knocking flow came in, having been recently saved and baptized, even though there was some knowledge of the Bible, there was no awareness what it was to have"subjective experience of Christ". Listening to brothers and sisters every Lord's Day morning give testimonies of their daily experience of Christ throughout the week, did I get a partial understanding what it was to experience Christ.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

That is, "Sea stories", with an "a". As in "ocean stories", as in sailors returning from travels and recounting adventures. The problem with a "sea story" is that it may include such personal impressions as to render facts into fables. A sailor may briefly glimpse the back of a whale, while at sea, and come back with tales of giant sea monsters that eat ships. Or may get caught in a storm, but as the story is retold the waves increase from 8 feet high to 20 feet high.

So the subjective nature of "sea stories" is always a peril. But again, who or what was to guard against the subjective nature of "Uncle Witness' story time"? So we still got subjective impressions, "sea stories", and yes, fables, but just from one source. Everyone else got a piano note banged unceremoniously, with a "thank you, brother, thank you, brother".

Thanks for the clarification aron. I wasn't sure if it was see or sea. At any rate in my post-1993 time in the LC, sea stories usually referred to instances when a brother would tie an "individual" testimony to the current HWFMR that was being prophesied.

[OBW]

My only concern when looking back at the early LRC in the US is that it was almost only "exciting" and "fresh." I'm not suggesting that those are necessarily bad. But just like a diet of "inner-life" is a subset of Christian experience, the same goes for excitement and being "fresh" (which usually means engaging and relevant). Same for really good, seminary-quality sermons — they are not the end-all of corporate Christian worship (and I have heard a lot of those over the past several years).

Nothing wrong with engaging or relevant. Nothing wrong with seminary-quality sermons.

But exciting is seldom the term I would put on a good session of corporate soul searching, contrition, and repentance. It doesn't matter whether we think we know what we need to repent concerning. The very idea that we think that we don't need to repent is probably a bigger problem. There is becoming the notion that, in worship, we are all too busy chasing good feelings. We want uplifting songs. We want to consider the great things to come after this life.

But we aren't ready to sing/say "have mercy on me, oh Lord, according to your steadfast love . . . ." We don't want sober. We want exciting. We want uplifting.

Unfortunately, I believe that the excitement and freshness (or apparent freshness) of the meetings of the 60s and early 70s was at least partly the hook that caused us to withstand the turmoils that eventually came. Even though the excitement had died down, we were already hooked.

I will not go so far as to suggest that there was nothing real in the excitement. But the progression is that we were captured by some kind of excitement, then were conditioned to believe in the complete correctness of everything that went with it when that was eventually replaced by heavy burdens, ultimately squelching anything that resembled excitement.

Unfortunately, even to the extent that there was genuine excitement in the early days, there is a serious question as to whether it was more tolerated and used as just one more tool to capture us than something desired by our leadership. (And in those early days, you can't really even blame the guys that are now BBs. It was all Lee.)

Think about it. We sang sweet, sober songs about the Lord. We sang exuberant songs with gusto about the church, church-life, etc. Our love for Christ was real. But our love for the church was exciting and captivating. It was off the charts crazy at times.

It was a hook. And the thing at the end of the line was not simply Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Listening to brothers and sisters every Lord's Day morning give testimonies of their daily experience of Christ throughout the week, did I get a partial understanding what it was to experience Christ.

There were a number of advantages to the scheme. One was what you allude to, that the "simpler" ones gave their own testimonies of what it was to live Christ, and this might be more accessible, and less laden with theoretical jargon ('processed', 'consummated', 'all-inclusive'); just real people having real experiences. This might make more sense to a high schooler or someone coming in off the street.

Second, it gave "newbies" the opportunity to open their mouths and talk, instead of being captive in the "pulpit and pew" dynamic of professional speakers. So people got to "function" irrespective of their understanding or rhetorical gifts.

Third, it allowed ones who did have a portion, and there were many, to balance the meeting. There was no dominant "big potato" personality cult brewing when everybody could function, and some quite well.

I could go on, but you get the jist of it. Later on it just became "who could memorize bullet points". If you didn't subsume your experiences to the bullet points and training outlines you were suspiciously independent. Your "individuality" wasn't yet "worn away" by the "church life".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Later on it just became "who could memorize bullet points". If you didn't subsume your experiences to the bullet points and training outlines you were suspiciously independent.

My thoughts when it came to memorization of bullet points and PSRP as follows;

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is becoming the notion that, in worship, we are all too busy chasing good feelings. We want uplifting songs. We want to consider the great things to come after this life.

But we aren't ready to sing/say "have mercy on me, oh Lord, according to your steadfast love . . . ." We don't want sober. We want exciting.

I think that the Lord allows "exciting", at least for a time, because He wants to get our attention. Surely it was incredible to be on that mountaintop with Jesus and Moses and Elijah. They were still talking about it, years later - "... and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten Son..." (Jo 1:14; for confirmation see 2 Pet 1:17,18). But they didn't stay on the mountain. They kept going. The journey continued.

Ultimately, for me, the journey is about one thing: change. Once I was apart from God, alienated, ignorant, and miserable. Did this short-term "excitement" of coming into local church meetings lead to real and lasting change, or not? Did the discovery of spiritual paths unfolding before me continue, or did I "go back to the mud, like a washed sow" (2 Peter 2:22)?

I recently shared of my thrill of "seeing Jesus", a la Heb 2:9, in the OT text. So to some extent, the excitement has continued. Exploration, discovery, vision... "My sheep hear My voice"... amen, Lord Jesus. But the question remains: is this some short-term thrill, or is it transformational? Because if I am not fundamentally changed by the experience, then it is vain.

Unfortunately, even to the extent that there was genuine excitement in the early days, there is a serious question as to whether it was more tolerated and used as just one more tool to capture us than something desired by our leadership..

One of the continual topics that I remember was of how tolerant Lee was toward all the freaks and hippies that flooded the church. Ultimately, though, you were expected to conform to the image of the church. Not to Christ, but to "Christ and the church" which de facto meant the church. So tolerance was really a short-term proposal; your "individuality" was accepted for a while, even embraced, but ultimately it was to be suppressed. You were expected to imitate Witness Lee for the sake of the Mother Ship.

Think about it. We sang sweet, sober songs about the Lord. We sang exuberant songs with gusto about the church, church-life, etc. Our love for Christ was real. But our love for the church was exciting and captivating. It was off the charts crazy at times. It was a hook. And the thing at the end of the line was not simply Christ.

The revelation in the Bible is Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if you "see the church". It matters if you see Christ. If you see Christ, you are the church; you and whatever fellow visionaries (i.e. believers) the Lord has assembled you with. Our "crazy love" for "the church life" was indeed a snare to draw our attention, focus, and purpose away from our first love, Jesus Christ. The end of such a journey is neither love nor Christ, but merely affiliation with yet another human organization, masquerading as the divine.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One of the continual topics that I remember was of how tolerant Lee was toward all the freaks and hippies that flooded the church. Ultimately, though, you were expected to conform to the image of the church. Not to Christ, but to "Christ and the church" which de facto meant the church. So tolerance was really a short-term proposal; your "individuality" was accepted for a while, even embraced, but ultimately it was to be suppressed. You were expected to imitate Witness Lee for the sake of the Mother Ship.

Life in the GLA under Titus Chu did not exactly match the happenings in Anaheim. Titus not only welcomed diversity, but actually promoted individual personality, and would publicly showcase those brothers who exhibited much "promise." Sometimes whole conferences featured a new brother or two, paraded onto the podium in every meeting, and Titus was skillful at this. Rare was an entire message without some brother called to the front to act out some deeper truth. If a brother had a great sense of humor, and could keep the audience entertained, things couldn't get any better. Over the years, many GLA leaders actually upstaged the robotic Blended "tape-recorders" in the semi-annual trainings. These GLA brothers were allowed to grow with a diversity and a personality in a way perhaps unknown to the rest of the country. Think about it, how can a minister of the Gospel really grow in grace by simply parroting Lee's own words.

The conundrum developed when it became apparent that Titus Chu always needed to exert his "authority," especially in the confines of smaller settings of leaders. Thus, in Titus Chu, a miniature of Witness Lee, these two features continually clashed. In one corner was the desire to produce influential ministers, uniquely gifted to benefit the body of Christ, and attractive to guests to provide increase for the future of the Recovery. In the other corner was this incessant need to be in control, make all the decisions, play "god" with others' lives, receive all the glory for the successes, deflect all criticism to others, and to constantly make sure all the other leaders "know their place." Titus Chu was like a father intensely training his sons, long after they had left home and had their own sons to raise, but could never let go, and then can't understand why some of his sons want nothing to do with him any more.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that the Lord allows "exciting", at least for a time, because He wants to get our attention. Surely it was incredible to be on that mountaintop with Jesus and Moses and Elijah. They were still talking about it, years later - "... and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten Son..." (Jo 1:14; for confirmation see 2 Pet 1:17,18). But they didn't stay on the mountain. They kept going. The journey continued.

I will start by saying that it is a certainty that God works in all things. Even in the events that so many of us went through, both positive and negative (in our estimation) as a result of our varied times in the LRC.

I would agree that the Lord allows exciting. And in my post I did not mean to imply that exciting was bad. But a constant diet of exciting begins to suggest that there is something behind it that is not right.

I don't say that what each of us had that was exciting was not of Christ. But it might be that it was so because He honored each of our hearts, individually and collectively. I might liken it to what Paul talked about in the first half of 1 Corinthians 3. He talked about builders and a building. About workers and a farm. He said "we" are the workers/builders (that was Paul, Peter, Apollos, and other unnamed teachers) and "you" (the Corinthians) are the farm/building. While the effect of wood, hay, and stubble on the Corinthians cannot be presumed away as meaningless, Paul didn't seem as concerned about them as the result of getting a diet of teaching that was not all gold, silver, and precious stones as he was about the cost to the teacher of using poor materials.

(A quick aside. Interesting here that the materials are what are used on the church to build it, not the people that make up the church. The materials were the nature of the teaching that was provided. So seeking "good material" in prospective members is to miss the point of that passage. Maybe it is found somewhere else, but I can't think of it.)

My skepticism about the nature of the excitement of the early days is that it was so lengthy a period, especially for those who were around from the 60s. I'm not sure that there is a literal or metaphorical example in the Bible of a lengthy time of what might be likened to "all play and no work." Even the rest that they got in the Good Land came after a fight and was followed immediately by getting to work planting crops and raising animals (among other work). There was no continuing period of "no responsibilities" play.

Unfortunately, I will liken our lengthy period of excitement as something more like the time the Children of Israel were encamped around Mt Sinai. Moses was gone so long that they began to party, brought their gold together and created a new god. In our case, it wasn't a calf, but a MOTA. I left before that term came along (as far as I know), but we were headed there.

The CofI were left to their own devices and eventually turned to idolatry. We were given freedom to be so excited. To be given little bits of exultation for ourselves as members of "God's best" (maybe more truly "god's best"). The result was that we were slowly conditioned to take whatever came next. The loosey goosey life continued beyond Daystar and finally came to a head when everything went to hell in Berkley. A few came back to Dallas mocking the old regime one weekend. The next weekend, the emperor-to-be had grabbed a little more power and the uprising was over.

Inside of many of us the excitement may have been at least somewhat real. But its longevity without balance suggests something wrong. And we now know what that was. I would even go so far as to say that the ongevity of the times of excitement was mostly the result of leadership that had no use for a balanced Christian living (it appears they never did and still don't) and could use the euphoria to hook us. Now excitement is not needed. The core are so caught by belief in the Christianity boogyman and the LRC superchurch that they can't leave even if they want to. The snare was set and many of us were caught. How did we escape? Most did so in a period in which they were "down" anyway and just quit going. Many of those just stay home until they feel up to returning. A few pick themselves up and get back in the reality of Christian living — outside the LRC. (And not without difficulty.)

[OBW]

I was noting that my last post seems somewhat off topic. But when I look back at the excitement of the early days, I think it was as much responsible for reducing individuality as anything that ever came along. You could not have a period in which you should be in sackcloth and ashes because you were expected to join with all the other sheeple who were excited.

Like John Anderson, I was bothered when they started waving pom poms in a meeting in Dallas. Those were my high school colors and it was obviously just lunacy. But even as a newbie I knew better than to say anything about it. Fortunately John Ingalls dealt with it. And the "pots and pans" era in Texas came to an end.

But that was 73. While the craziness was continued (now it seems evident that it was by design of Lee) until 78, it was for a purpose. And the purpose was not about our spiritual condition. It was about the hook and the chance to grab more authority.

And in getting crazy, we were just like everyone else. Those not joining in were outsiders. In a season of somewhat stupidity, we lost some of our individuality. On cue, we would should and get euphoric. And when the time came, on cue, we accepted Lee as the necessary authority to keep things in order and protect us from "ambitious wolves."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Like John Anderson, I was bothered when they started waving pom poms in a meeting in Dallas. Those were my high school colors and it was obviously just lunacy. But even as a newbie I knew better than to say anything about it. Fortunately John Ingalls dealt with it. And the "pots and pans" era in Texas came to an end.

Euphoria on demand is a clue to the charismatic nature of this movement. When you become excited you are open to whatever they are speaking, and statements which otherwise might be soberly considered are received with shouts. ("I'm a God-man!!") So the first step is, get someone to uncritically accept your words.

Originally Posted by OBW

And in getting crazy, we were just like everyone else. Those not joining in were outsiders. In a season of somewhat stupidity, we lost some of our individuality. On cue, we would should and get euphoric. And when the time came, on cue, we accepted Lee as the necessary authority to keep things in order and protect us from "ambitious wolves." .

The second step follows the first. Once your words have taken up residence in someone's mind, they will begin to act in accordance with that inner voice. "That's the way the world is."

In our case, we got excited and shouted, "Down with Christianity!" So we were forming our collective 'self-image' as that of 'not Christianity'. What were we? Not Christianity, of course.

Then, everything bad which has happened in Christianity over the last 2,000 years could be held up and ridiculed, as something we were "not". Poor, poor Christianity, right? So many issues, so many problems. All the while we were unquestioningly swallowing a system loaded with problems, some which equal the worst of "Christianity".

But we were shouting, we were banging pots and pans, we were flapping our arms like birds and so forth. We were having fun, so we were told, and felt, and thought. I remember yelling "fan into flame" at each other like we were Johnny Storm of the comic books.

And in all that, a lot of crappy thinking took root, and lodged, and firmly directed our paths and our ways. It took me years and years, post-LRC, to see how illogical, unbiblical, and contrary to the Spirit of Christ some of it was.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The conundrum developed when it became apparent that Titus Chu always needed to exert his "authority," especially in the confines of smaller settings of leaders. Thus, in Titus Chu, a miniature of Witness Lee, these two features continually clashed. In one corner was the desire to produce influential ministers, uniquely gifted to benefit the body of Christ, and attractive to guests to provide increase for the future of the Recovery. In the other corner was this incessant need to be in control, make all the decisions, play "god" with others' lives, receive all the glory for the successes, deflect all criticism to others, and to constantly make sure all the other leaders "know their place."

You put it well, once: the system produces bullies out of brothers. I think TC was nor inherently a bully any more than anyone else. He was just caught in a system that produced them.

Likewise WL was probably not some nefarious person, plotting evil against God. He simply got caught by some bad thinking. And this is where that thinking took him.

The system which we all took part in creating was caused by the thoughts which we uncritically accepted, and allowed to drive us every day. Jesus put it well: "People will kill you and think that they are doing service to God." I really believe that every day WL and TC and the rest got up and thought they were serving God. That was the best service they could come up with, in accordance with the thoughts they had in their heads (as an analogy, think of a computer program). Once they accepted these ideas as "reality", they were caught by them, trying to live them out. And as they lived them out, they could look, and point, and say, "See? Reality!" They created the world they lived in based on their "fallen concepts", then blamed their behaviors on the world around them (which they had at least partly created).

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Life in the GLA under Titus Chu did not exactly match the happenings in Anaheim. Titus not only welcomed diversity, but actually promoted individual personality, and would publicly showcase those brothers who exhibited much "promise." Sometimes whole conferences featured a new brother or two, paraded onto the podium in every meeting, and Titus was skillful at this. Rare was an entire message without some brother called to the front to act out some deeper truth. If a brother had a great sense of humor, and could keep the audience entertained, things couldn't get any better. Over the years, many GLA leaders actually upstaged the robotic Blended "tape-recorders" in the semi-annual trainings. These GLA brothers were allowed to grow with a diversity and a personality in a way perhaps unknown to the rest of the country. Think about it, how can a minister of the Gospel really grow in grace by simply parroting Lee's own words.

The conundrum developed when it became apparent that Titus Chu always needed to exert his "authority," especially in the confines of smaller settings of leaders. Thus, in Titus Chu, a miniature of Witness Lee, these two features continually clashed. In one corner was the desire to produce influential ministers, uniquely gifted to benefit the body of Christ, and attractive to guests to provide increase for the future of the Recovery. In the other corner was this incessant need to be in control, make all the decisions, play "god" with others' lives, receive all the glory for the successes, deflect all criticism to others, and to constantly make sure all the other leaders "know their place." Titus Chu was like a father intensely training his sons, long after they had left home and had their own sons to raise, but could never let go, and then can't understand why some of his sons want nothing to do with him any more.

I am impressed with your insight of Titus Chu, given that you are not Chinese. Most of the non-Chinese saints (especially if you are not his close co-worker) did not see this side of Chu. Chu was extremely authoritarian, much more than some of the blendeds. And he hid this trait really well.